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

We have seen that Mr. Burgin has yet again attempted to spend more time 
discussing the last proposition than the current one.  I am no longer in a position 
of denial, and he is no longer in a position of affirmation; as I said in my last 
affirmation, he had two opportunities to respond to my arguments made in my 
denial previously, and it is not my problem that he squandered them.

Let us then see what he has said regarding the second affirmation I have made.

Max: 
Now to Ethan's second affirmative, which is nothing more than evasive, and 
confusing sophistry - which contradicts his earlier "inference". He STILL has not 
provided the passage which says that one divorced for his adultery, does not have 
- as a "legitimately" "loosed" person - the "privilege" to marry. He has one more 
chance - but he wont do it. As I said, this debate will close without it being done.
    
ELDV: Funny, since my second affirmation was basically the same as my first, an 
exegesis of Scripture.  If "sophistry" is defined by you as "exegesis of Scripture," 
I will be a sophist.

A person put away for adultery is not a person who has legitimately loosed 
himself from his spouse; I have declared this many times and Mr. Burgin seems to 
ignore this.  He would rather take the comments i make out of context and out of 
explanation and pervert them.  If Mr. Burgin cannot accurately represent what I 
have said, why ought we trust him to accurately represent what the Bible says?

We have seen that Mr. Burgin did not actually prove his proposition as he has 
rephrased it above.  We will get into the reasons for this below, but it is amazing 
how one expects me to disprove the language that he uses when he cannot even 
prove the language he uses is legitimate!

Max: 
You are reminded, Ethan, of the question which led to this debate, it's another 
way of asking the same thing, it says: Where does the Bible teach that a person 
Scripturally divorced, who is guilty of adultery, must remain single? You failed to 
answer it in private, now it is asked in public. Will you continue to run away from 
it, OR, simple give more sophistry?

Not only do you continue with your hang-up over the word "single", you have 
extended it to include the word "unmarried" - you don't seem to be able to 
recognize that Paul's use of this word is accommodative - which necessarily refers 
to the STATE she was in, and was required to remain in - rather than the fact she 
was "unmarried", in the sense she was single - without a spouse. This truth is 
obvious from the fact she could be "reconciled" - whereas if she was divorced, 
"unmarried" in the sense of being single - she couldn't. Face the truth!
    
ELDV: I have a hang-up with the word "single?"  You have the hang-up, for you 
use it all the time in different ways!

I did a search of the Bible in multiple translations for the word "single." It is only 
used ONCE in ONE version (the ESV) to refer to the marital status of a person, 
and it is used in 1 Corinthians 7 to refer to Paul's state. The Bible does not use this 
word at all-- yet you will attempt to give multiple definitions of the word to suit 
your purposes.  And I am the sophist?!?

Where is the Biblical distinction that you are making in the paragraph above?  Is 
not an "unmarried" person in the current state of being "single," the word you love 
so much?  You make a difference in terms by attempting to re-define the term to 
be "unmarried as without a spouse" versus "unmarried and completely single," yet 
PAUL DOES NO SUCH THING!  Paul says that if she separates from her 
husband-- as we have said, the exact same term used by Jesus in Matthew 19:6 to 
explain how the marriage relationship is not to be broken-- she must "remain 
unmarried..."  The woman, by separating herself from her husband, dissolves the 
marriage covenant just as quickly as the man who would put his wife out of the 
house.  She has "put asunder" what God joined together, just like a husband 
divorcing his wife "puts asunder" what God joined together-- and "divorce" is a 
"separation."

So yes, the woman in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is "unmarried" and is in your 
terminology "single" yet she has not the right to marry another, and is an example 
of a "single" person who must remain single (or reconcile to her ex-husband).  So 
much for your syllogisms.

Now, I have proven that the New Testament does state in Matthew 5:32 in no 
uncertain terms that no one can marry a "put away woman" without committing 
adultery.  To this you say:

You said, early in the piece, "anyone who marries a divorced person, "commits 
adultery". WRONG on two counts!!!!
    
ELDV: I said that?  No, I quoted Jesus in Matthew 5:32 who said that.  Is Jesus 
"WRONG on two counts?"

Max: 
1. When the situation involves people where no marriage exists - in any 
remarriage - it's impossible for spouseless people to "commit adultery".
    
