Burgin/Cyrus Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
 Proposition: 
 Proposition: The Bible teaches that divorced adulterers may not 
marry.

Affirm: Doug Cyrus
Deny: Max Burgin

When I say "the Bible" I am talking about the New Testament 
including the books from Matthew to Revelations. Although I 
believe that the New Testament is the law we are under today I do 
believe that a thorough understanding of the Old Testament helps 
us to better understand the New Testament.

By "teaches" I mean the Bible gives us understanding that will 
allow us to know everything God wants us to do or not do in 
relationship to Him. II Tim.3:16 tells us this when it says "All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly 
equipped for every good work."

By saying "that divorced adulterers may not marry" I mean that a 
person who has been put away by the exception mentioned in 
Matthew 19:9, the guilty party, does not have the right to marry 
again because when they do they will be committing the sin of 
adultery.

In my first negative I said that to understand marriage and 
divorce we must understand what marriage is. I went on to prove 
that marriage is a covenant. With this in mind I would like to 
quote what I previously said showing that marriage is a covenant.

I previously said "To truly understand marriage divorce and 
remarriage (MDR) one must first understand exactly what marriage 
is. Donny Rader, in his book, "DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE WHAT DOES THE 
SCRIPTURES SAY?" quotes Funk and Wagnall’s concerning the 
definition of marriage which says  "Marriage is "a compact 
(covenant, DVR) entered into by a man and a woman, to live 
together as husband and wife" (Funk & Wagnall’s Standard 
Dictionary, P. 781).

According to Webster a covenant is "a binding and solemn 
agreement made by two or more individuals, parties, etc. to do or 
keep from doing a specified thing; compact." A more familiar word 
that we would use today would be "contract." A covenant is a 
contract. Taking this word to it's simplest meaning a covenant is 
a "bond." Webster's fifth definition of the word bond is "a 
binding agreement; covenant." When we use the words covenant, 
compact, contract, bond or binding agreement we are talking about 
the same thing. These words can be used interchangeably.

The Bible also shows that marriage is a covenant relationship. 
The original law that created marriage is Genesis 2:24 which says 
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall 
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It is implied 
in this verse that when both parties leave their parents it is by 
agreement. Mal 2:14 further demonstrates this when it says "Yet 
ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between 
thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt 
treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy 
COVENANT." Since God created marriage, He is the one who joins a 
man and a woman in marriage. This is spoken of in Matthew 9:6 
which says "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What 
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." A 
quick study of the Bible on this subject will show that God not 
only created marriage but that He also regulates a marriage 
relationship and dictates to each party their obligations and 
restrictions.

Marriage is a contract and therefore a lawful relationship. It is 
by law that a man and a woman are bound to each other. Romans 7:2 
demonstrates this when it says "For the woman which hath an 
husband is BOUND BY THE LAW to her husband so long as he liveth; 
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her 
husband."

1Cor. 7:27-28 teaches that those who are loosed have a right to 
marry because they can marry without sinning when it says: "Art 
thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed 
from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast 
not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. 
Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare 
you."

To prove that a person who has been put away for fornication has 
the right to marry it must be shown that they are loosed. If no 
proof can be shown that they are loosed, then they do not have 
the right, given by God, to marry. I believe it has become pretty 
obvious that Max cannot give one Bible passage saying that a 
person who has been put away for fornication is loosed or that 
they can marry without sinning. This alone shows that a put away 
fornicator cannot marry with the authority of God. If they choose 
to marry, it is by the authority of man, and not God.

Does the Bible any where specifically say that a put away 
fornicator cannot marry without sinning? I believe it does in 
Matt. 19:9b, of the New King James version, which says "and 
whoever marries HER WHO IS DIVORCED commits adultery."  Matt. 
5:32b, New King James version, says "and whoever marries A WOMAN 
WHO IS DIVORCED commits adultery." Apolelumenen is the Greek word 
that is used in Matt. 19:9b to mean "her who is divorced" and the 
exact word used in Matt. 5:32b to mean "a woman who is divorced."

