{"id":8592,"date":"2018-01-04T02:52:08","date_gmt":"2018-01-04T02:52:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8592"},"modified":"2018-01-18T13:12:19","modified_gmt":"2018-01-18T13:12:19","slug":"the-gospel-according-to-david-servant-versus-we-of-the-divine-divorce-doctrine-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/2018\/01\/the-gospel-according-to-david-servant-versus-we-of-the-divine-divorce-doctrine-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Gospel According to David Servant (versus We of the “Divine Divorce Doctrine”) – Part 3A"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=8768\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-8768\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-8768\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/FakeJesus.png?resize=474%2C858&ssl=1\" alt=\"FakeJesus\" width=\"474\" height=\"858\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/FakeJesus.png?w=1348&ssl=1 1348w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/FakeJesus.png?resize=166%2C300&ssl=1 166w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/FakeJesus.png?resize=768%2C1390&ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/FakeJesus.png?resize=566%2C1024&ssl=1 566w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/FakeJesus.png?w=948&ssl=1 948w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 474px) 100vw, 474px\" \/><\/a>by Standerinfamilycourt<\/p>\n<p>I<strong>\u2019m Living in an Ongoing State of Legalized Adultery with Somebody Else\u2019s Spouse. \u00a0 Can I Get Away With It?<\/strong><br \/>\nWe have been responding to the 3-part blog series by David Servant called, <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.davidservant.com\/im-divorced-and-remarried-am-i-living-in-adultery-part-3\/\" target=\"_blank\"><em>“I’m Divorced and Remarried. \u00a0 Am I Living in Adultery?”<\/em><\/a> \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong> This appears to be the final installment.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him. \u00a0<\/em><\/strong> – Proverbs 18:17<\/p>\n<p>It seems that Part 3 continues David Servant’s parade of slander and emotion, conflation of issues, convenient redefinition of terms, and paucity of consistent hermeneutic principles, while making a very shallow pretense at the latter for the sake of appearances. \u00a0 And then there’s the<em> ad-hominem<\/em> again, a telltale sign of a leaking and empty truth bucket.\u00a0 All reliable writings, books and blogs, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=1756\">going back to at least 1957 <\/a>on this topic rigorously apply hermeneutical principles in a comprehensive and disciplined way that accounts for <em>all five<\/em> minimum elements: \u00a0 <strong>Content, Context, Culture, Comparison and Consultation<\/strong>. \u00a0\u00a0 See our blog series,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=4327\" target=\"_blank\"><strong><em> “Stop Abusing Scripture:\u00a0 Debunk Series”<\/em> <\/strong><\/a>for a fuller discussion and application of these principles to the most commonly abused scriptures in the MDR Christian culture wars.<\/p>\n<p>Heretical arguments invariably fail in at least two of these five principles, most commonly: some combination of Context, Comparison and Consultation. \u00a0 When these highly critical pieces of examination are omitted, it’s usually because the author either doesn’t know what he or she is doing, or because the author knows that\u00a0 doing so will immediately expose their theory as insupportable.\u00a0 We pointed out in our Part 2 rebuttal that David Servant even went so far as to <em>deride<\/em> the rigorous application of the Context principle, complaining about those who would take care to rightly-divide the verb tenses Jesus used in some of His more controversial teachings, and he went even further, to claim that it’s “unnecessary” to validate the translation of the Greek words in a given passage. \u00a0 <em>Pardon us<\/em>!<\/p>\n<p>For those who have read <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8216\" target=\"_blank\">Part 1<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8296\" target=\"_blank\">Part 2 <\/a>of our rebuttals to David Servant’s earlier installments,\u00a0 this response will seem pretty repetitive due to Servant’s redundant and circular claims. \u00a0\u00a0 Points 1 through 5 raise no new substantive issues, and we will mostly be referring back to the earlier rebuttal points, while hoping to\u00a0 have the luxury of being a bit briefer in addressing these repackaged “points”. \u00a0 <em>(How well satan knows that if a lie is repeated frequently enough, there are some who will begin to accept it as “true”.) \u00a0<\/em><br \/>\nWe defer Servant’s Points 6,\u00a0 7 and 8 to our<a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8900\" target=\"_blank\"> Part 3B<\/a> rebuttal, to follow,\u00a0 because we cannot effectively address these in this same blog post without the length becoming more than most readers will be attentive to. \u00a0 These last three points we’ll deal with next time do raise some arguments that he did not raise in his Parts 1 and 2.