Burgin/Cyrus Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

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

Affirm: Doug Cyrus
Deny: Max Burgin

Max's primary argument is still that a put away fornicator cannot 
commit adultery when they marry because God allowed the innocent 
party in the marriage contract to put the fornicator away (what 
Max refers to as a "scriptural divorce). His reasoning is that if 
God allowed one party to put the other away then both parties 
must be equally "loosed."

Max says it this way: 
"That's what Scriptural divorce IS - A CESSATION OR "LOOSING" OF 
THE PREVIOUS "BOND" - it no longer exists. If one is "loosed" and 
no longer "bound", of necessity so is the other."

I have shown this reasoning to be faulty because even when 
considering a human contract both parties are not necessarily 
released from the obligations of a contract just because one 
party is released. I have given Max examples of this which he has 
not challenged. I believe the examples I have given speak for 
themselves that they are a real possibility.

If everyone could get out of a contract without owing any duty to 
the other party by just violating the contract then there would 
be no purpose in having a contract in the first place.

Jesus said that He had all power in heaven and earth (Matt. 28: 
18). Max has said that Jesus (God) could not release one party 
from a contract without releasing the other even if He wanted to. 
I will guarantee you that an earthly king, having all the power 
in the kingdom, could, by right, release one party from an 
agreement without releasing the other if he wanted to. Certainly 
God can do this. Max is limiting the power of Jesus in his own 
kingdom. When Max does not even allow for this possibility for an 
all powerful God it shows his extreme bias towards this subject.

If it is even a possibility that God can release one party 
without releasing the other then Max cannot just assume that 
because God allows one party to put the other away that both 
parties are released. Is it a possibility Max?

Max has the obligation to PROVE that each party is released when 
one party in a marriage contract puts the other away!!! He can 
only do this by showing where the Bible plainly says that a put 
away fornicator is loosed or where the Bible implies that they 
are loosed by saying that they can marry without sinning. This he 
has not done.

Max said: 
"You have asked, "How can we determine if one is loosed?" there 
are only two , possibilities, i] death of a spouse, or ii] 
Scriptural divorce. In either case, every person - dead or alive 
- is "loosed" - whether saint of sinner. If a person does not 
meet EITHER of these qualifications, he is guilty of adultery – 
but if he meets either one, he is not an adulterer - even though 
he may be a sinner."

My fifth question in my second negative was: (5) How can we tell 
if a person is loosed if God does not tell us that they can marry 
without sinning (1Cor 7:27-28)?

Max's answer: 
"WE CAN'T, no argument can be made from silence....."

Max is inconsistent when he at one time says that "WE Can't" tell 
if a person is loosed if God does not tell us that they can marry 
without sinning (1Cor 7:27-28) and later says "there are only two 
, possibilities, i] death of a spouse, or ii] Scriptural divorce. 
In either case, every person - dead or alive - is "loosed" – 
whether saint of sinner." Would you explain this inconsistency to 
us Max? Would you also show us a scripture that says that when 
God allows a person to put their spouse away for fornication 
(what you would call a "scriptural divorce") both parties are 
loosed or can marry without committing adultery?

In every situation a person can be in (concerning a marriage 
contract) God will tell us if they can marry without sinning or 
not. Let me show you:

1) Can a man who puts his wife away for fornication marry again? 
Matthew 19:9 says, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away 
his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, 
committeth adultery:......" If we exercise the exception rule 
stated in this verse the Bible implies that "whoever puts away 
his wife, for fornication, and marries another, does not 
committeth adultery." God plainly implies that this person can 
marry without sinning.

2) Can a person whose spouse has died marry again? Romans 7:3 
answers this when it says "So then if, while her husband liveth, 
she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: 
but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that 
she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." The 
Bible plainly states that this person does not sin by marrying 
again; she is no adulteress.

3) Can a person who has put their spouse away for a reason other 
than fornication marry again? Mt 19:9 answers this when it says: 
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it 
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth 
adultery...."

4) Can a person who has been put away for committing fornication 
marry again? Mt 19:9 says: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall 
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry 
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put 
away doth commit adultery." The first part of this verse (Matt. 
19:9a) considers only the person doing the putting away. The 
second part of this verse (19:9b) either addresses all people who 
have been put away for any reason or only the person put away for 
a reason other than fornication. I believe from an analysis of 
the English and Greek grammar that 19:9b does include all who are 
put away and therefore is inclusive of the put away fornicator 
(see my first affirmative for my exact reasoning). If the put 
away fornicator is not included in Matt. 19:9b then the Bible is 
silent considering the position of the put away fornicator as to 
whether they are loosed and therefore can marry without sinning 
or not. If, Matt. 19:9b does not include the position that the 
put away fornicator finds him or herself in, does it not seem 
peculiar to you that every position a person can find them self 
in is plainly shown (as to whether they are loosed and can marry 
without sinning or not) except for the put away fornicator?

