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

Gerry, there was no oversight on my part, I did answer your questions.  I could 
have been more specific, but we were in the last argument dealing with your 
proposition.  In a debate new material is not suppose to be introduced in the last 
argument.  I needed my space to answer what you had already discussed, and it is 
an unfair advantage to be able to ask questions of an opponent who will not be 
able to reply with a set of questions. The three questions in your 3rd affirmative 
all had to do with  the guilt of sin continuing after forgiveness.  Gerry, when one 
is  forgiven he is forgiven.  However, as long as people in adulterous marriages 
stay in those marriages, they continue to practice the sin of adultery.  The blood of 
Christ does not forgive the continual practice of sin.  Having said that, Gerry why 
did not even attempt to deal with my argument from Malachi 2?   

Gerry, when I presented material on the conditional sentence, I also supplied 
endnote references.  Daniel B. Wallace’s grammar is a standard Greek grammar 
used in most advanced Greek courses today.  I will not repeat what I said about 
the conditional sentences, that information still stands.

Once again, in divorce the guilty party is not released from his original vow to 
have no other.  God looks upon the innocent party with favor in this matter, not 
the guilty.  As many times as you ask me to whom the guilty party is married, this 
will be my answer.   According to the marriage, divorce, and remarriage passages, 
the Lord says that put away persons commit adultery when they marry another.  I 
am satisfied with the Lord’s word on the matter, why aren’t you?  Gerry, you 
really think that this is the key to your theory, but it actually kills your entire 
philosophy.  

In my last affirmative I asked you a question that you failed to answer.  
Lets try it once again.  Jesus said, ”whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit 
adultery” (Matt. 19:9b).  Gerry, notice that the “whoso” mentioned here is not part 
of the divorced couple.  How does this person commit adultery by marring a 
divorced person?   This was question  four in my first affirmative, to which you 
responded: 

“When one divorces his spouse (except for fornication) he has broken his vow to 
his spouse.” 

Now Gerry you need to answer the question. 
Let me try to make it as simple as it can be made.  A and B are married.  A 
divorces B.  C then marries B.  According to Matthew 19:9b C commits adultery.  

Gerry, how is it, according to your philosophy, that C commits adultery since C 
was not part of A and B’s marriage?  Alas, Gerry’s philosophy defeats his entire 
argument.

Gerry, I know that you must deny the aspect of the verb “commits adultery” to be 
true to your philosophy.  Your lack of understanding of the New Testament Greek 
is a real problem for you.  It is readily apparent that your strong desire is for the 
verb “commits adultery” to be punctiliar present, but it is not.  The normal 
punctiliar present tense verbs are verbs of saying or thinking,[i] which Matthew 
often uses.   Accordingly, Gerry’s quote from Edwards is biased, and it does not 
account for the customary and normal use of the present tense or the synoptic 
passages parallel to Matthew’s.  

I asked Gerry to specify when the breaking of covenant of marriage, according to 
his philosophy, takes place.  Gerry gave his opinion on a few passages, except 
where it matters for this discussion.  Gerry, be clear on this in your next negative.  
In Matthew 19:9 you assign the term “commits adultery” to “covenant breaking.”  
Gerry, according Matthew 19:9 exactly when does the “adultery” take place.  Is it 
at the point of divorce?  Is it at the point of remarriage?  Is it a combination of the 
divorce and remarriage?  Gerry, this is your doctrine so you ought to be able to 
tell us exactly when this covenant breaking takes place, so please tell us!

Matthew 5:28 is dealing with sexual lust.  The context is sexual and sets up the 
discussion that follows in verse 32.  Gerry would have us to believe that the 
marriage covenant is broken with the lustful look.  However, Jesus allows divorce 
with the right of remarriage to the  innocent after the guilty commits fornication, 
which is not the lustful look.  Gerry you need to work a little harder on your 
consistency.  Or, maybe you are consistent?  Divorce is wrong, remarriage is 
right, is this argument your consistency?  

Lawrence E. Barclay teaches the graduate level Greek courses at Southern 
Christian University.  Barclay takes the position that the guilty party may marry 
another, but he so true to his Greek scholarship that he will not base his opinion 
on the Greek text.  Barclay bases his opinion on his theology.  Here are the notes 
Barclay gave us on MIOCHEUTHENAI as it is used in Matthew 5:32:  

The English passive idiom for the phrase used here, makes her to be committed 
adultery with,” is so awkward that it is replaced by the paraphrase in active voice: 
“makes her to commit adultery.”  Since adultery is a consensual act between two 
persons, the substitution is not significant.  However, the unfamiliarity of speakers 
of English with the passive idiom makes it difficult for them to grasp.  
Consequently, some, noting that Jesus does not expressly mention any remarriage 
by the woman here, assume that the husband’s act of divorcing her by itself 
“makes her commit adultery.”  Since they deny MOICHEUO its normal meaning 
of sexual infidelity, with the inference that the woman has illegally remarried,  
they must invent a new meaning for it that involves only the act of divorcing.  
Hence they try to make MOICHEUTHENAI to mean “to be stigmatized as an 
adulterous.”  But there is no historical nor logical support for this interpretation.  
Adultery was a capital crime, and the Jews did not call a divorced woman an 
“adulteress” merely on the basis of her being divorced.  Nor is there any reason to 
think that Jesus intended to initiate the practice of so stigmatizing her.  The only 
way to make sense of this statement is to understand Jesus as meaning that a 
divorce for a cause other than PORNEIA (adultery) is invalid under divine law, so 
that the marriage still stands and the wife who remarries is guilty of actual 
adultery, just as if no divorce had been attempted.[ii] 

Barclay is right on the money here.  

Adding Barclay’s quote was important, it also used up all of the allotted space so I 
will end on this note and deal with Gerry’s extreme hermeneutical error in my 
next installment.  Unless Gerry learns to respect  the silence of the Bible he will 
continue to grope in darkness.