There is an important difference in the way the word, 
apolelumenen, is translated in Matt 19:9b and 5:32b. In Matt. 
19:9b apolelumenen includes the pronoun "her." A pronoun is a 
word that is used in the place of or as a substitute for a noun 
(Webster). To determine the noun, that a pronoun refers to, you 
must look backwards in what ever you are reading. This would 
infer that the pronoun "her" in  Matt 19:9b is referring to the 
woman in Matt. 19:9a that was put away for a reason other than 
fornication. If this is true, then there is no passage in the 
Bible telling us anything about the woman (person) who is put 
away for fornication as to whether she can marry again without 
sinning or not. The Bible, would give us no indication about the 
state of the woman put away for fornication, as to whether she is 
loosed from the marriage contract or not. At best this puts this 
woman in the same position as things like, substituting coke for 
the fruit of the vine when taking the Lord's supper or using 
mechanical instruments in worship to the Lord. The Bible doesn't 
say you can't, but it doesn't say you can. If you conclude that 
she is loosed, you act without authority (Col. 3:17).Some will 
say that since "her" husband put her away with permission from 
God (lawfully), that she is as loosed as he is and therefore she 
can marry again. While this kind of thinking might apply to a 
physical bond, it does not apply to a legal bond and that is what 
binds a marriage (Rom. 7:2-3). From a practical point of view 
consider this, if you were in a real estate contract with someone 
and the other party did not live up to the contract in some way, 
do you think that a judge would automatically release the other 
party from all restrictions or obligations of the contract? If 
that were true, there would be no binding quality to any 
contract. All you would have to do is violate a contract and that 
would eventually release you from it. With a marriage contract, 
as with any contract, you cannot automatically assume that 
because one party has been released from any restrictions or 
obligations in the contract that the other has also.

On the other hand, if Matt. 19:9b is properly translated "a woman 
who is divorced" ( as Matt. 5:32b is) then God has told us the 
exact state that the woman who is put away for fornication is in. 
She is in the exact state that the woman who was put away for a 
reason other than fornication is in. They are both in the state 
of being "a woman who is divorced." In other words, any person 
who has been put away and marries again commits adultery. Whether 
you believe Matt. 19:9b should be translated  "a woman who is 
divorced" or "her who is divorced" it really does not matter 
because neither position gives a person who has been put away for 
fornication the authority to marry again.

If you want to get more technical as to why I believe this 
position is true I would offer a quote by Colly Caldwell that was 
in Guardian of Truth,  Vol.XXXV,  No. 2; January 17, 1991 which 
says:  "Several points of grammar show that the phrase 'except 
for fornication'  which applies to the 'putting away' in the 
first part of the verse does not apply to 'her who is put away' 
in the second part.  First,  the second clause is an independent 
clause.  That means that it does not depend upon the first to 
complete its meaning.  There is no forced ellipsis implying or 
requiring that the phrase be applied to the second part.  Second,  
the phrase 'except for fornication' is an adverbial phrase 
modifying the verb 'put away.'  To modify 'her who is put away' 
the construction would have to change and the phrase become 
adjectival.  Third,  in the Greek only one word, a participle,  
is used in the second part of the verse to refer to the person 
and it has no definite article or pronoun attached to it.  
Apolelumenen is simply 'a woman who is put away.'  The word is 
unrestricted grammatically by any former phrase.  In other words,  
the phrase is not limited to one put away 'except for 
fornication.'

As you can see from an English and Greek position the proper way 
to translate apolelumenen is "a woman who is divorced." This 
being the case Matt. 19:9b would be referring to any woman who is 
divorced, whether divorced for fornication or not.

If this is the case, then the Bible tells us that the man who 
puts his wife away for fornication can marry again without 
committing adultery (Matt. 19:9a) but the woman who is put away 
for committing fornication cannot marry again without committing 
adultery (Matt. 19:9b). The man in this scenario is loosed 
because he can marry without sinning (1Cor. 7:27-28), but the 
woman is still bound because if she marries again, she commits 
adultery (Matt. 19:9b) against her first husband (Mark 10:11). It 
would be impossible for someone to commit adultery against 
someone to whom they did not owe a duty.

Thus: "the Bible teaches that divorced adulterers may not marry," 
by silence or by direct statement. Take your pick.

There is one thing I would like to address concerning the first 
negative that Max has already sent me. He says: "There is 
Scripture that says a person "put away" for adultery Matt.19:9 is 
"loosed from a spouse" - being no longer in "contract" with one – 
and therefore has "not sinned" - or committed adultery - in a 
further marriage. The problem Doug faces is that he does not 
accept plain and simple Scripture.” QUESTION: WHERE IS THE "PLAIN 
AND SIMPLE SCRIPTURE" YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?!!!?

Yours in Christ,
Doug Cyrus