ELDV: Jesus said that they "commit adultery" by having their marriage.  You are 
making a declaration far more vast than the New Testament will allow.

In the situation of Matthew 19:9, the person who divorced his wife for improper 
reasons is no longer married.  He is "without a spouse," or "spouseless" as you use 
the term, and if he marries again Jesus says he "commits adultery."  We can 
perhaps discuss in what way he commits adultery, or attempt to understand Jesus' 
language, but to stand up and say that what Jesus says is impossible is blasphemy 
and impious.  This is the same situation as we see with the "put away" spouses in 
Matthew 5:32.

Max: 
2. When the "innocent party", who is divorced - "put away" from the marriage, 
and a spouse - even you are prepared to contradict yourself, and say she does 
NOT "commit adultery", yet she is divorced - and marries another.
    
ELDV: If you are referring to a person who divorces his spouse for porneia, Jesus 
has specifically given him the right of remarriage.  This privilege has not been 
extended to others.  My personal feeling about this is that anyone who violated a 
marriage covenant is deemed unfit for another one and hence the fact that such 
persons would "commit adultery" by entering into another marriage.  It would be 
similar to the Israelites violating their covenant with God and making covenants 
with the idols of the nations-- God calls this "harlotry," a form of "spiritual 
adultery."  Only the one who is completely innocent of violating the marriage 
covenant-- the one whose spouse committed porneia/one whose spouse perishes—
is not hindered in an attempt to make another marriage covenant.

Max: 
The very fact that she can marry, without adultery, makes it abundantly clear that 
there is no marriage to adulterate - therefore the same thing applies to the other 
party - otherwise, as I said earlier, you have the stupid situation of a half marriage.
    
ELDV: You have philosophized yourself into this position, Mr. Burgin, you have 
not found it in the Scriptures.  Despite the clear language of Matthew 5:32 and 
Matthew 19:9-- that divorces do happen for porneia and for improper reasons and 
that these divorces result in the separation that causes both parties in the divorce 
to be "unmarried," or as you call it "single" and that even in this state of dissolved 
marriage persons who marry another "commit adultery--" you still attempt to 
apply whatever EXCEPTION is given to one party to another party.  You have 
provided ample evidence that you have NO Scriptural backing for this, and it is 
merely your philosophy. There is no "half marriage."  There are two parties who 
are divorced, and God has bestowed upon one the privilege of marrying another 
and the other must either remain unmarried or reconcile.  THIS is the message of 
the Scriptures.  What you are saying is "Mr. Burgin's personal philosophy he 
foists upon the Scriptures."

Max: 
If only one party "commits adultery", which marriage is adulterated - the one 
which has ceased to exist by the earlier divorce, or the one which has just begun? 
Or is it possible to "commit adultery" where no marriage exists?

More than that, and to make matters worse, you made this affirmation without 
giving any Scripture. Are we expected to believe it simply because you said it?
    
ELDV: Your first paragraph has been answered above, and you have 
demonstrated by your second paragraph (a) your hypocrisy and (b) your complete 
inability to read what was written.  What Scriptures have you provided?  In your 
affirmations you refer to only three Scriptures and even then assume they say 
what you want them to say as opposed to actually proving that what they say?  
And I discussed multiple Scriptures in my affirmations, and even have put forth 
the effort to prove what they say.  If you have not read those Scriptures in the 
affirmations it just goes to show that you haven't really read them.

Max: 
You then went to the Greek and gave a lengthy explanation, which is not 
necessary to know, and understand, the truth of ANYTHING that was said - and 
shed no light at all on a subject that is very plain, and simple. One does not need 
to be a Greek scholar to know the truth.
    
ELDV: I gave the explanation of the Greek to demonstrate that Matthew 5:32 is 
properly translated since its proper translation is a direct affirmation of my 
proposition: anyone who marries a put away person commits adultery. If this is 
the case, anyone who is put away-- including anyone put away for committing 
adultery-- cannot remarry without adultery being committed.