I said: "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."

MAX then answers: 
The "innocent party" is also a " A WOMAN WHO IS DIVORCED" or "put 
away" from the marriage - "Apolelumenen"- "her who is divorced" – 
"a woman who is divorced". Why do you not ALSO apply it to her?

My Answer: The Reason the innocent party can marry again without 
committing adultery and the guilty party cannot is because God 
has applied an exception rule to the innocent party who is 
divorced (Matt. 19:9a) but has not applied an exception rule to 
the guilty party (Matt. 19:9b). Matthew 19:9a and b are obviously 
two complete thoughts, one not relying on the other. One reason I 
say this is because part "a" describes the situation of the man 
in the relationship who is doing the putting away and part b 
describes the situation of the woman in the relationship who is 
being put away. If part "b" was not even there I would still know 
the exact situation of the man doing the putting away in the 
relationship or if part "a" was not present I would still know 
the exact situation of a divorced woman who has been put away.

I said: "......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."

MAX's answer was: 
"That's where you are wrong!!!! It is not possible for one to be 
"loosed" while the other is still "bound" to the "contract" – 
that would be a half marriage - and even you agree there is no 
such thing. The "loosing" of one necessitates the "loosing " of 
the other - sin notwithstanding -that's what the exception is all 
about. THEREFORE BOTH ARE EQUALLY "LOOSED".

Answer: First, his argument is again "if one is loosed the other 
must be loosed; an assumption made by Max. Second, What is a half 
marriage and where in our discussion did I agree that there is 
"no such thing" as a "half marriage." I have always thought of 
your "half marriage" as one party to the contract still being 
under contractual obligation to the second party following a 
divorce. I have plainly said that this is possible. I will ask 
you to show me where I said That I agree that there is no such 
thing as a half marriage!!! How do you define a half marriage 
Max?

MAX made this statement: 
"The marriage "contract" is different than any other contract, it 
is governed by the exception clause which applies to no other 
contract. And you have yet to use it here. When, and if you do, 
you will rightly conclude that ALL people are EQUALLY affected by 
it - when it comes to the marriage contract, the exception clause 
negates it.

Answer: First of all the Marriage contract is not the only 
contract that can be governed by an exception clause. Any 
contract can have an exception clause attached to it by the power 
that regulates it. That is why sometimes when buying certain 
things the contract (binding agreement) will say something like 
"laws may vary from state to state." Some states will not allow 
certain obligations or restrictions in an agreement. Therefore 
they will throw in an exception clause of some kind. Secondly I 
have shown from a Greek and English point of view that the 
exception rule does not apply to both parties in the marriage 
contract mentioned in Matt 19:9. Max needs to consider these 
arguments and give "REAL" reasons why they are not true. Instead 
he just keeps making statements over and over again saying, one 
way or an other, that if one is loosed then the other must be 
loosed. All most every argument he makes is the same.

When comparing the state of a put away fornicator to a woman who 
has been put away for any other reason I said: "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."

MAX's answer was: 
"So is the "innocent party" whom you allow to marry!!!! She is "a 
woman who is divorced" - "put away" from the marriage, and a 
spouse therefore she commits adultery. What proves too much, 
proves nothing."

My answer: The innocent party to whom God is speaking of in Matt. 
19:9a is not "a woman who is divorced." The innocent party to 
whom God is speaking of in Matt. 19:9a is a man who divorced his 
wife and to whom God has specifically applied an exception rule. 
The man in Matt. 19:9 is taking action against his wife to put 
her away and the woman is receiving the action against her and 
being put away. God makes a definite distinction between the man 
and the woman in Matt. 19:9. Is the man in Matthew 19:9 doing the 
putting away? Is the woman in Matthew 19:9 being put away? Does 
Matthew 19:9b say that whoever marrieth a woman which is put away 
doth commit adultery? If not what does it say?

I quoted Colly Coldwell saying "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."

MAX's answer was: 
"That may be true, but the REASON stated must be considered in 
ALL that is said thereafter."

