THE MATTHEW EXCEPTION FOR DIVORCE IS NO REMARRIAGE AT ALL
I will prove, using logic and reason that the Matthew exception commonly used to justify divorce and remarriage in cases of moral uncleanness is no exception at all because it leads to an absurdum.
The premise of the argument, that I will disprove in this lecture, maintains that the clause “except it be for fornication”, that is found in the Gospel of Matthew, is correctly interpreted to mean that the innocent spouse in a marriage has the scriptural right to divorce the offending spouse and marry another, if the offending spouse is guilty of some sexual misconduct. This sexual misconduct is referred to as adultery, is seen as ‘grounds’ for divorce in this school of Christianity, and allows the innocent party to marry someone else.
First of all, we need to understand that no unstated assumptions may be used in a proof; therefore, I will state the assumptions that I am making, as well as define my terms.I am assuming that the reader has some idea of the various classes of truths.
In particular, I am referring to truths that need no proof and truths that need proof. I stated at the beginning of my lecture that I would prove, using logic and reason, that the Matthew exception, which is commonly used to justify divorce and remarriage in cases of moral uncleanness, is no exception at all because it leads to an absurdum. I intend to prove this to the reader as a truth. This is a truth that needs proof. But before I do this, I must remind the reader of some self-evident truths of reason that need no proof, as well as bring to your attention some basic rules of reasoning that every rational being has.
In particular, the self-evident truths of reason that I am speaking of are those, which all sane men must affirm to be truth when they are presented to the mind and understood. The mathematical axioms and principles of science belong to this class of truths. And I would like to take advantage of some of the principles of informal logic commonly used in mathematics to help illustrate my point and ultimately prove my point; namely, contra-positive logic and negation. After these self-evident truths of reason are understood, they can then be used to prove a truth, which needs proof. And this is exactly what I intend to do with this lecture. I will begin by discussing theorems and proofs, and then define some terms.
A THEOREM is a conditional statement of the form:
If (hypothesis), than (conclusion).
The hypothesis implies the conclusion in this statement. We can denote the hypothesis by H, the conclusion by C, and ‘implies’ by the symbol -->.
We can now represent our statement thus: H --> C
FOR EXAMPLE:
If H is the statement,
(I will read this lecture).
And C is the statement,
(I will understand what it says).
Than H --> C means:
IF I will read this lecture,
THAN I will understand what it says.
A PROOF can be defined as a series of statements, each of which are justified, which leads to the desired conclusion.
NEGATION
If S is any statement,
then the negation of S is denoted by ~ S.
If S is the statement, “Johnny is a sinner”.
Then ~S is the statement, “Johnny is a saint”.
Applying the logic of negation to our example: H -->C:
The statement ~ (H --> C) means the same as H & ~ C,
or, H and the negation of C.
If (H --> C) is the statement:
(If I will read this lecture
than I will understand what it says),
Then ~ (H --> C) would mean:
(I will read this lecture
and I will not understand what it says).
CONTRA-POSITIVE LOGIC
Contra-positive logic dictates that my statement
H --> C has the logical equivalent ~ C --> ~ H,
and that they are logically equivalent to each other. This can be stated thus:
(H --> C) <----> (~ C --> ~ H)
Applying contra-positive logic to our example would result in the following two statements being equivalent to each other:
(If I will read this lecture than I will understand what it says). <----> (If I do not understand what it says than I have not read the lecture).
ABSURDUM
An absurdum is a statement that is a contradiction. It is a conjunction of a statement S with the negation of S, and can be denoted thus:
(S & ~ S).
If S is the statement, (Johnny is a sinner). Than ~S would be the statement, (Johnny is a saint).
An absurdum would be (Johnny is a sinner and Johnny is a saint).
I will now begin by focusing on the words of Jesus Christ found in the
Gospel of Matthew.
MATTHEW 19:9
“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,”
This is the verse most often appealed to by those seeking to justify divorce and remarriage. The popular interpretation of this verse permits the innocent party in a marriage to divorce their spouse if they are guilty of adultery, and then allows the innocent party to marry another. Applying this interpretation, we could paraphrase the verse thus:
And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, (if it is not for fornication that he puts her away), and marries another, commits adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
For example, Joseph marries Mary. Mary has sexual relations with another man. Joseph finds out about it and divorces Mary. Joseph then marries Barbie. According to this school of thought, Joseph and Barbie are justified in God’s sight, and their marriage is Holy. Mary then marries Barabbas. Not so good for Mary and Barabbas. They are in adultery. If I understand them correctly, this is what is believed by the proponents of this doctrine.
