Parker/Broking Debate on Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
Proposition:  
The Bible teaches that when a Matt. 19:6 marriage ends in divorce, 
the person put away for fornication may marry another with the Lord's 
approval. 

Affirm: Gerry Parker 
Deny: Darrell Broking  


In order to understand any passage we must understand our terms. My approach 
to this question will be twofold if time permits.  The first is centered around the 
definition of ADULTERY as used in Matt. 19:9.   God makes it clear in Matt. 
19:6 that He wants marriage to be for a lifetime but God also knows the sinful 
ways of man so He told us how to deal with certain things in regard to marriage, 
divorce and  remarriage.  They key to a proper understanding of this hinges on 
Matt. 19:9.  The word ADULTERY as used in this verse is often defined as, "The 
act of having sex with someone other than your spouse".  This view is held by 
many.  Mac Deaver seems to take this approach in his lecture at the 1992 Spiritual 
Sword Lectures on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (page 274).  Deaver also 
was honest enough to say that there was some difficulty in understanding the 
word ADULTERY (page 274).  

If ADULTERY means having sex with someone who is not your spouse then 
Deaver and others (Broking?, we shall see)are faced with a problem.  They wish 
to say that if the Fornicator marries again then they are living in ADULTERY.  
This should raise a flag.  The question must be asked, if this is the definition of 
ADULTERY then who is the GUILTY PARTY still married to?  The Guilty 
Party was put away for fornication.  The "innocent party" divorced the "guilty 
party".  They are no longer married (nearly all would agree to this).  The innocent 
is free to marry again.  But what about the GUILTY PARTY?  According to the 
definition above of ADULTERY the GUILTY PARTY no longer has a  spouse.  
Ergo, in order to be consistent the traditional folks must say the FORNICATOR is 
no longer married to anyone and is free to marry again.   

The idea of the fornicator being able to marry again is not new.  Gus Nichols (see 
Harding Grad. lib. for tape), J. W. McGarvey (Commentary on Matt. page 165) is 
worth noting,"...her that is put away.-That is  put away for some other cause than 
fornication.  Whether it would be adultery to marry a woman who had been put 
away on account of fornication, is neither affirmed or denied.  No doubt such a 
woman is  at liberty to remarry again if she can, seeing that the bond which bound 
her to her husband is broken".   Now does this prove my position?  No.  It just 
says that there is some scholarship behind what I am advocating and some very 
well respected individuals.  They believed that this was the teaching of our Lord 
and so do I.   

Part of the problem in relation to the passage (Matt.19:3-12)in question is that 
some come to the passage with preconceived ideas and with definitions that do 
not fit as mentioned above.  As result of  this we have erroneous teachings like 
this one passed down from generation to generation.  When clearly the context of 
the passage says that the traditional definition of certain terms just does not fit.  
This is one of those cases. 

We say to the guilty party, you cannot remarry ever but if he kills his wife he can 
remarry.  What is wrong with this picture?  It is long since pastime time to rethink 
this position and look at what the  text says.  Not what we want it to say.   

In closing it is important to remember that we are not out to seek VICTORY but 
to seek TRUTH.  May God help us and bless us in this endeavor.     

I look forward to brother Broking's response. 

In HIM, Gerry Parker