Sharon FitzHenry
https://www.facebook.com/1000028099...uJ1vnHEyyDQ4QQ4zAGqj2JQpWLr6chYgt6cUYSzne7l/?
Dr. Leslie McFall, a scholar par excellence, Research Fellow at Tyndale House, Cambridge, UK
587 page research paper on Divorce and Remarriage.
https://lmf12.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/divorce_aug_2014.pdf
Below is just one of many subsections.
Matthew's EXCEPTION CLAUSE
THE FIRST CHOICE (ERASMUS’S CHOICE)
If Jesus was making one exception to His teaching on divorce, and if He had used eij before mh; then the translation would be: “Now I say to you that who, for instance, may have divorced his wife—except he may have divorced for fornication—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.”
THE SECOND CHOICE (McFALL’S CHOICE)
If Jesus was making no exception to His teaching on divorce, and if He had not used eij before mh; then the translation would be: “Now I say to you that who, for instance, may have divorced his wife—not over fornication which bore the death penalty—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.”
The overwhelming textual evidence supports the second choice, which means that from the time the Reformation Churches broke away from the Roman Catholic church in the sixteenth
century, the Protestant denominations have been teaching the opposite to what the Head of the Church taught His apostles. Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been saying the same thing all along.
There never had been an exception to Jesus’ teaching of ‘No divorce for any cause,’ not even for fornication or adultery.
with
Jennifer McWhorter Mulkey,
Cheryl Daniel Kip Williams L. Carlton Walker-Cross
===================
Sharon FitzHenry
Dr. McFall proved that Erasmas inserted an exception for divorce, not originally there.
The result is that today we are living out the legacy of their error, and most Christians are content to retain Erasmus’s new doctrine because so many relatives and friends have fallen for it, and they are not prepared to give up being a disciple of Erasmus, to follow Christ Jesus, who will not tolerate any remarriages after a divorce.
Jesus did not come to re educate the fallen mind of man, nor did He come to bring out the best in human nature, nor did He come with a new philosophy. He came to destroy fallen, human nature, to destroy fallen, human knowledge, to destroy fallen, human ethics, and everything else that belongs to fallen human beings, because nothing ‘human’ will enter the Kingdom of God. Unless a person dies to self and crucifies all that is human in their fallen, human nature they cannot move forward to receive the Spirit of Christ, and without the Spirit of Christ, no such person will enter the Kingdom of God. The word ‘death’ must be written over fallen, human nature, and this truth be lived out as a reality, if we are to receive a new nature, a new heart, a new spirit, a new mind, and for all things to become new. Those who counsel divorce to Christians are still living within their old nature, and operating out of that old nature, while professing to have the new nature of Christ. They have not known a born again experience, nor known the transforming change that Christ brings. They are still strangers to these spiritual experiences, yet profess to be mature Christian marriage counsellors. These counsellors are cute enough to know how to avoid being caught out and will indulge in smooth talk, seeming to teach Christ’s doctrine of full forgiveness for all sins, but really pandering to human common sense, if the wrongdoer does not want forgiveness. Both Jesus and Stephen unilaterally forgave their murderers.
