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

It is absolutely astounding to see that Mr. Burgin has basically decided to ignore 
the first affirmative of our debate and focus entirely on the third rebuttal.

Regardless, let us see what he has come up with.

Max: 
Throughout these entire proceedings Ethan has made the fatal mistake of 
pretending that because one is "single" in the eyes of the law, because of an 
unscriptural divorce, he is therefore RIGHTLY single in God's sight - and therein 
lies the problem. Peter said it all by saying, "We ought obey God rather than 
man", showing that to comply with the law does not make one right with God.
    
ELDV: So what is important is now the means by which one becomes single?  If 
this is the case, is not the party put away for adultery just as guilty as those who 
divorce for improper reasons because it is their sin which ends the marriage?  Is 
an adulterer "rightly" single?  Your inference fails you again.

Max: 
Your attention is drawn to his second denial, where, after chiding me for making 
an "inference" - HE MADE ONE, and concluded that if one is 
"LEGITIMATELY" "LOOSED", "THEY MAY MARRY". I have pointed out 
that when the exception, given by Jesus in Matt.19:9, is followed, the result is that 
one is "LEGITIMATELY" "LOOSED" thus: notice he even called it an 
"inference":
    
ELDV: WHAT exception in Matthew 19:9?  I will point the reader to the textual 
information contained in the first affirmative which shows clearly that the only 
thing Jesus said as recorded by Matthew is that "whoever divorces his wife except 
for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery."  The only person 
Jesus discusses in Matthew 19:9 is the person putting away his wife; no one else 
is discussed.

MAX. 
What a mess!!!! Firstly he recognizes - at last- that one can be "legitimately" 
"loosed", and admits "they can marry" - he has conceded the debate - that is 
exactly what I have been saying all along - it's good to know that, finally, he has 
seen the truth.

Second, Jesus NEVER "condemned" the marriage of single people, neither did 
Paul - guilty sinners, or otherwise.
    
ELDV: It is interesting to see how Mr. Burgin has completely run with an 
argument that has no evidence.

I did say that one can be legitimately "loosed," but I did not say what Mr. Burgin 
is saying.  The Greek term for "loosed" in 1 Corinthians 7:27 is LELUSAI, which 
is the perfect middle/passive form of LUO, "to loose."  The term can be in the 
middle voice, which is a reflexive: "Have you loosed yourself from a wife?"  As I 
have shown in the rebuttals and in my affirmative, Paul therefore recognizes the 
ability of a person who put away his wife for adultery to remarry.

And we have Mr. Burgin making another declarative statement about Jesus or 
Paul not condemning marriages of single people.  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.

1. Paul calls the wife "unmarried." 2. Single people, according to Mr. Burgin, are 
people who are "unmarried." 3. Paul says that she should either remain unmarried 
or be reconciled. 4. Paul therefore DOES condemn the marriage of some single 
people.

Trust God or Mr. Burgin; your choice is clear.

MAX. 
YES, BY THE VERY SAME "INFERENCE" EVEN YOU MADE, just 
mentioned. You have completely undone your case - by admitting the truth.

You chided me constantly for making an inference, and then forming a conclusion 
- now, you have done the same thing - what's more you made the same 
conclusion, by inference, as I did - that apart from death, of a spouse, the ONLY 
way to be "legitimately" "loosed" is by divorce for adultery then, even you admit, 
"they can marry".
    
ELDV: Your conclusions and my conclusions are far apart, Mr. Burgin, and the 
difference is that I have proven my conclusion with Scripture, yet you have not.

Max: 
It also means that you must understand, divorce for adultery, is the ONLY reason 
God accepts for ANY living people to become single. Further you must 
understand that being single, this way, is not a sin, NOR is anything that is right, 
for ANY person whom God accepts as single - example, marriage. You have 
agreed that such a person IS RIGHTLY SINGLE, as opposed to others – 
"legitimately" was the word you used in your "inference" - thus he is "loosed" – 
single - as opposed to others, who only pretend to be.
    