What I would like to do now is examine the words of Christ found in
Matthew 5:32.
MATTHEW 5:32
“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Here again we find Jesus discussing the issue of marriage and divorce. However, if we apply the exception clause the same way we did in Matthew 19:9 we encounter insurmountable difficulties. As a matter of fact, I contend that if we interpret this scripture the way the proponents of the Matthew exception for remarriage theology would have us, it results in an absurdum.
This is the main focus of this lecture, to expose this so-called Matthew exception for remarriage as no exception at all, by showing that this interpretation of scripture leads to an absurdum, and therefore cannot be the correct interpretation at all; furthermore, if it does not hold true in Matthew 5:32, than it does not hold true in Matthew 19:9 either. Let us now apply this interpretation of scripture to Matthew 5:32 and paraphrase it thus:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, (unless it is for fornication that he puts her away), causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Let’s look closely at this situation and see if this is in fact what Jesus was saying:
What we have here is an, IF (this) THEN (that) statement, which is qualified by a negated prepositional phrase, or an ‘unless’ statement. If a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery, unless something else happens first, namely her fornication, which negates the original statement.
For example: Applying contra-positive logic and negation to our scenario:
Joseph marries Mary. Joseph divorces Mary. Mary marries Barabbas. Mary and Barabbas are in adultery.
Joseph marries Mary. Mary commits ‘fornication’. Joseph finds out about it and divorces Mary. Mary marries Barabbas. Mary and Barabbas ARE NOT in adultery. Does something seem wrong with this scenario to you? I hope so. It’s absurd! But this is exactly what we must believe Jesus is teaching if we accept the Matthew exception for remarriage theology.
Once again, if we apply the Matthew exception for remarriage theology to Matthew 5:32 we get the two following possible scenarios:
DIVORCE + ~ (FORNICATION) = ADULTERY
DIVORCE + (FORNICATION) = ~ (ADULTERY)
According to the Matthew exception for remarriage theology, if Joseph and Mary are joined in Holy Matrimony, and then Mary commits ‘fornication’ after they are married and is then divorced by Joseph, she does not commit adultery when she marries another man! However, if she is divorced as an innocent spouse, and marries another man, she is in adultery. This represents God as rewarding the guilty. One would have to abandon all reason in order to believe this. All of scripture represents God as opposing sin. This theory represents God as rewarding sin. (God opposes sin & God rewards sin).
This is an absurdum.
In order to maintain any consistency between the divorce sayings of Matthew 19:9 and 5:32, the prepositional phrase that appears in both of these verses is either an ‘unless’ statement that qualifies both verses as IF (this) THAN (that) statements, or it is not a prepositional phrase at all and must be interpreted in some other way. If Matthew 19:9 is in fact an IF (this) THAN (that) statement, and the fornication clause is a negated prepositional phrase that qualifies when a man is entitled to divorce and remarry, then the fornication clause in Matthew 5:32 should be interpreted in the same way. We have seen, however, that to interpret Matthew 5:32 in this way is manifestly absurd.
The only way for the advocates of the Matthew exception for remarriage theology to alleviate this difficultly is to insist that although Matthew 19:9 is an IF (this) THAN (that) statement, which is qualified by the fornication clause acting as a prepositional phrase, Matthew 5:32 is not. They insist that Matthew 5:32 doesn’t say anything directly about the guilt or innocence of the woman in question, but only addresses the conditions under which the husband would be guilty of causing his wife to commit adultery.
The woman in question is guilty either way. However, what our ‘matthew exceptionaries’ would have us believe next cannot bear the weight of their argument. Not only is the man not guilty of causing his wife’s subsequent marriage to be adulterous by divorcing her, because she is already guilty of commiting the sin against himself while they were still married; but they also insist that in the case of the wife who commits adultery, the husband is then free to marry another because the wife’s fornication breaks the marriage bond between them. But if this is true, then why is his wife’s subsequent marriage adulterous??
Ladies and gentlemen, the only way her subsequent marriage could be adultery, is if her first vow was still in effect. This means her husband is still married to her. Now, he goes off and contracts another marriage, with God’s blessing? He’s married to two women at the same time! This represents God as advocating bigamy. Once again we have an absurdum.
SUMMARY:
If adultery is defined as extra-marital sexual activity, and fornication as it is used in Matthew 5:32 is defined as sexual activity within the marriage bond; then we are left with having to interpret the verse as allowing a man to divorce his wife if she is guilty of sexual misconduct within the marriage bond, but not allowing him to contract another marriage, as well as forbidding the marriage of a divorced woman.
Any other interpretation leads to an absurd statement. It either represents God as rewarding the guilty, or it represents Him as advocating bigamy.