<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.davidservant.com\/im-divorced-and-remarried-am-i-living-in-adultery-part-3\/\" target=\"_blank\">Part 3 blog<\/a> links to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MarriagePermanence\/?hc_ref=ARRvzl8qt-FJlI5dw76mpkRbgd3pSGj9Z7vwrMOUk26rYyaU6fpZkysCXp6oJ3ncvyY&fref=nf&hc_location=group\" target=\"_blank\">Mennonite lady’s testimony<\/a>, where Servant inaccurately charges that she was influenced by a slick\u00a0 “cult” to abandon her adulterous remarriage, while she clearly testifies that she was led by the Holy Spirit over a course of four years after her regeneration, and she came to conviction purely as a result of deeply studying a book that is ALIVE . \u00a0 Servant’s ploy, as usual, is emotionalism without examining the facts, including what came out of this lady’s own mouth. \u00a0\u00a0 Oh the emotional punch of the melodrama of appealing to a vivid Hollywood kidnapping scene! \u00a0\u00a0 Did Servant bother to contact and interview her before he publicly slandered her?<br \/>\n(Yes, this repenter’s Mennonite church probably was of some influence in her decision to exit the legalized adultery she was living in. \u00a0 Some churches actually <em>do<\/em> still succeed in discipling their members, believe it or not. \u00a0 However, such people don’t tend to make these radical repentance decisions impulsively, and they usually do not make them primarily under anyone else’s influence.) \u00a0 Repenting prodigals with watching family members\u00a0 <em>study to show themselves approved<\/em>, as we are all commanded to do, \u00a0 but apparently this is unlike Mr. Servant’s practices, judging from the shallowness and redundancy of the eight arguments he offers below, and the canned liberal bible commentary that he passes off as more “authoritative” than the straightforward words that actually crossed the lips of Jesus and of Paul on a repeated basis. \u00a0\u00a0 The perennial serpent’s question has always been, <em>“Did God REALLY say?”<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Servant charges:<br \/>\n<em>“Those people <\/em>[<strong>SIFC:<\/strong> those of us who believe that God-joined covenant holy matrimony is always indissoluble except by death]<em> are not your friends, as you will soon discover if you tell them you have changed your mind about Divine Divorce. They will ostracize you, as <strong>all cults<\/strong> do as a means of controlling their members. They will also tell you that you are going to hell. But God is for you. Your life, and perhaps even your marriage, can be restored to what He intended, because His mercy and grace are more than sufficient to restore all that Satan, through Divine Divorce Doctrine, has stolen from you. God is good, and His mercies are new every morning.”<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:<\/strong>\u00a0 The usual understanding of what constitutes a “cult” necessarily hinges on who Jesus is to the “cult members” and how closely they adhere to His authority. \u00a0\u00a0 If the <em>authentic<\/em> Jesus is your cult leader, then that’s a <em>good<\/em> thing, and Servant’s cheap slur becomes quite the compliment. \u00a0 \u00a0 Below, in contrast, we will see <em>David Servant’s<\/em> “Jesus” painted as some sort of Mosaic rubber-stamper who is so schizophrenic that He then turned right around and delivered the sermon on the mount.<\/p>\n<p>God is “for us”, indeed, but <em><strong>not<\/strong> for our immoral relationships<\/em> that will keep us out of the kingdom of God. \u00a0 \u00a0 Both “mercy” and “grace” are effectively <em>the opposite<\/em> if they are only based on temporal comforts, instead of eternal destinies.<\/p>\n<p>Servant has an extremely poor conception of how a person comes to conviction and repentance from a life of coveting, stealing and committing adultery with the God-joined spouse of another living person. \u00a0 We “cultists” seem to be given tremendous credit that is solely owed to the indwelling Holy Spirit, and we simply cannot accept what’s <em>not due us<\/em>! \u00a0 We’re there to answer the hard questions, sure, and point them in the direction of the necessary scholarship, and to pray for them. \u00a0\u00a0 We <em>“control”<\/em> nobody during any phase of the process. \u00a0\u00a0 Most such repentance occurs long before such a person seeks to join our support community, in the majority of cases. \u00a0 The concept David Servant seems to be consistently tone-deaf on is that the real Jesus expects obedience to come from each disciple’s heart, not from any external factors.\u00a0 On the flip side, those who are unilaterally “divorced” by a prodigal spouse and choose to stand celibate until God removes the satan-dispatched rival (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A11&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">1 Cor. 7:11)<\/a>, do tend to join the support communities early in the process, and often (speaking of “control” and “ostracism”), because that <em>no-brainer<\/em> decision to obey to God’s clear, explicit instruction causes them to be treated like pariahs in their own church, by the threatened who are living immoral lives, and in too many tragic cases, doing so from behind the pulpit.