ELDV: Now engaging in "sophistry," Mr. Burgin?  Are we now adapting our 
definition of "single people?"  God accepts that people become unmarried for 
illegitimate reasons; why can't you?

Max: 
It has proved much easier than I expected to refute Ethan's material, and you are 
reminded that Ethan has proved guilty, as he has charged me, of "assumption" and 
"inference" - to make it worse he has concluded - by "inference" that one 
"legitimately" "loosed" "may marry" - this includes ALL who are divorced 
according to exception given by Jesus in Matt.19:9. Every bit as much as one 
whose mate has died. Ethan thus has supplied Scripture which affirms the 
proposition which he was supposed to deny. He therefore will be unable to deny 
this one. Notice that in spite of all his claims, he has not supplied ANY Scripture 
that says the "privilege" to marry is removed from one who is single, and guilty of 
adultery, and "put away" - divorced - for that reason.
    
ELDV: Humorous, since I have made a conclusion on 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 
based completely on Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 
that establishes that the person who looses himself from a wife for her adultery 
can remarry.  You have obviously refused to read any evidence.

I will no longer humor him about his lack of affirmations until his turn to rebut.  
He had plenty of time to make his assertions when he was affirming his side of 
the debate, and he squandered it.

Max: 
Now to Ethan's first affirmative.

In his entire treaties he has forgotten his own "inference" and the forced 
conclusions, he must face. There is no doubt that he has introduced a lot of 
garbled, and confusing sophistry, when ALL he needed to do was quote a passage 
that says a person "put away" for his adultery is NOT RIGHTLY SINGLE - IN 
GOD'S SIGHT - AND THEREFORE DOES NOT HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF 
REMARRIAGE. He has failed to provide it - he has made an "inference" where 
he speaks of those "legitimately" "loosed" - as opposed to others - THEY are the 
ones we are concerned with, stay with the point Ethan. Honour your "inference" 
without further sophistry - and recognize the distinction in "single" people. It's 
perfectly true that some "single"[?] people do not have the "privilege" to marry – 
but ALL who are RIGHTLY SINGLE -AND WITHOUT SIN - are NOT among 
them.
    
ELDV: All I have to do is "when ALL he needed to do was quote a passage that 
says a person "put away" for his adultery is NOT RIGHTLY SINGLE - IN 
GOD'S SIGHT - AND THEREFORE DOES NOT HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF 
REMARRIAGE?"  Where in the Scriptures do we find this "rightly single" vs. 
"unrightly single" distinction?  All I see in the Scriptures is that anyone put away 
cannot remarry and only those who put away their spouses for adultery can 
remarry. No argumentation over what "single" means.  Yet I am the sophist?

What I HAVE done is demonstrate from Matthew 5:32 that no one who is put 
away has the right to remarriage, and therefore have more than amply proven the 
proposition as stated.  Merely because I am not suiting Mr. Burgin's inferences 
does not negate the fact that my proposition stands proven with Scripture 
impossible to deny while he still attempts to run around with this "single" issue 
that the Scriptures never even speak of!  If the legitimacy of the singledom was 
that significant of an idea that it would define God's laws of marriage, divorce, 
and remarriage, do you not think that God would have at least mentioned the idea 
somewhere?  He didn't.  What does that tell us?  Mr. Burgin's arguments are of his 
own design and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Scriptural message. He 
has used this non-Scriptural argument to shield himself from the Scriptural truth 
about those put away for adultery.

And that is all he could say.  I find it almost amazing that he ignored the entire of 
the first affirmative and harped on one point that he twisted and perverted.  So, let 
us re-post the information in the first affirmative and see if Mr. Burgin will 
actually honor the agreement of the debate by actually attempting to rebut the 
material in the affirmatives I write...or perhaps he recognizes that the proposition 
has been proven and that he is wrong?

So, we shall give Mr. Burgin another chance.  Will he be willing to take up the 
gauntlet or will he flee again?

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 AUTEN 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)