MAX. 
WRONG!!!! Divorce and marriage are separate issues - and therefore require 
separate Scripture - what is being discussed here is divorce - I am simple 
affirming that, the exception, when followed, results in BOTH parties being 
genuinely single, unmarried, spouseless - whether saint or sinner, and as a result 
of that FACT can THEN marry without adultery. EVEN you HAVE MADE AN 
"INFERENCE" STATING THAT ONE CAN BE "LEGITIMATELY LOOSED", 
AND THAT "THEY MAY MARRY". YOU CAN'T WORM YOUR WAY OUT 
OF WHAT YOU CLEARLY SAID. You may try to deny that it refers to those 
Scripturally divorced - "legitimately loosed" - as to the others divorced for ANY 
other reason, who are NOT "legitimately loosed" - and contradict yourself, and 
Scripture.
    
ELDV: I have already explained 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 multiple times, Mr. 
Burgin, and in every explanation it is obvious that your inferences will not stand.  
A person divorced for adultery does not legitimately loose themselves from their 
marriage-- if you say that, I declare you a false teacher for calling what God has 
deemed sin a "legitimate" thing.  Since such a person does NOT legitimately 
loose themselves from their marriage, they have no right of remarriage.  Your 
"affirmation" that the exception results in both parties being "genuinely" single 
and then your conclusion that either can "remarry" without adultery was never 
proven and I have proven it completely false from Matthew 5:32-- anyone who 
marries a put away person commits adultery.  Hence, a put away person is never 
in the right for marrying another.  Since this is an OBVIOUS Scripture stating a 
TRUTH, without INFERENCE, it is imperative that we then examine your 
inferences in light of clear Gospel truth-- and they fail.  Your philosophy is not a 
Biblical philosophy.  You focus on terms the Bible does not even use in the way 
you use them and then you wonder why I charge you with inference!  You split 
hairs regarding "legitimacy" of a person's singledom when I do not see any 
Biblical author splitting such hairs, and again you wonder why I charge you with 
inference!

As I have said from the beginning, the Bible is clear:

1. A man and a woman who have never been married may marry (1 Corinthians 
7:2). 2. A man who divorced his wife for porneia may marry another (Matthew 
19:9). 3. A man who divorced his wife for any reason but porneia may not marry 
another without sinning (Matthew 19:9). 4. A person put away for any reason may 
not marry another without sin occurring (Matthew 5:32).

This is the language of the Bible and the situations the Bible covers.  Mr. Burgin 
may foist his philosophy upon the Scriptures, but those who love the truth and 
know the Word will reject it.

I stated the following: One who marries one who has been put away-- for any 
reason-- commits adultery.

And Max responded: 
MAX. This is the crux of the matter. Pure supposition!!!! Who does he "commit 
adultery" against in a situation where no marriage exists?"??? I notice that 
AGAIN no Scripture is given to support such nonsense.
    
ELDV: I find it humorous that Mr. Burgin calls this "pure supposition."  He 
obviously does not read his Bible.

Matthew 5:32 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."

Jesus says: "And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Read again what I stated.  Read what Jesus said.  And then see Mr. Burgin's 
conclusion of the matter.  I guess that Jesus is making "pure suppositions" and 
that His words are "nonsense" according to Mr. Burgin.

I again stated: 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

And Max responded: 
MAX. You fail to realize that NOBODY is given such a "privilege" in this verse. 
Another passage is needed.
    
ELDV: You're right, Mr. Burgin-- no put away person is given the privilege of 
remarriage in Matthew 5:32.  They are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 
5:32.  There will be no passage that is needed to affirm my proposition since you 
can at least perceive that Jesus does not give the person put away for adultery the 
privilege of remarriage in Matthew 5:32-- and therefore, in Matthew 19:9 in the 
versions you read!

I again stated: 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.

And Max responded: 
MAX. Jesus made no such declaration at all!!!! What He said was, "That 
whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth 
her to commit adultery", in other words He declared that if he DID put her away 
for the cause stated, he did not cause her to commit adultery. AND who ever 
marries her that is put away - for any other cause than stated - SHALL indeed 
commit adultery. But God will accept her divorce if she is "legitimately" put away 
- "loosed" from a spouse.
    
ELDV: So we get to the "crux" of the situation, and even if he does not realize it, 
Mr. Burgin is basing his evidence on the "exception clause."

I have spoken with one who knows much about Greek and he did affirm that the 
"exception clause" cannot legitimately be foisted upon the last statement Jesus 
makes in Matthew 5:32 ("and whoever marries a divorced person commits 
adultery").  Yet Mr. Burgin states that the exception clause does and must fit the 
second clause!