<\/p>\n<p>All that said, there’s no doubt the man Paul refers to in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=1+Corinthians+5&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">1 Corinthians 5 <\/a>felt pretty “ostracized” and “controlled” when he was put out of the church, and turned over to satan in the hopes that his soul might be ultimately saved. \u00a0\u00a0 What a <em>controlling<\/em> thing to say, that <em>“a little leaven leavens the whole lump”!<\/em> \u00a0\u00a0 Some “friend” Paul was! \u00a0\u00a0 He was so “cultish” that he urged the whole church “<em>not to even eat with such”<\/em>. \u00a0 \u00a0 After all, what this man was doing was most likely <em>legal<\/em> under Greek civil law. \u00a0 \u00a0 Yet Paul knew that the “mercies that are new every morning”\u00a0 <em>never<\/em> extended to continuing, unrepented sin under the higher kingdom of God standards, or there would have been no need to turn the man over to satan through excommunication, as he did.<\/p>\n<p>As for telling people they are going to hell, let’s please make that, “if they do not repent.” \u00a0\u00a0 Thanks to the blood of Jesus, nobody goes to hell for the act of legalizing an immoral relationship. \u00a0 They go to hell for continuing in it until they die. \u00a0\u00a0 That’s because a jealous God will allow no idols to compete with Him for worship. \u00a0\u00a0 Found a mere nine verses below <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Luke+16%3A18&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">Luke 16:18 <\/a>is this cry from the pit of hell as described by the mouth of Jesus:<\/p>\n<p><span id=\"en-NASB-25648\" class=\"text Luke-16-27\"><span class=\"woj\"><sup class=\"versenum\">\u00a0<em><strong>“<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><em><strong>And he said, \u2018Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father\u2019s house\u2014<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/span><em><strong> f<span id=\"en-NASB-25649\" class=\"text Luke-16-28\"><span class=\"woj\">or I have five brothers\u2014in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment. \u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/em><span id=\"en-NASB-25649\" class=\"text Luke-16-28\"><span class=\"woj\">–\u00a0 Luke 16:27-28<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>If Jesus didn’t think it was a “stretch” to link His no-excuses prohibition against taking another spouse (while being inseverably joined in the state of <em>sarx mia<\/em> to an estranged covenant partner who has not died) to HIs own vivid description of what happens to <em>all who live as if this world is all there is<\/em>,\u00a0 why are supposedly God-fearing evangelicals surprised or offended to hear<a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=+1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10%3B+Galatians+5%3A19-21%2C+Hebrews+13%3A4&version=KJV\" target=\"_blank\"> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21 and Hebrews 13:4<\/a> linked to<a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Luke+16%3A18&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\"> Luke 16:18<\/a> ? \u00a0\u00a0 For that matter, why is Servant offended at this? \u00a0\u00a0 Why are they not instead grateful for the existential warning? \u00a0 The carnal and spiritually-immature soul will claim that this, too, is “controlling” behavior. \u00a0 \u00a0 As we saw, Paul did not hesitate to warn of hell as a consequence of violating the holy matrimony covenant, but as we also saw, he did not preclude the possibility of physical repentance in the form of terminating the relationship, as the escape from hell. \u00a0 If one is going to be part of a\u00a0 “cult”, let our “cult” be the\u00a0 “<em>Christ-followers<\/em>” after our Cult Leader, and not the <em>“Erasmeans”<\/em> or the <em>“Lutherites”, or the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.holybibleprophecy.org\/2016\/09\/10\/hebrew-roots-heresies\/\" target=\"_blank\">“Moseans”<\/a><\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.holybibleprophecy.org\/2016\/09\/10\/hebrew-roots-heresies\/\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a0<\/a> — all of whom carnally reject Christ’s moral absolutes<em> .<\/em> \u00a0\u00a0 The original 1st century saints were all judged to be “cult members” for unanimously obeying Him in their own time, so it is a badge of honor to have that charge levelled at the covenant marriage indissolubility community by a self-proven church wolf.<\/p>\n<p>A final reminder before we dive into a detailed examination of all eight of Servant’s objections to obeying the straightforward commandment of Christ:\u00a0<strong> all<\/strong> civil divorce is <em>man-contrived<\/em> (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+19%3A8&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">Matthew 19:8<\/a>), and cannot, therefore, be called “divine” in any sense of the word. \u00a0 God’s “divorce” is <em>always<\/em> spelled D-E-A-T-H. \u00a0 \u00a0 He does not dabble in man’s moral fictions, not even on a part-time basis. \u00a0\u00a0 (If we must have a label in our support of those disciples who are forsaking immoral relationships, go ahead and call us “fundamentalists”, David.)<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p><strong>#1 of 8 \u00a0 Servant’s Arguments Against No-Excuses Indissolubitly of God-joined Holy Matrimony<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>“<em>They confuse God\u2019s original ideal\u2014a world without divorce and remarriage\u2014with reality, which is a world that is full of both.”