My answer: When Max says "That MAY be true" he is saying that he 
really does not know if it is true or not as to whether the first 
clause (Matt. 19:9a should be applied to the second clause Matt. 
19:9b. He goes on to say: "but the REASON stated must be 
considered in ALL that is said thereafter" implying that the 
first clause (Matt. 19:9a should be applied to the second clause 
Matt. 19:9b. This shows that even though Max knows he does not 
know what he is talking about he will answer anyway. Max, can you 
give us a reason why the exception clause mentioned in Matthew 
19:9a "MUST" be considered in Matthew 19:9b?

I quoted Colly Coldwell saying: 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.

MAX said: 
Absolute humbug!!! The admission is made that the "phrase” 
modifies the "verb", but the SAME "verb" is used in the second 
half - does the same "phrase" modify the same "verb" here?

My answer: No: Take the time to read what Colly said again. All 
you have to do is to get an English grammar book and study it a 
little to know that Colly is right and that Max is again 
commenting on what he does not understand. A verb is an action 
word. An adverb modifies a verb. An adverbial phrase is a phrase 
that modifies a verb. A noun is a person place or thing. An 
adjective is a word that modifies a noun. An adjectival phrase is 
a phrase that modifies a noun. The "putting away" (which is a 
verb) done in Matthew 19:9a, must be done "for fornication" other 
wise when he marries again he commits adultery. The phrase 
"except for fornication" is modifying the verb "put away" and is 
therefore an adverbial phrase. In Matthew 19:9b "whoso" is a noun 
(a person, place or thing) and "marries" is the action (word)(a 
verb) that is taken toward "her that is put away." "Her that is 
put away" is the description of the person (a noun) to be 
married. If you added the phrase "except for fornication" to 
Matthew 19:9b it would say "...whoso marrieth her which is put 
away, EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION, doth commit adultery." The phrase 
"EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION" would therefore be an adjectival phrase 
modifying the person "who was put away." Colly is right when he 
says "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."

I quoted Colly Coldwell saying: 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.'

MAX's answer": 
Therefore an "innocent" party also who is divorced, or "put away" 
from the marriage.

Colly continues saying: "The word is unrestricted grammatically 
by any former phrase. In other words, the phrase is not limited 
to one put away 'except for fornication."

MAX's answer: 
Since the same verb is used, which he says the modifies the 
"phrase" - one claim is wrong and contradicts the other - he 
wants it both ways. "Except" means it is acceptable. How can any 
context be "unrestricted" by what was formerly said?

My answer: Max's answer just proves again that he does not 
understand Colly's argument from an English or Greek position. In 
the Greek when a noun has a definite article attached it is to be 
identified as a specific noun. An example of this is John 1:1 
which says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was God." In this verse "Word" has a definite 
article in front of it. This makes it not just any word but "the 
Word." In the phrase "....and the word was with God; "God" has a 
definite article in front of it making it mean "the God." It is 
not talking of just any god it is talking of "the God." In the 
phrase "....and the Word was God" there is no definite article in 
front of God. This verse is then saying that "the Word" (Jesus) 
was with "the God" in the beginning and while He was not "the 
God" He still had the quality of being "God." If there was a 
definite article before the last "God" in the verse then the 
Bible would be saying that "the Word" was "the God," which is not 
true. Colly is saying that in Matt. 19:9b "Apolelumenen" does not 
have a definite article attached to it. Therefore  "Apolelumenen" 
is simply "a woman who is put away" and not "the woman who is put 
away", referring back to the woman in Matt. 19:9a who was put 
away for a reason other than fornication. Matthew 19:9b, 
therefore, refers to any woman who has been put away no matter 
what the reason they were put away for is.

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

MAX's answer: 
Nice of him to give a choice with his sophistry, however there is 
a third choice, one that refuses all his sophistry in favor of 
the truth -which teaches ANY spouseless adult may marry - or 
remarry. And EVERY person Scripturally divorced is spouseless – 
"alone"."

My answer: Max likes to use the word "sophistry" occasionally. 
What this seems to mean is that Max doesn't understand the 
arguments made but he will answer them anyway with his 
preconceived mind set. His mind is so made up he answered my 
second affirmative before I sent it to him. It would seem that he 
doesn't even need me to have this discussion.  If you are in the 
position of having been put away for committing fornication 
against your spouse I would recommend that you not rest your 
soul's eternal destination on what a man like Max says. He 
doesn't know what he is talking about and he doesn't care to find 
out. I do not say this to be mean to Max but I feel an obligation 
to call it the way I see it. Max, Jesus said that if you seek the 
truth you will find it. You need to seriously start seeking.

God Bless you Max!
Doug Cyrus