Parker/Broking Debate on Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
Proposition: 
The Bible teaches that when Matthew 19:6 marriage ends in divorce,
the only party with scriptural authority to marry another is one innocent of
fornication, who put away a spouse guilty of fornication.

Affirm:  Darrell Broking
Deny:  Gerry Parker

Darrell’s First Affirmative

The phrase in Matthew 19:9, “whosoever shall put away,” introduces a present 
general conditional sentence.  According to Greek grammar, the present general 
condition has the force of if “A” then “B.”1  The conditional element of the 
sentence is called the protasis.  It is the “if” clause wherein lies the contingency of 
the sentence. 

In the present general condition when the condition or conditions stated in the 
protasis are met, then the apodosis, the “then” clause is true.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage as recorded by Matthew, Mark and 
Luke makes it clear that two conditions are present in the protasis element of 
these passages, divorce and marriage to another.  In the Lord’s divorce and 
remarriage statements, the present general condition makes it absolutely clear that 
the adultery mentioned in the apodosis takes place after the divorce and the 
remarriage.  Hence, when one divorces and marries another, he then enters 
adultery.      

Is the adultery a one-time act, or does present tense verb of Matthew 19:9, 
“commit adultery,” communicate the idea of a continual state in which one lives?  
Admittedly, the present tense sometimes portrays instantaneous action. One of the 
examples of the punctiliar present in Wallace’s grammar is Mark 2:5.  In Mark 
2:5 a present tense verb clearly presents the punctiliar idea (your sins are 
forgiven).2  

Other examples could be cited, but Matthew 19:9 is definitely not one of them.  
Context determines whether the action of adultery is a one-time act, or if the 
action of the verb is communicating an ongoing action.

The context of the divorce and remarriage passages is that of the present general 
condition, which offers a condition that is realized in the present time.3   

The idea is simply stated, “if A then B.”   As long as the conditions of the protasis 
are in place (if A), then it is understood that the verb in the apodosis (then B), 
“commits adultery” carries the normal usage of the present tense.  As long as the 
unauthorized marriage continues, adultery continues.  Lest my opponent attempts 
to further allege that Greek scholarship does not view the adultery of Matthew 
19:9 as a continuing action, please notice that Reisser says, he “enters the realm of 
adultery.”4  Beck says, “. . . he is living in adultery.”  Other examples could be 
provided, but these should suffice.  

It does not matter how one defines adultery.  It is enough to know that those who 
practice adultery cannot be saved.  Homosexuals cannot remain in homosexuality 
and be saved.  Drunkards cannot live in drunkenness and be saved.  Thieves 
cannot live in thievery and be saved.  Equally true is the fact that adulterers 
cannot live in an unauthorized marriage and be saved.  The blood of Christ does 
not allow sinners to continue in the practice of sin.   

In Matthew 19:9 the prepositional phrase, “except it be for fornication,” modifies 
“put away” and “marry another,” and is the only exception, under which the 
apodosis does not apply.

Therefore, the only person in a marriage defined in Matthew 19:6 who can 
divorce and remarry, without committing adultery, is the person innocent of 
fornication who divorced a spouse guilty of fornication.  The teaching of the Bible 
is clear; the guilty put away fornicator may not marry another.  When he does, he 
walks in adultery as a way of life (see Col. 3:7).

By the authority of Christ, all persons in Matthew 19:6 marriages, who put away 
their spouses for any reason other than fornication and marry others are persons 
who keep on committing adultery, as long as they remain in unauthorized 
marriages.  Since all divorced guilty put away fornicators are people who have 
been put away, or who have put away their mates without meeting the exceptive 
clause given by Christ, when they marry others they enter adultery.  Furthermore, 
all persons who marry divorced persons not covered by exceptive clause of 
Matthew 19:9 enter adultery.  Jesus calls what men do in unscriptural remarriage 
“adultery.” 

By the use of this term, Jesus does not recognize the “remarriage” as authorized 
marriage.  The apostle wrote, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed 
undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).  
Adulterers defile the marriage bed as long as they maintain it.

The direct statement of Christ allows the innocent person, who divorced a guilty 
fornicator, to marry another.  The silence of the divorce and remarriage passages, 
about alleged freedom being given to the guilty party, forbids the guilty party 
from marrying another person.  Bible students need to understand that the silence 
of the Bible is not to be taken as authority to do a thing.  Brethren in “mainline” 
churches of Christ usually understand this divine principle. 

Since the Bible says to “sing,” all other music is unauthorized in worship. Since 
the Bible teaches that the Lord’s Supper is to be observed on Sunday, observance 
of the Lord’s Supper on any other day of the week is unauthorized.  This same 
rule of interpretation applies to the Lord’s marriage, divorce, and remarriage 
statements.

Gerry, please answer the following questions in your first negative.  

1) If both the innocent and the guilty parties in a divorce are free to marry others, 
why did the Lord give any instruction on the matter?  

2) Exactly when does the “covenant breaking” in your definition of adultery take 
place? 

3) Please explain how the put away woman of Matthew 5:32 is made an 
adulterous woman when her husband violated the marriage covenant, she did not. 

4) Please tell us how one who marries a divorced person commits adultery. 

5) Please explain how the adultery in Matthew 5:27-28 is sexual, but within that 
exact same context the adultery of Matthew 5:32 is not sexual, according to your 
definition.

1Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics,
(Grand Rapids, 
MI.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1996), 712. 

2Ibid. 517.  3Ibid., 697.

4H. Reisser, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, Colin Brown, 
ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 583.

5William F. Beck, The New Testament in the Language of Today, (St. Louis: 
Concordia, 1963), 37.