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  

Brother Darrell, my goal is this exchange is twofold.  1.  To so that the "Guilty 
Party" can remarry with God's approval.   2.  To get others to think about this 
question and realize it just is not as clear from a traditional point of view as it has 
been thought.   

As for jumping into the negative, I have no more gotten into the negative than you 
have the positive.  Again, I am not concerned about winning or losing.  But I am 
concerned about the truth on this matter.   

I have no problem as you suggest about the innocent party marrying again at all.  
The problem arises when brother Broking says the Guilty Party cannot marry 
again.  The text just does not say that.  It is something that Brother Broking 
assumes upon the text.  Paul made it clear that we need to be careful not to go 
beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).   

I had to laugh a bit when brother Broking said his only "authority is Jesus Christ" 
whereas mine is Nichols and McGarvey.  He of course quotes secular Greek 
writings, Vine's, Thayer, and Jackson.  But of  course he is only following Jesus.  
Such tactics need to be abandoned.  We both know that referring to others is not 
wrong.  We are both trying to show that we are not alone in what we are saying.     

To be sure, the word ADULTERY can carry with it a sexual connotation.  But it 
does not always have to be the case.  But let us assume for our exchange at this 
point that this is the only definition.  What does this mean in relation to our 
exchange? 

If it is true as brother Broking has stated that ADULTERY is having unlawful 
intercourse with another’s spouse, I must ask again, who is the Guilty Party 
married to now?  If the innocent has divorced the  Guilty and the Guilty gets 
married again to someone who has never been married before, how can this be 
ADULTERY as defined by brother Broking?   He cannot be in ADULTERY with 
the Broking definition.  If so the Guilty Fornicator is still married to the first 
spouse in God's eyes in order to be in ADULTERY with the new spouse who has 
never been married before.  I know brother Broking is not going to affirm that and 
neither am I.   

I think it is helpful if we go to works of some of our earlier English scholars.  Of 
course Jesus is our final authority in all things, right brother Broking?  We simply 
quote others to shed some light on the question at hand. 

William Tyndale, noted Greek scholar of the 1500's translated Matt.19:9 as 
follows..."whosoever putteth awaye his wyfe (except for fornicacion)and maryeth 
another BREAKETH WEDLOCK.  And whosoever maryeth her which is 
divorsed doeth commyt ADVOUTRY".  John Wycliff in 1385 used the word 
AVOWTERIA .  The Great Bible of 1540 followed the same pattern of Tyndale's 
translation.   

So what does this mean for us: The word that is translated ADULTERY in our 
English Bibles was equal to the terms above that I have capitalized.  
AVOWTERIA, ADVOUTRY, and BREAKETH WEDLOCK are all equal to our 
word ADULTERY.  We even see this carried over to the KJV in Ezk. 16:38.  
Most English translations use the word ADULTERY in Ezk. 16:38.  But the KJV 
says BREAKETH WEDLOCK. 

We like to speak of restoring the NT church and call Bible things by Bible 
names.  That is good.  Let us do so in this case as well.     

The bottom line is this, our word ADULTERY is not limited to a sex act.  Does it 
include this?  It can.  But ultimately the idea is that of breaking ones vows or 
covenant breaking as is seen clearly by the early English translations.  So it is 
clearly seen that this is not new.  It is the "traditional" view that is "new".  It is 
only a few hundred years old.  Whereas when you approach Matt. 19:9 with the  
idea of covenant breaking then the problem that we are dealing with vanishes 
away. 

Brother Broking quotes Paul and say ADULTERERS will not go to heaven.  
Brother Broking needs to understand that there will be ADULTERERS in 
heaven.  Those who have been washed by the blood of Jesus. 

He says that one cannot remain in ADULTERY and go to heaven.  I would agree 
with that but brother Broking believes that the GUILTY PARTY upon remarrying 
continually is in ADULTERY.  I do not.  Once a person  comes to Christ as with 
any sin, they can be forgiven.  He also believes that the word ADULTERY means 
continuing action.  Interesting enough is the fact that not one major translation 
says such.  Again, he goes beyond what is written.  

He says that the GUILTY PARTY is locked to God even though the innocent is 
free.  What passage says that?  Certainly not Matt. 19:6. 

Gus Nichols has been quoted as saying, "When you have two mules tied together 
and one is freed who is the other one tied too?" Simple isn't it. 

BTW, I know of three places that brother Nichols dealt with this question.  
Harding Grad, Memphis School of Preaching and Alabama Christian College.  
Brother Broking may find it interesting to know that no one at the Memphis 
School of Preaching stood to refute what  brother Nichols had to say.  I believe 
this was 1970. 

 Brother Broking, you are aware of Paul’s statement to the Corinthians when he 
says not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers.  When a Christian 
marries a non-Christian.  Do they sin?  And if they remain married are they 
continuing to sin?  Just something to think about brother.  

Why is all of this important?  God's grace is meant for all!  Even those who have 
committed fornication.  God has never said they could not remarry.  To forbid 
such is sin and goes beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Tim. 4:3)  

As I close exchange # 2 I must ask brother Broking for the following: 

1.  By your definition of Adultery, Who is the Guilty Party still married to if they 
remarry? 

2.  Can you give us one major translation that translates ADULTERY as 
continues in adultery? 

3.  Where is this mysterious passage that say the ADUTERER is bound to God?     

Offered in love, Gerry Parker