Why did I go through such a lengthy explanation of the Greek?  For this very 
reason!  What Mr. Burgin is attempting to foist on the text is not possible! The 
"exception clause" is present because a person who puts away his spouse for 
porneia does not "cause her to commit adultery--" she already did.  She already is 
guilty of defiling the marriage covenant and nothing her husband can do can make 
her more guilty of defiling that covenant.  THEN Jesus states that "whoever 
marries the put away woman commits adultery."  That statement is 
GRAMMATICALLY and TEXTUALLY separate from the previous statement.

Jesus says: Whoever marries a put away woman commits adultery.

Mr. Burgin says: Whoever marries a put away woman save for a woman put away 
for adultery commits adultery.

Mr. Burgin gives us no reason why his statement is correct and Jesus' statement is 
wrong, nor does he give any evidence that the exception clause must "jump" 
clauses and fit also with the second clause.  He may declare it to be so, but his 
declaration is mere wind without any substance.

Max: 
The proposition is not proved at all - no Scripture is given to support several 
points at the crux of the issue. AND until such time as Ethan produces one - he 
has one last chance - but of course it wont happen, he will produce plenty of 
confusing sophistry, and continue with red herrings, and deal with those that are 
not in the proposition - and kid himself that he has proved his case, but the readers 
will know better.

By now it is very obvious to all that the very passage Ethan needs simply does not 
exist, otherwise he would have used it, one that says a person who is "legitimately 
loosed" is forbidden the privilege of marriage, one that says any person, saint or 
sinner, who is single, being divorced from a spouse, because of adultery, does not 
have the right to marry.
    
ELDV: If Mr. Burgin would like to affirm that a person who commits porneia 
legitimately looses himself from his spouse he can certainly do such, but then the 
level of his depravity sinks even lower.  Perhaps Mr. Burgin can find some good 
Scriptural evidence that the Bible uses the term "single" as he uses it and the term 
"legitimately single" as he uses it.  He cannot, of course, because it is his own 
philosophy and has nothing to do with the message of the Scriptures.

I have given the passage multiple times with full explanation that amply proves 
the proposition.  Whoever marries a put away person commits adultery. Plain and 
simple Matthew 5:32b.  An "unadulterated" passage Mr. Burgin seems willing to 
"adulterate." :)

Max: 
The three classes of people he mentioned who may marry, may do so ONLY for 
the reason of being single, "alone", free of marriage, without a spouse - regardless 
of what led to it.
    
ELDV: And as he concludes, Mr. Burgin again declares his philosophy and does 
not bring forth any Scriptures to prove it.

This is the last affirmation and the last word I shall have in this debate. Mr. 
Burgin has one more opportunity to rebut, and I am sure that we will see the same 
things again, all without proof.  In the end, the truth of the matter is that Mr. 
Burgin has spent much time deliberating about words that the Bible does not even 
use and ideas that the Bible never even states.  The idea of "legitimately single" 
versus "illegitimately single" will not be found in the pages of Scripture but only 
in the philosophy of Mr. Burgin.

There are persons who are single-- never married.  There are persons divorced, 
and persons widowed.  The Bible teaches that a single man and a single woman, 
given the definition above, may marry, in 1 Corinthians 7:2. The Bible affirms 
that widowed persons may marry again in Romans 7.  There are also persons that 
are divorced, and the Bible creates three categories of them: one who divorced his 
spouse for porneia, one who divorced his spouse for any other reason, and one 
who is divorced by his spouse.  Jesus affirms in Matthew 19:9 that the first 
category of persons have been given the privilege of remarriage to another.  Jesus 
also establishes in Matthew 19:9 that the second category of persons do not have 
the privilege of remarriage to another, since if they do they commit adultery.  And 
Jesus establishes that the third category-- which includes the party under 
discussion, the spouse put away for adultery-- also does not have the privilege of 
remarriage in Matthew 5:32, since whoever would marry them would commit 
adultery.  These are the plain and simple Bible facts regarding marriage, divorce, 
and remarriage, and this will not be moved by Mr. Burgin's condemned 
philosophies (Colossians 2:8).

The proposition,

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

stands proven.  Since this proposition stands proven and Mr. Burgin was unable to 
defend the following proposition,

The New Testament extends the privilege of remarriage to a person put away for 
having committed adultery,

that proposition stands refuted.

May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

Ethan (ELDV)