I have now proven, using logic and reason, that the Matthew exception commonly used to justify divorce and remarriage in cases of moral uncleanness is no exception at all, because it leads to an absurdum.
ALTERNATIVE THEOLOGY CONSIDERED
Consider with me the possibility that the answer to the question for which we are seeking cannot be found in the verses in question, for they do not address the situation we have been considering, but something altogether different.
When Matthew 5:32 is put in its proper relation to surrounding scripture, we begin to get a clear picture of what Jesus Christ was teaching. Christ begins His reference to sexual sin in His Sermon on The Mount at verse 27, and continues on through verse 32.
MATTHEW 5:27 – 32
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
In these verses we have Christ’s reference to sexual sin in His Sermon on The Mount. He begins in verse 27 by referring to the seventh commandment. He then goes on to insist that a man is guilty of violating the spirit of the seventh commandment if he just looks at a woman to lust after her. He then calls for a higher standard of righteousness.
We then see Christ addressing the Mosaic divorce precept. Now let us consider verse 32. Christ represents, once again, a situation in which a man is guilty of violating the seventh commandment; it is when he divorces his wife, or marries a woman that has been divorced. Christ indicts the man with causing his wife to commit adultery when she takes her bill of divorcement and goes and contracts another marriage. He is seen as putting the whole onus on the man for forcing her into a marriage that she would almost of necessity have had to contract in her present situation. Christ is attacking the bill of divorcement itself. In effect, He is saying that it is an adulterous thing to do. Now, the fornication clause contained in this verse is an exception for when divorce is not adulterous, and nothing more.
So here we see Christ teaching something that violates the seventh commandment that his listening audience would have never even considered; lust, unwarranted divorce and marrying a divorced woman.
Now someone will then ask why divorce is wrong if it is not always adulterous.
We must look to Matthew chapter 19 for the answer...
MATTHEW 19: 3-9
3 The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 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.
In these verses the Pharisees are seen tempting Jesus by asking Him if divorce is lawful. The principle point in discussion here is about divorce, and if Christ would permit it, nothing more. Christ responds by declaring the marriage bond to be indissoluble. The Pharisees then appeal to Moses’ divorce precept in an attempt to justify divorce. Jesus then rebuffs their appeal to the law as little more than a concession for their hardheartedness.
So now we clearly see that divorce is wrong because Jesus said divorce was wrong. And He makes reference to His Father’s original intention in Genesis chapter 2 as the reason why: The two become one flesh and are no more twain.
And then in verse 9 we see Christ saying:
9 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.
Here Matthew’s author represents Christ as restating what He had said in chapter 5:32, that unwarranted divorce, as well as marrying a divorced woman, is an adulterous thing to do. He then adds to this scope in Mathew 19:9, to include the man who marries another to be an adulterer as well.
Let us pull these Matthew scriptures
side by side for a moment:
MATTHEW 5:32 & MATTHEW 19:9
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
9 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.
It is a common literary technique of Matthew to mention a topic twice. This is can be seen throughout his Gospel with other topics as well. The divorce pericopae fits this pattern. I think it is important to recognize that Matthew anticipated his latter material in the present passage of 5:32. He seems to intend that the reader understand 19:9 in light of 5:32, as a continuation of his thoughts.
In Matthew 5:32 Christ is seen as indicting a man with causing his wife’s adultery after an unwarranted divorce.
In Matthew 19:9 Christ is seen as indicting the man himself with adultery after the unwarranted divorce of his wife.
If a man is guilty of causing his wife to commit adultery, than he is just as guilty of her sin as if he were to do it himself. This is perfectly legitimate grammatically to interpret verse 19:9 in this way with the exception phrase located where it is in the sentence. The exception applies only to the first conditional phrase, ‘put away his wife’, as it does in 5:32, and not to the second conditional phrase, ‘shall marry another’. The exception clause does not have a verb, so the one in the first conditional phrase just preceding it supplies the verb.
This would be interpreted as – Whosoever shall put away his wife, if it is not for fornication that he puts her away, commits adultery. This is consistent with Christ’s words in 5:32, where he is seen as condemning unwarranted divorce as adulterous.
The second conditional phrase, as well as the first, is governed by the word whosoever.
This would be interpreted as – Whosoever shall marry another commiteth adultery. This would represent Christ as forbidding polygamy, and it the only interpretation of these verses that I am aware of that does so. A man is guilty of adultery if he marries another, whether he divorces his wife first or not.
The exception clause does not apply to the second conditional phrase, ‘shall marry another’. If it did it would have come after both conditional phrases.
