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  


Thank you Darrell for your second negative.  I know you are as convinced of your 
position as I am mine.  I hope that we can both recognize that as we continue in 
this exchange of ideas.

Yes, I affirm that the person GUILTY of FORNICATION can get married again 
without sin provided the "INNOCENT" party divorces him or her.

Darrell, you ask me to address three points at the outset of your last negative.  I 
shall address this first.

1.  No, there is not such a DIRECT statement stating a fornicator may marry again 
in the NT.  Nor is there a DIRECT statement that the "Innocent Party" may marry 
again in the NT.  These are arrived at by implication.

2.  Again the answer is no.  There is NO NT example of the Guilty Party marrying 
another.  Nor is there a NT example of an Innocent Party remarrying.  

3.  Yes, the following passages imply that the GUILTY PARTY may marry again 
without sin (Matt. 19:9; 1 Tim. 4:3; and 1 Cor.7:27-28).

Brother Darrell then mentions that I did not address his irrefutable evidence from 
Wayne Jackson in regard to quoting from secular Greek sources.  I did respond 
but maybe I did not make it clear.  Yes, I would agree with Jackson and Darrell 
when he says that ADULTERY is a Sex act.  But I disagree with them when they 
limit ADULTERY to just improper sex.

I have shown that Wycliffe, Tyndale and other Greek scholars understood that 
when they translated the Greek word for ADULTERY as AVOUTRE or 
ADVOUTRY or BREAKETH WEDLOCK that this was the breaking of the 
marriage covenant.  

Darrell says, 
Gerry needs to do some research into the vernacular of that day.  

That seems to imply that Darrell has done research.  However, I have done the 
research and I know that the Middle English dictionary says, "Avoutre –A 
violation of the marriage vows".  Thus, once again the early English translators 
understood that the word in question is about the covenant of marriage.  As I 
mentioned earlier this is even carried over to the KJV in Ezk. 16.38.  They 
understood that there was more than improper sex involved in ADULTERY.  It is breaking the marriage covenant.

Darrell then says the phrase in Matt. 19:9 teaches "continuing in adultery".  I 
asked him for a translation that says such and he does not produce one.  I do not 
wonder why.  Darrell then refers to 1 Jn. 1:7 and says is there a translation that 
says the blood of Christ continually cleanses us?  The answer is no, at least not to 
my knowledge.  But Darrell, I know of NO scholars who question this passage.  
Where as Matt. 19:9 is admittedly a hard text to grasp.  It is even acknowledged 
by Mac Deaver in the Spiritual Sword Lectures (1992)who adheres to your own 
position.  But Darrell, the difficulty is gone if you understand that the term in 
question means covenant breaking.

Darrell, then tries to demean me with some Clintonite comment.  Brother, please 
rise above this.  There is no place for this among brethren. 

As for answering my third question, Darrell, you did not give a passage that says 
the Guilty Party/Adulterer is bound to God.

Now if you mean that he is somehow married to God, you are going to have to 
elaborate on that for us.      

Darrell, you did not explain who the GUILTY PARTY is married to if he is 
committing ADULTERY by remarrying.  You must tell us this please.

Darrell, we all noted that you gave NO major translation that says the Guilty Party 
"continues in adultery" when they marry again.  

Darrell, we also noted that you gave NO passage that said the Guilty Party is 
bound to God.

Darrell, I know you wish to do what God says to do. That is my goal as well.  But 
telling people they must remain celibate is not found in the Bible.  You arrive at 
your conclusion on this matter because you have a limited definition of adultery 
and you wish to take years of tradition and follow it blindly.  In so doing you are 
keeping people from Jesus.  You are keeping them from His grace because you 
demand that your understanding is the only way.  This is sad brother.

So Darrell would you please answer the questions again.  I know you think you 
have.  I just need clarification as I am sure some others do as well.

Also Darrell, can you answer these for us?

1.  Can you give a direct statement that says an inspired writer of the NT allows 
sin to be held against the guilty party after that sin has been washed away and 
forgiven? 

2.  Can you give us an approved Bible example of a sin being held against the 
guilty party after that sin has been washed away and forgiven?

3.  Can you give any passage wherein an inspired writer of the NT implied that a 
sin could be held against the guilty party after that sin has been washed away and 
forgiven?  

offered in love,
Gerry Parker