Burgin/Longhenry Debate on Divorce & Remarriage

 
 
Proposition: 
The New Testament does not extend the privilege of remarriage to a person put away for having committed adultery.

Affirm: Ethan R. Longhenry 
Deny: Max Burgin

 To begin, I shall define our terms so that there shall be no confusion over the 
subject matter.

"The New Testament:" the books of the Bible from Matthew to Revelation written 
originally in Greek.  

"does not extend the privilege of remarriage:" the idea that the ability for one to 
marry another for any person is a privilege that God may extend, and that it is by 
no means a right for a person divorced for adultery.

"to a person put away:" a person who was divorced; not the active party doing the 
divorcing, but the party who is divorced by the divorcing party.

"for having committed adultery:" the reason for the divorce is for adultery, or, 
perhaps more generally, the range of meaning of the Greek term porneia, which 
includes any sexually deviant behavior, including, but not limited to, sex with 
another woman, homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, etc.

I will prove that this proposition is most certainly taught in the New Testament, 
and I shall begin by demonstrating that remarriage is not a right, but it is a 
privilege, and then will more specifically discuss the party put away for adultery.  

Part I: God, Marriage, and Remarriage.

God has an intent for marriage, specifically, that a man should have one wife for 
life, and vice versa.  This truth was established in Genesis 2.  During the period of 
the Law of Moses, God allowed for the Israelites to divorce their wives because 
of the hardness of their hearts (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; cf. Matthew 19:7-8), yet 
Jesus in His preaching established that "from the beginning it has not been so," 
(Matthew 19:3-8).  Jesus then makes the declaration concerning guidelines for 
marriage in Matthew 19:9:

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and 
marries another, commits adultery."

We may see that this guideline was most certainly more restrictive than what the 
Jews expected when we read the reaction of the disciples in Matthew 19:10:

The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better 
not to marry."

Jesus' response to the disciples in verses 11-12 is very enlightening:

But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to 
whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there 
are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who 
have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one 
who is able to receive this receive it."

Jesus therefore clearly establishes that there will be some who will be eunuchs for 
the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven-- they will forsake the pleasure of marriage 
for holy living for God.  While this certainly does apply to those like Paul who 
always lived celibately (1 Corinthians 7), it also does refer to those who have 
violated the marriage covenant (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11).  Jesus lays down the 
principle that purity in the sight of God is far more valuable than the fleeting 
pleasures present in marriage.  When we see the limitations of verse 9-- notably, 
that those who divorce for improper reasons must either sin by remarriage, stay 
pure by celibacy, or (as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11) reconcile with their mate, 
and that Matthew 5:32 establishes these very same standards for those who have 
been put away; therefore, these persons must either reconcile, choose to make 
themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, or fall back into sin.  
Such persons do not have the right to remarry any other according to the laws of 
God; therefore we do see that remarriage is a privilege that God may extend or 
may not extend.  

Part II: The Divorce for Adultery

It is agreed by both parties in this debate that the Scriptures teach the following 
principles:

1. A person who divorces their spouse for any reason but adultery may not 
remarry without sinning (Matthew 19:9). 2. A person divorced by their spouse for 
any reason [but adultery] is made an adulterer(ess) and may nor remarry without 
sinning (Matthew 5:32). 3. A person who divorces their spouse for adultery may 
remarry without sinning (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9).  

The contest is over the rights of those divorced for adultery-- are they given the 
privilege of remarriage?  Notice the brackets in point 2-- Mr. Burgin would add 
that phrase, yet I would not.  Why?  Let us read Matthew 5:32 in the ESV:

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of 
sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced 
woman commits adultery."

I have chosen the ESV because of the clarity of the translation of the second 
sentence; many versions add a temporal marker ("when") and such is not required 
by the Greek text.  

I affirm that Matthew 5:32 teaches that a person who marries any put away 
person, put away for whatever reason, commits adultery; therefore, such a put 
away person has no right of remarriage.  

The evidence:

1. Notice that the second statement does not make any claim to an exception 
clause.  The first statement contains an exception clause (except on the ground of 
sexual immorality).  The second statement has no such exception clause.  Since 
there is no exception clause, there are no exceptions: anyone who marries a 
person who was divorced commits adultery.

2. Lest I be charged with translation favoritism, I will discuss the Greek text of 
this passage and demonstrate the legitimacy of the translation given.  The second 
statement in Greek is the following (in English lettering): KAI HOS EAN 
APOLELUMENEN GAMESEI, MOICHATAI.  

Explanations: KAI: conjunction "and" HOS: Masculine nominative singular 
relative pronoun being used in a conditional sentence with a relative protasis, 
"whoever," implied masculine. EAN: Marker for conditional sentence with a 
subjunctive; goes with GAMESE, and with MOICHATAI as the apodosis (seen 
later), demonstrates this to be a present general conditional sentence with a 
relative protasis ("Whoever marries...., commits adultery") APOLELUMENEN: 
the critical word in this passage; it is a perfect middle/passive feminine accusative 
singular participle of "apoluo."  Literally it means "the woman having been put 
away," and since a participle is basically the noun form of a verb, "a divorced 
woman" is a completely acceptable translation that is easy to understand in 
English. GAMESEI: 3rd person singular subjunctive aorist; subjunctive because 
of being the protasis of a present general condition: "(whoever) marries."   
MOICHATAI: contracted 3rd person singular present middle form of "moichao;" 
its present tense identifies the conditional as a present general, and the translation 
is simply "commits adultery" in the middle voice.  