The second part of verse, 19 (b), represents Christ as forbidding the marriage of a divorced woman, just as he did in Matthew 5:32 (b).
SUMMARY:
Now, let me just summarize this part of the lecture by saying that for the advocates of the Matthew exception for remarriage theology to insist that Christ was forbidding ‘divorce and remarriage’ in His interaction with the Pharisees in Matthew 19:9, is to represent Him as denying them something that they would not have even understood. This is a concept that would have been foreign to the Jewish man. He would have never conceived of having to divorce his wife so that he could then ‘remarry’ someone else. Why would he? A Jewish man could have as many wives as he could afford. The subject of ‘divorce and remarriage’ as we understand it today, was not even in the scope of the conversation. The whole passage is in response to a question concerning divorce, and when ’it’ is wrong. And the exception is only concerning when divorce is not adulterous, just as it was in Matthew 5:32, nothing more.
With a proper understanding of the divorce sayings, Christ is seen as condemning unwarranted divorce, polygamy, and marriage after divorce, all in one fell swoop.
Now, the application of the fornication clause is seen to make exception for when divorce is not adulterous. This we have clearly proven. The only thing that yet remains is to interpret the clause itself. And upon careful study, we realize that Christ’s exception for when divorce is not adulterous is when a betrothed wife is divorced for the cause of fornication.
Interpreting the clause in this way eliminates the absurdum that results when Matthew 5:32 is viewed as an IF (this) THAN (that) statement.
When Matthew 19:9 is interpreted as an IF (this) THAN (that) statement, and the fornication clause as a negated prepositional phrase that qualifies when divorce is not adulterous, then the fornication clause in Matthew 5:32 can be interpreted in the same way as well.
Matthew 5:32 can then be revealed as the IF (this) THAN (that) statement that it truly is:
Whosoever divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery, unless it is his betrothed wife, than he does not cause her to commit adultery because she does not commit the sin. There is no one-flesh bond to violate between her and her betrothed husband. If she were to marry someone else in the future, provided she could find an understanding husband, the man who divorced her would not be guilty of causing her to commit adultery. This is all Christ was saying, and all else is a bugbear.
Furthermore, all of the confusion concerning the second part of these verses is eliminated as well. The prepositional phrase qualifies both Matthew 5:32 (b) and 19:9 (b) also.
THE BETROTHAL PERIOD OF ENGAGEMENT
What I would like to do now is consider the betrothal period of engagement within Jewish culture and its application to the interpretation of the fornication clause contained in the Gospel of Matthew. In order to get a clear picture of what Matthew’s author is representing Jesus as having said in His divorce sayings, one need only refer to Matthew 1: 18-20.
MATTHEW 1: 18-20
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publik example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Notice the angel of the Lord referred to Joseph and Mary as husband and wife, even they were only espoused, or ‘engaged’. This is something that was peculiar to Jewish culture. And it is peculiar to Matthew’s Gospel as well, which gives us a clue as to how the fornication clause should be interpreted. The Jewish couple was betrothed to each other, after which they would then be considered husband and wife, with the marriage ceremony and consummation of the vow to take place sometime later, usually after a year.
For a man to relieve himself of his betrothal commitment would require a legal divorce in Jewish culture. During this time if it were discovered that the damsel of Israel was not a virgin, she would be stoned to death at the door of her father’s house. Joseph and Mary faced this very dilemma. Joseph, however, was referred to as a ‘just’ man for deciding to put Mary away privately for the cause of fornication.
Could the exception that Christ made for divorce,
have been for the situation of His parents…
The cause of fornication was something that was clearly established in the law. And any discussion concerning the divorce of a husband and wife would most assuredly include the betrothed husband and wife. This is what we see in Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, when he references Moses’ divorce legislation, and then makes an exception for when divorce would not be adulterous.
And when the Pharisees are seen coming to tempt Christ in Matthew 19, once again the fornication clause is included. If it were not, then the Pharisees could have accused Christ of swindling the family of the young Jewish man out of their dowry monies, by requiring the man to marry the damsel of Israel who had misrepresented herself during the betrothal period, but was a fornicator instead.
The Pharisees were constantly looking for occasion to discredit Jesus. They even went so far as to accuse Him of being a bastard, in a backhanded kind of way, when they insisted that they were not born on fornication (but He of course was). They had been familiar with Mary’s situation, and certainly weren’t convinced of His virgin birth. They would go on to say that His father must have been a devil possessed Samaritan, and that so was He. And not being able to receive His Divinity, they would eventually try to stone Him. But Jesus hid Himself, in their very midst, and so passed by.
