“[O]nly the Roman Catholic Church and a few others deny remarriage to the innocent party” (1943, 734). One must conclude, therefore, that all three requirements are part of the plan of redemption.
It must be recognized that the “sum” of Christ’s will is not determined by a limited segment of the New Testament that has been isolated from other data on the same subject (Psa. One writer has attempted to argue, on a textual basis, that Matthew 19:9 does not provide justification for remarriage by the innocent party.
If your kids will continue to attend the same school after a divorce, they will have continuity in their classrooms.
An essay by British writer Leslie Mc Fall recently generated interest among some Bible students in America.In 1926 the Duke of Marlborough and Consuelo Vanderbilt had their Catholic marriage annulled on the ground that initially she had been pressured into the union.At the time of the annulment, they had been married thirty-three years (Wilder 1959, 125).He asserts the text should read: This would suggest there is no reason (not even fornication) for a divorce and remarriage.Supposedly, the duplicity of Erasmus in altering the wording of Matthew 19:9 has poisoned virtually all English versions.