Parker/Broking Debate on Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage
Gerry Parker's First Rebuttal
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
First of all Darrell, maybe it was just an oversight on your part, but you failed to
answer my questions that I asked. Please answer those.
Darrell Broking said,
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.
What Greek grammar are you quoting from? I have Machen, Smythe, Vine,
Dana & Mantey, Crosby & Schaefer and others. I maybe mistaken but I do not
recall such a statement being made. Please tell us who you are referring to so
that we may check this out.
Furthermore, we still need to know how someone can be married to two people at
the same time in this scenario. You have said that the "innocent party" can
remarry without sin upon divorcing the "guilty" party. You have said that the
"guilty" party is living or continuing in ADULTERY if they marry again. So, I
still ask you this question, who is the "guilty" party still married to? The only
person they can still be married to is their first spouse. Which means that when
the "innocent" party marries again they also are in living in ADULTERY. Thus
we still see that your definition of ADULTERY is lacking. This simple point
shows the fallacy in your whole position. Will you now answer the question.
Darrell Broking said
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.
Darrell, in regard to your last statement, you are assuming that you have proven
this. You have not. But you are right in that this is a crucial question. I maintain
that Matt. 19:9 is one of the punctiliar passages. Please consider the following,
there are 719 present indicative passages found in Matthew. 448 (62.3%) were
not under consideration. There were 226 (31.4%)which were not continuous
action. 45 (6%) were the continuous action. What this shows is that continuous
action is not even the chief usage in Matt. for the present indicative (see John
Edwards, Marriage & Divorce page 269).
Darrell Broking said
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.
Darrell, you are again making an assumption. Please consider Carroll Osborn's
words from the Restoration Quarterly vol. 24 No. 4 1981 page 193, "...it cannot
be said that the present indicative in Matt. 19:9, or any other Greek text,” cannot
mean other than continuous action," for any such argument blatantly disregards
the several idiomatic uses of the present indicative in which continuity is not
explicit. Osborn continues,” Now continuity may or may not be involved, but it
is not legitimate to appeal to the Greek present indicative to assert that it must be
involved".
Darrell Broking said
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.
I have already given Edwards, and Osborn. Both are noted Greek scholars. Here
are some more to continue. James McKinney of Harding U. "...the context of
Matt. 19:9 logically demands that moichatai be understood as a gnomic present
(aoristic)." (This maybe found in Olan Hicks debate with Jim Waldron on page
40.) Another Greek scholar, the late Raymond Kelcy said in regard to Matt. 19:9
"There is nothing in the verb, the present tense verb, to give anybody any
consolation on either side of that question. If it gives any support it would be
punctiliar". When asked to comment on the same point Dr. Harvey Floyd, noted
Greek scholar of Lipscomb U. agreed with Kelcy. (This information maybe
found at Harding Grad. School. on tape in the Lib. or in Clinton Hicks research
paper on this topic in the library at Harding Grad and also Olan Hicks works and
that of John Edwards.) This argument that the Greek word MOICHATAI
(adultery) must mean continuing action has pretty much been abandoned by those
who debate this issue. If one would look at the Deaver- Hicks debate on this
question one will find that Deaver never made this argument. Could it be he
knew it could not be supported by scholarship or the Greek text? As Darrell said,
more could be given but this should suffice.
Darrell Broking said
It does not matter how one defines adultery.
Darrell, you sure spent a lot of time trying to define ADULTERY. And now you
say it does not matter how one defines it. That is interesting.
Darrell Broking said
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 question is, can the "guilty" party get married again without sin. Darrell says
they are living in ADULTERY if they do so. Darrell still has not told us how the
"guilty" party is living in ADULTERY and who is his or her spouse if they are in
ADULTERY? Please answer this question. No one is advocating homosexuality
or drunkenness.
Darrell Broking said
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).
Now Darrell, here you go again. You are assuming something proven when it is
not. When you can tell us who the "guilty party" is married to in order to be
CONTINUING IN ADULTERY when they remarry we may then move on. This
is not going away.
As for your Protasis, apodasis argument, would you please consider the
following;
Protasis-Anyone who divorces his(puntiliar) Anyone who marries another
(puntiliar)
Apodasis-Commits adultery (punctiliar).
(Brother John Edwards develops this further in his book on page 71 and
following.)
Darrell Broking said
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.
Again, please answer the question above.
Darrell Broking said-
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."
No, Jesus never said such. This is just an assumption you wish to place on the
text.
Darrell Broking said-
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.
There is no such direct statement in regard to the "innocent" party. It maybe
implied but it is not direct.
Darrell Broking said-
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.
Here in is part of the problem. I believe that you have a faulty hermeneutic. To
conclude as you have in regard to the passages in question is to assume to much.
None of the authors who wrote those passages had any of the questions in mind
that you are trying to place upon the texts. For example, you allude to Eph.
5:19. The text actually says to sing and make melody in your heart. To be
consistent you should limit the singing to the HEART. Vocal nor Instrumental
music is in question in this passage.
Darrell Broking said-
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?
See Malachi 2:16.
Darrell Broking said-
2) Exactly when does the "covenant breaking" in your definition of adultery take
place?
The Covenant Breaking (ADULTERY)may actually take place while still
married in various ways. When a man beats his wife he has broken his covenant
with her. When a man lusts after a woman in his heart as Jesus mentioned in
Matt. 5:28 he has broken his covenant or committed adultery
Darrell Broking said-
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.
Darrell, if I understand your question correctly, in dealing with the woman in
Matt. 5:32 I think Lenski (a noted Greek scholar and commentator) and Spiros
Zodhiates (not only a Greek scholar but also a Greek)deal with this in the best
way that makes sense of the text. They both agree that the phrase in question
should be translated, "is made to suffer adultery" (See Lenski's commentary on
Matt. pages 232-235 and Zodhiates in his book, What About Divorce pages 130-
134). That is to say she was being adulterated.
Darrell Broking said-
4) Please tell us how one who marries a divorced person commits adultery.
Darrell, when one divorces his spouse (except for fornication) he has broken his
vow to his spouse. This is what Tyndale and other early English translators
understood when they gave us their translations.
Darrell Broking said-
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.
Actually, I think you are making another assumption. There is no physical act of
sex being committed by any two individuals in Matt. 5:27-28. The act is
committed in the HEART of one individual and it is called ADULTERY. And
once again you misrepresent me. ADULTERY can be sexual but not always so.
Now Darrell, I have answered your questions. Please answer mine. They are
starting to mount up.
In the hope of HIS coming soon, Gerry Parker