<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a> \u00a0<strong> SIFC:\u00a0<\/strong> Our sovereign God is not some feckless wimp who has only “ideals”, “designs”, “bests”, “intentions” and so forth. \u00a0\u00a0 This milquetoast platitude has always been a figment of a liberal bible commentator’s imagination. \u00a0 He is the Creator, Ruler and <em>Judge<\/em> of all the Universe, and He deals in COMMANDMENTS. \u00a0 He requires holiness, without which He says none of us will see Him. \u00a0 His accommodation to the frailty of mankind <em>was Jesus<\/em>. \u00a0 He <em>need make<\/em> no further accommodation or allowances for those who find their excuses not to obey Jesus, including all those like David Servant, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.holybibleprophecy.org\/2016\/09\/10\/hebrew-roots-heresies\/\" target=\"_blank\">who stare wistfully back at Moses<\/a>, and long for the glory days of concurrent and serial polygamy for the far more reasonable price of a daily ritual animal sacrifice. \u00a0 \u00a0 To them,<strong><em> sacrifice is better than obedience<\/em><\/strong>, but unfortunately for them, that’s an option which is no longer the Divine Offer.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=4481\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-4481\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-4481\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?resize=474%2C282&ssl=1\" alt=\"RevAllWet7\" width=\"474\" height=\"282\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?w=928&ssl=1 928w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?resize=300%2C179&ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/RevAllWet7.png?resize=768%2C458&ssl=1 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 474px) 100vw, 474px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Refraining from murdering, raping, stealing, bearing false witness and coveting thy neighbor’s wife can all be said to be “ideals”, too. \u00a0 \u00a0 But they’re also COMMANDMENTS. \u00a0\u00a0 Just because these things are a “reality” doesn’t make it right for immoral governments to sanction them, and even worse, for God’s shepherds to appease and defend those immoral laws. \u00a0\u00a0 We surely don’t say, with regard to legal abortion or gay marriage or assisted suicide, that the church is confusing “<em>God’s original ideal<\/em>“, a world without abortion and gay marriage, with <em>“reality, which is a world full of both<\/em>“. \u00a0 No, we take a holy stand based on the higher authority of God word!<\/p>\n<p>God has repeatedly, in fact, shown that He is deadly-jealous of His sacred symbols, and arguably, the state of holy matrimony is the very first such symbol, one that weaves through virtually every book of the bible. \u00a0 If men died <em>instantly<\/em> just for touching the Ark of the Covenant, how much more is His wrath over nations and societies who have so little fear of Him that they misrepresent the Bridegroom as a serial polygamist, and who <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Malachi+2%3A13-15%2C+17&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">substitute illicit legalized relationships for fellowship with Him<\/a>? \u00a0 \u00a0 Is it any wonder, then that our western nations where church leadership are complicit with sequential polygamy are all overrun with the Assyria of rabid homofascism, and Persia of militant Islamism?<\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n“<em>To them, there have been no\u00a0actual\u00a0divorces, only fantasy divorces. And since there have been no actual divorces, neither have there been any\u00a0actual\u00a0remarriages either, but only fantasy remarriages. To a large degree, wedding ceremonies, vows, marriage certificates, witnesses, court records, name changes, and long-standing human relationships and interaction don\u2019t exist in this alternate reality. Millions of people are not actually married to people whom they think they are married to, people whom they live with and interact with every day as a husband or wife, often for decades and until death. Conversely, millions of people are actually married to people whom they think they are not married to, people whom they sometimes haven\u2019t seen for decades and who live hundreds of miles away. On top of this, millions of people have children whom they think are legitimate, but who are actually illegitimate children, the offspring of adultery.”<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:\u00a0<\/strong> To true citizens of the kingdom of God, the<em> actual<\/em> “alternate reality” is the one painted by the 16th century Reformers on a wave of “Christianized” humanism. \u00a0\u00a0 Humanism and discipleship have never been compatible with one another, because to take up one’s cross and follow Him is the very antithesis of the self-worship on which humanism is founded. \u00a0 These “Reformers” were just hypocritical enough to also look wistfully back at Moses, the more lenient “sheriff” when it came to sexual license, while illegitimately claiming the “grace” of the New Covenant, as if they could have it both ways. \u00a0 It was Luther who, frustrated with the lack of access to sanctioned divorce through the church, took what belonged exclusively to God and handed it over to Caesar. \u00a0\u00a0 The same character flaw in Luther also manifested itself in his penchant for anti-Semitism and Replacement Theology. \u00a0 \u00a0<strong><em> Luther’s\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>“Jesus” <em>replaces<\/em> His bride if she doesn’t toe the mark!