Therefore, the translation stands as: "whichever man marries a woman having 
been put away commits adultery."  

Now, I am sure that Mr. Burgin will argue that the "exception clause" of the first 
statement will stand for the second statement also.  Yet the "exception clause" is 
very easily understood in context:

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of 
sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced 
woman commits adultery."

I will say also that the first sentence is a conditional statement in and of itself; the 
protasis is "whomever divorces his wife (except for immorality)," and the 
apodosis is "makes her to commit adultery."  The exception clause is given 
because of the statement Jesus makes, notably, that "whomever divorces his wife 
makes her to commit adultery."  This statement is certainly true when the grounds 
for divorce are not legitimate; but if she is divorced for having committed 
adultery, she already is an adulteress, and this fact is not made manifest by the 
divorce.  Therefore, the exception clause is given because of the language of the 
passage (POIEI AUTEV MOICHASTHAI; makes her to commit adultery), not 
because of any rights being given to the divorced party.  If he divorces his wife 
for adultery, she already is an adulteress.    

This is the function of the exception clause; it is a serious breach of grammar and 
understanding of the Greek to attempt to force the exception clause for the first 
conditional statement upon the second.  Therefore, we may most clearly see that 
Matthew 5:32 teaches clearly the following:

1. One who divorces his wife for any reason but adultery "makes his wife to 
commit adultery." 2. One who divorces his wife for adultery cannot make what 
already exists, notably, that she has committed adultery. 3. One who marries one 
who has been put away-- for any reason-- commits adultery.

Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable: the person put away for adultery has not 
been given the privilege of remarriage by Jesus in Matthew 5:32.  

I do wish to speak for a moment on Matthew 19:9.   Let us see two translations of 
this verse:

ESV: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, 
and marries another, commits adultery."

ASV:  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for 
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth 
her when she is put away committeth adultery. 

We may rightly ask about the difference in translation and why.  The note on the 
ESV rendering of this verse provides the information:

Some manuscripts add and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery 
; other manuscripts except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and 
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery

What do we see here?  A case of "harmonization," where some later scribes saw 
the beginning of Matthew 19:9 and added portions of Matthew 5:32 from their 
memory as opposed to copying the message exactly as given.  The evidence for 
this is (a) the varieties of differences in copies of Greek texts of Matthew 19:9, all 
showing portions of Matthew 5:32 and (b) the similarity of message of Matthew 
19:9 and Matthew 5:32 and the ease of confusion.  I therefore accept the "shorter" 
reading, but the "longer" reading will not help Mr. Burgin any; the text is exactly 
the same as Matthew 5:32 and therefore the same truths that we have already 
discovered would apply also.  

As I close this affirmation, I will predict another argument of Mr. Burgin, notably, 
a philosophical questioning of how any person who would marry a person 
divorced for adultery could commit adultery since the divorce is "legitimate."  To 
answer this charge, I shall turn to 1 Corinthians 7:10-11:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not 
separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else 
be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

The Greek word translated as "separate" is CHORIZO, the same word used by 
Jesus in Matthew 19:6 in His declaration that "what God has joined let not man 
separate."  This term here necessarily demonstrates a divorce.  But what kind of 
divorce?  

1. Is it a divorce where one spouse divorced the other for adultery?  If so, why 
would Paul limit such a person to "remain unmarried" or "reconcile" when Jesus 
gives them full right of marrying another (Matthew 19:9)? 2. Is it a divorce for 
other reasons?  This would make sense-- Paul expounds on what Jesus said in 
Matthew 19:9, declaring that a person who either divorced their spouse 
improperly or anyone who was put away has the option of being unmarried (if 
they are unmarried they do not "marry another" and commit adultery per Matthew 
19:9), or they can reconcile to their spouse (since Jesus charged such persons with 
sin only if they "married another," Matthew 19:9; Matthew 5:32).

Therefore, we see that Paul is speaking to two groups of persons in 1 Corinthians 
7:10-11: those who divorced their spouse for improper reasons and those who 
were put away, regardless of the reason.  

Why do I bring all this up?  Well, it demonstrates that the separation is recognized 
by all.  A divorce occurred.  A person put away his wife.  The reason may not be a 
legitimate reason, but the divorce did occur and a separation does exist.  God 
recognizes that there has been a separation, albeit against His will.  Yet if they 
marry anyone else they are charged with adultery!  They are no longer married; 
both Jesus and Paul recognize this by stating that they "divorce" and that they 
"marry another," and Paul goes even further by saying that such people are 
"unmarried!"  So the question that Mr. Burgin will invariably ask I will begin by 
returning to him: how can Paul declare such persons "unmarried" and yet Jesus 
affirms that if they marry another they "commit adultery?"  

The Scriptures affirm that persons divorced for improper reasons are "unmarried" 
after the divorce, just like a person divorced for a proper reason is "unmarried" 
after the divorce.  The Scriptures affirm that those "unmarried" people do not 
have the right to marry another, for in doing so they commit adultery.  And in 
Matthew 5:32, when Jesus declares that "whoever marries a divorced woman 
commits adultery," He declares that those put away for adultery do not have the 
privilege of marriage to another, for He declares that no one who is put away has 
the privilege of marriage to another.  

The proposition...

The New Testament does not extend the privilege of remarriage to a person put 
away for having committed adultery.

...has been proven clearly by the evidence that Jesus has given us in His holy 
Word.

Ethan (ELDV)