FINAL CONCLUSION
Recognizing the Jewishness of Matthew’s Gospel is key to understanding the divorce sayings. It provides an adequate explanation of not only the fornication clause itself, but also the absence of the clause in the divorce sayings of the other Gospels. The Gospels of Mark and Luke record the divorce sayings of Christ as well; however, the fornication clause is curiously omitted from both of these Gospels.
Now whether Matthew added it for clarity to his listening audience, or Mark and Luke omitted it, the result is the same. Mark and Luke were written to the Romans and the Greeks respectively, and it was not necessary to include the exception because it didn’t apply in their culture. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, this is why the fornication clause is mentioned there.
The Marriage Bond is a Sacrament. It is Indissoluble.
If you have remarried and you have a living spouse, you’re in adultery and you need to repent.
Confess your adulterous marriage as sinful and forsake it.
Bishop’s bold statement halts ‘blasphemous’ rosary for gay ‘marriage’
inside cathedral.
Please take note of the fact this Bishop MUST make an appeal to the Holy Bible to justify refusing to allow sodomites and their sympathizers into his Cathedral. Why is this? Because Holy Matrimony is outside the scope of his authority, that's why. And he knows it. The Church can only be a witness to the Sacrament of Marriage. This is unique in the Sacramental life of the Church and Her members.
This is an important distinction to make here. The Scripture alone upholds the indissolubility of the Marriage Bond; if the Scripture cannot be used in defense of Creation, than it cannot be used in defense of Marriage either. Jesus meant what He said, and said what He meant.
The Marriage Bond is indissoluble.
This is not just an ideal to be lived up to. It is a fact of nature just as sure as the 6 days of Creation.
Divorce and remarriage is adultery. Read it and weep...
Christ was conceived under the most unusual of circumstances to the modern reader. Peculiar to Jewish custom was the betrothal period of engagement. No other culture practiced it in this way because it developed as a direct result of Abraham’s God and His influence in his future generations. We can see it clearly, contained in the account of Genesis if looked for carefully. We see evidence of it throughout Old Testament Scripture – The Betrothal.
The betrothal period of engagement is interwoven into the tapestry of the creation account as an expression of the Divine Nature. And we see it manifested through the marriage of Saint Mary and Joseph, King of a new Kingdom on earth....
The important thing to understand here is that God is a God of the Supernatural. The family is the Domestic Church. This authority comes from God alone without any Priest or Pope.
Saint Paul hearkens back to the Genesis account of Creation to describe the relationship between Christ and His Church. For “this cause” he says. What cause? For the establishment of the Sacrament of Marriage, for without it there is no Catholic Religion!
If Matthew 19:6-9 and Mark 10:6-9 are trustworthy and demonstrate a fact of nature, then so does the Genesis account of Creation found in Genesis Chapters One through Three.
If praying for same-sex marriage in the Cathedral is blasphemous and people who do it will not be allowed in the Temple of God's Cathedral... ~ Bishop Thomas Paprocki
Then what makes you think that evolution isn't just as blasphemous and that "heliocentrists" should be allowed in the Temple of God's Creation…?
GENESIS 3:15 is often referred to as:
"THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OR "FIRST GOSPEL"
I am convinced that Genesis 2:24 is a foreshadowing of the marriage between Saint Mary and Her Joseph, just as sure as Genesis 3:15 is where we see Christ and His Mary.
Genesis 2:24 is a foreshadowing of the marriage between Saint Mary and Her Joseph,
just as sure as
Genesis 3:15 is where we see Christ and His Mary.
Genesis 2:24 can be referred to as:
"THE 'PROTOMARITO' OR 'FIRST MARRIAGE'" ~ RbM
For more of this, please see www.rescuedbymary.blogspot.com
Point is - The Scripture is trustworthy and must be relied upon by the Church to establish what is Truth in Holy Matrimony...
God Created the world and He did it in Six days. Furthermore, Eve was created from the rib of Adam. These are both facts of nature. The Six days of Creation include the Creation of Adam and Eve.You cannot hold to the one and reject the other without tearing asunder the tapestry of the Creation account itself.
To reject a supernatural Six Day Creation is to reject the Indissolubility and Sacramental Nature of Marriage. Christ Himself hearkened back to the Creation account of His Father contained in the book of Genesis to establish and raise Marriage to the level of a Sacrament. He certainly intended the Sacramental One-Flesh Nature of the Marriage Bond to be a Fact of Nature; and to attempt to tear it away from within the Creation account, in which it is found, is to deform the beautiful tapestry of Creation that we see revealed in the Genesis account. Pull this one thread and it all begins to unravel. Pull this one thread and it all comes undone...
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
RbM