\u00a0 (He’d rather have stoned her, but “defective” governments tend to frown on this.)<\/p>\n<p>Among the choicer of Luther’s recorded remarks:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cYou may ask: What is to become of the other [the guilty party] if he too is perhaps unable to lead a chaste life? Answer: It was for this reason that God commanded in the law [Deut. 22:22\u201324] that adulterers be stoned, that they might not have to face this question. The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death, for whoever commits adultery has in fact himself already departed and is considered as one dead. Therefore, the other [the innocent party] may remarry just as though his spouse had died, if it is his intention to insist on his rights and not show mercy to the guilty party. Where the government is negligent and lax, however, and fails to inflict the death penalty, the adulterer may betake himself to a far country and there remarry if he is unable to remain continent. But it would be better to put him to death, lest a bad example be set.\u00a0 Some may find fault with this solution and contend that thereby license and opportunity is afforded all wicked husbands and wives to desert their spouses and remarry in a foreign country. Answer: Can I help it? The blame rests with the government. Why do they not put adulterers to death? Then I would not need to give such advice. Between two evils one is always the lesser, in this case allowing the adulterer to remarry in a distant land in order to avoid fornication. And I think he would be safer also in the sight of God, because he has been allowed to live and yet is unable to remain continent. If others also, however, following this example desert their spouses, let them go. They have no excuse such as the adulterer has, for they are neither driven nor compelled. God and their own conscience will catch up to them in due time. Who can prevent all wickedness?\u201d<\/em> Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther’s Works, Vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1999, c1962 (Luther’s Works 45), S. 45:III33<\/p>\n<p>The kingdom of God has <em>always<\/em> been an “alternative reality” to those preferring to dwell outside of that Kingdom. \u00a0 \u00a0 They choose to dwell outside because a kingdom is a place where the King is OBEYED.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>THY kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.<br \/>\n<\/em><\/strong>– Matthew 6:10<\/p>\n<p>Servant parrots the humanism of Luther, not the holiness of Jesus<em>. \u00a0 The two are not even remotely compatible. \u00a0 <\/em>Humanism argues that all humans are entitled to a sexual relationship at all times because this is the only way (externally) to manage the flesh. \u00a0\u00a0 Following Christ demands that the flesh be crucified from within and that obedience come from an idol-free heart, and if obedience incurs suffering and character development, we are in the midst of a <em>great cloud of witnesses<\/em>.<em> \u00a0 (<\/em>For a fairly comprehensive collection the profoundly unscriptural quotes of the “Reformers” on divorce and remarriage, see pages 21-25 of the scholarly paper by Daniel R. Jennings, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.danielrjennings.org\/ThisHistoryOfChristianThoughtOnMarriageDivorceAndRemarriage.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">“The History Of Christian Thought Upon Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage”.<\/a>)<\/p>\n<p>Anyone who purports to fear God should take <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+19%3A6%2C8&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">Matthew 19:6 and 8 <\/a>as <em>explicitly<\/em> denying men any authority whatsoever to create, regulate or “dissolve” an unconditional covenant in which He tells us <strong>He remains a participant<\/strong>, in fact, <strong>one of the parties thereto<\/strong>. \u00a0 It is appalling, really, that Servant does not grasp this. \u00a0\u00a0 (More about God’s unconditional covenants is below, when Servant gets to that point in his arguments. ) \u00a0\u00a0 For now, let’s just note that in <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/interlinear\/matthew\/19-6.htm\" target=\"_blank\">verse 6<\/a>, when Jesus said “<em>let no man separate<\/em>“, the Greek texts reveal that He did not use the words <em>“<a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/andres_435.htm\" target=\"_blank\">andra”<\/a><\/em> nor <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/435.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><em>“aner”<\/em><\/a> here, as He could have if He were merely counseling <strong><em>a<\/em><\/strong> man, or the husband of what he “shouldn’t” do. \u00a0\u00a0 He instead used the word\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/444.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><em>anthr\u00f3pos, \u00a0 <\/em><\/a><em>in effect saying,\u00a0 “let no <strong>HUMAN<\/strong> put distance between [ <span class=\"translit\"><a title=\"ch\u014drizet\u014d: let separate\" href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/cho_rizeto__5563.htm\">ch\u014drizet\u014d<\/a><\/span>] ” <\/em>what God has <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/4801.htm\" target=\"_blank\">supernaturally joined<\/a><em>. \u00a0\u00a0 (<\/em>Let no human, <em>including Moses who was, after all, a human<\/em>, have <strong>any<\/strong> jurisdiction over what I claim as belonging to ME <em>exclusively<\/em>.)<br \/>\n<em><br \/>\n<\/em>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>That smiling Christian couple driving with their four children on their way to \u201cthat other church\u201d\u2026they aren\u2019t what they seem to be. They think they are going to heaven because they believe in Jesus and live their faith every day, but\u00a0actually\u00a0they are going to hell because they haven\u2019t divorced each other.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:<\/strong> That smiling Christian couple does not “<em>believe in Jesus<\/em>“, no matter how full is their evangelical mini-van, <em>unless<\/em> they practice studying His word, which couldn’t be more plain, even with the pervasive bible translation fraud that has been taking place over the past several decades, that their household is unlawfully-founded. \u00a0\u00a0 They will see quite clearly that man’s law cannot override God’s law, as these “smiling Christian families” are all very quick to see is the case <em>with homosexuals.\u00a0 <\/em>Even the most perverse and heathen CNN reporter saw this from just one night of reading the Gideon bible in the Kentucky hotel drawer when serial polygamist Kim Davis went to jail.<\/p>\n<p>Sad to say, it’s been consistently shown through reputable polling surveys that <em>said couple<\/em> rarely reads their bible for themselves, much less studies it deeply, nor toils to resolve any apparent conflicts which inevitably result from contemporary translation-tampering. \u00a0\u00a0 Instead, they rely on\u00a0 the “priestly class” to feed them (and preferably, to feed their flesh), as though they were themselves illiterate. \u00a0 Servant glibly terms it as “going to hell because they haven’t <em>‘divorced<\/em>‘ ” \u00a0\u00a0 If they read their bibles, they would plainly see that only death dissolves holy matrimony, and therefore, they are headed to hell with <em>someone else’s<\/em> spouse unless they cease and desist from breaking the 1st, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th commandments on a daily basis. \u00a0 Servant derides the biblical form of repentance from this (or any other sin) in his sarcasm, and treats them as though God’s messengers are their “judges”.<\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>May I first submit that something is indissoluble if it cannot be \u201cdissolved, loosened, or disconnected.\u201d The phrase \u201cone flesh\u201d carries no connotation of indissolubility. In fact, just the opposite is true. Husbands and wives are only \u201cone flesh\u201d during sexual intercourse. Only for a small part of their married lives are they \u201cone flesh.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:<\/strong>\u00a0 Servant is here conflating <strong><em>physical separation.<\/em><\/strong><em> that is, immoral abandonment<\/em> (the <span class=\"translit\"><strong><em><a title=\"ch\u014drizet\u014d: let separate\" href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/cho_rizeto__5563.htm\">ch\u014drizet\u014d <\/a><\/em><\/strong>that Jesus forbid by any human authority,\u00a0 the rebellion of which is <em>certainly<\/em> possible, as Servant points out) — with <strong><em>dissolution<\/em><\/strong> <em>of an unconditional covenant<\/em> to which God Himself is <em>and remains<\/em> a party. \u00a0 This man <em>cannot do<\/em>, for as long as God is God. \u00a0 The priest in Malachi 2 made the same false assumption that Servant makes here — and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Malachi+2%3A13-15&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">he found himself cut off from fellowship with God as a direct consequence of it.<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0 In rebuking this priest who had “divorced” the woman God joined him to, declaring that covenant “dissolved” to “marry” another — <em>without<\/em> that God-joining <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/sunezeuxen_4801.htm\" target=\"_blank\">(<strong><em>synezeuxen<\/em><\/strong>), <\/a>God tells him : “<strong><em>she IS<\/em><\/strong> (not “was”) <em><strong>the wife of your marriage covenant.”<\/strong> <\/em>\u00a0 \u00a0 Man says it’s legal, but God calls it an abomination that separates such people from Him until such time as there is repentance and restitution. \u00a0 Servant also confuses <em>“sarx mia”<\/em> with <em>“hen soma”<\/em> with his claim that that one-flesh relationship is only present during sexual intercourse. \u00a0\u00a0 We dealt in detail with this fallacy in Part 1, and we do so again immediately below.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>God\u2019s statement regarding husbands and wives becoming one flesh speaks of divinely-intended exclusivity of sex within marriage, not the indissolubility of marriage itself. Paul wrote that the man who joins himself to a prostitute, something forbidden by God, becomes \u201cone flesh\u201d with her (1 Cor. 6:16). Obviously, there is nothing indissoluble about the relationship of a man and a prostitute. In fact, all such relationships should be dissolved immediately.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:<\/strong> \u00a0 We have above established the untruth of this first sentence statement of Servant’s. \u00a0\u00a0 As in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8216\">Part 1<\/a>, we have shown conclusively that the supernaturally-created<em> sarx mia<\/em>\u00a0 one<strong>-flesh<\/strong> state differs from the <em>hen soma<\/em> (one <strong>body<\/strong>) man-joined counterfeit described by Paul in <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/interlinear\/1_corinthians\/6-16.htm\" target=\"_blank\">1 Cor. 6:16<\/a>, which he also contrasts with <em>sarx mia<\/em> at the end of that verse, before Paul goes on to speak only of <em>sarx mia<\/em> in Ephesians 5:31. \u00a0 \u00a0 Where there is no\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/sunezeuxen_4801.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><strong><em>synezeuxen<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, there can be no\u00a0<strong><em>sarx mia<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0\u00a0 By process of elimination, where there is no\u00a0\u00a0<em>sarx mia<\/em>, the joining is merely\u00a0<em>hen soma. \u00a0<\/em> There certainly<em> is<\/em> nothing indissoluble about <em>hen soma<\/em>, the relationship of a man with a prostitute, <em>or for that matter, with anyone other than the God-joined living spouse of his youth<strong>. \u00a0 <\/strong><\/em>As Servant himself correctly states,<em> “In fact, all such relationships should be dissolved immediately.” \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/em>We couldn’t agree more, and this has been our point all along. \u00a0\u00a0 People are often surprised to find out that both Jesus and Paul used an entirely different vocabulary set for indissoluble holy matrimony, and another<em> set<\/em> of term for all other forms of illicit sexual union. \u00a0 With regard to joining, the main difference again is verb tense — but it is a vey important difference because it describes duration, continuity, durability and the like.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=8823\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-8823\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-8823\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Vocabulary-of-Holy-Matrimony.jpg?resize=474%2C380&ssl=1\" alt=\"Vocabulary of Holy Matrimony\" width=\"474\" height=\"380\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Vocabulary-of-Holy-Matrimony.jpg?w=516&ssl=1 516w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Vocabulary-of-Holy-Matrimony.jpg?resize=300%2C241&ssl=1 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 474px) 100vw, 474px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>For Servant to neglect making this distinction, and thus to use unlike terms interchangeably, is either ill-informed or willful. \u00a0\u00a0 We won’t presume to judge which, but will say here that Servant violates the hermeneutical principle of Content on its most basic level.<\/p>\n<p>Properly understood, the above makes <em>hen soma<\/em> a sub-element of <em>sarx mia,<\/em> but the converse is never true.<em> \u00a0\u00a0 <\/em>The latter exists as soon as valid, eligible vows are exchanged in front of witnesses, and<em>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/greek\/sunezeuxen_4801.htm\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>synezeuxen<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>occurs exclusively by God’s hand. \u00a0 In the case of holy matrimony, <em>hen soma<\/em> occurs , depending on whether or not there was fornication between the (biblically-eligible) pair ahead of the wedding, but at the latest, it becomes an element of the created <em>sarx mia<\/em> on the wedding night. \u00a0 Some recent science paints a graphic, practical picture of what <em>hen soma<\/em> (one body) looks like in isolation. \u00a0 Research has found that the DNA from a man’s sperm stays in a woman’s body indefinitely, even if it was a one-night stand or a rape. \u00a0 The <em>spiritual<\/em> DNA that God puts there in a separate process also remains with the woman <em>and the man<\/em> until one of them physically dies.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. \u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>–\u00a0 1 Cor. 6:18 \u00a0<strong><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<em><br \/>\nAnd just because Jesus said, \u201cWhat God has joined together, let no man separate,\u201d that does not prove that separation is impossible. Rather, it proves that separation\u00a0is\u00a0possible, otherwise there would be no need for a warning against it.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>God also said, \u201cDo not commit adultery.\u201d That certainly does not prove that adultery is impossible. Rather, the prohibition against adultery proves it is possible, albeit inappropriate.<\/em><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a><strong> SIFC:\u00a0<\/strong> This is a purely semantic (and entirely irrelevant) point. \u00a0 Jesus was not just stating a metaphysical fact, nor an assumedly unattainable “ideal”, He was issuing a COMMANDMENT,\u00a0 by which all men will be eternally judged.<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<em><strong>Not everyone who says to Me, \u2018Lord, Lord,\u2019 will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter…<span id=\"en-NASB-23339\" class=\"text Matt-7-22\"><span class=\"woj\">Many will say to Me on that day, \u2018Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?\u2019<\/span><\/span> \u00a0 <span id=\"en-NASB-23340\" class=\"text Matt-7-23\"><span class=\"woj\">And then I will declare to them, \u2018I never knew you; <span class=\"small-caps\">depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness<\/span>.\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Hence, making a flippant statement like <em>“adultery is proven possible<\/em> [by Jesus forbidding the civil legalization of it] , <em>abeit ‘inappropriate’<\/em> ” comes off before the throne of heaven, and the intellect of the reader, as disrespectful of God’s word, and incredibly off-topic.<\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>“Divorced people are not married people, and this could not be more clear from God\u2019s words in Deut. 24:1-4. There it speaks of a\u00a0married woman whose\u00a0husband\u00a0divorced her, giving her a certificate of divorce. She was then unmarried. But she\u00a0remarried, gaining a new\u00a0husband, to whom she was a\u00a0wife. But he subsequently divorced her. She was again\u00a0unmarried. She was forbidden by law to remarry her first\u00a0husband. But as a\u00a0divorced,\u00a0unmarried\u00a0woman, she was free to\u00a0remarry\u00a0anyone else.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>“Obviously, <strong>Jesus, the author of the Law of Moses<\/strong>, did not believe that divorced people are still married in God\u2019s eyes to their former spouses.”<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/>\u00a0<\/a><\/em> <strong>SIFC: \u00a0 <\/strong>Could we please allow Jesus to speak for Himself concerning what He<em> thinks<\/em> (since He actually did- <em>repeatedly<\/em>)?<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong>[ Civilly] “Divorced” people are not “married” people, according to Servant, on account of an obscure Mosaic regulation which narrowly dealt with non-capital reasons to break a Hebrew betrothal contract (consanguinity, bleeding disease, leprosy, captive war concubine, etc.).\u00a0 What Servant claims here is “true”\u00a0 <em>only<\/em> if one is wistfully looking back to Moses out of utter contempt for the new “sheriff”,\u00a0 Jesus. \u00a0\u00a0 We really like what Brother Elliot Nesch\u00a0 had to say about this in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.freeconferencecall.com\/wall\/recorded_audio?audioRecordingUrl=https%3A%2F%2Frs0000.freeconferencecall.com%2Fstorage%2FsgetFCC2%2FRunhl%2FDxCjM&subscriptionId=8775623\" target=\"_blank\">the weekly stander’s conference call recording<\/a> as he applied Romans 7:4 to this nutty heresy of neo-Judaism or Hebrew Roots or Torah Observance (take your pick):<\/p>\n<p><strong><em><span id=\"en-NASB-28096\" class=\"text Rom-7-4\">Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Brother Nesch quipped:\u00a0<em> “this widowed bride is diminishing her new Husband while slaving to please a <strong>dead<\/strong> husband”.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>We also like what Brother Paul had to say about it: \u00a0<strong><em><span id=\"en-NASB-29165\" class=\"text Gal-5-2\">Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.<\/span> \u00a0 <span id=\"en-NASB-29166\" class=\"text Gal-5-3\">And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the WHOLE Law.<\/span> \u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>– Galatians 5:2-3<\/p>\n<p>Those who want to go back to the lawless pretense that man can dissolve God-joined holy matrimony, under Moses’ system of sin-management, and to forbid inseverable <em>one-flesh<\/em> partners to reconcile even though willful, ongoing unforgiveness <em>also<\/em> robs people of their inheritance in the kingdom of God (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+18%3A23-35&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">Matthew 18:23-35<\/a>),\u00a0 might need to consider offering up a ram on the altar every day (as if that remained possible), <em>or at the very least<\/em>, stoning their disobedient children to death. \u00a0 \u00a0<strong><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Since nobody in the body of Christ can ever again be impacted by a human <em>ketubah<\/em>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/notes\/sharon-henry\/deut-244-does-remarriage-defile-a-wife-and-prevent-her-from-returning-to-her-fir\/757101567726834\/\" target=\"_blank\">there is no part of Deuteronomy 24 that has any relevance or application today in the body of Christ. <\/a>\u00a0 There is some understandable confusion about this due to the post-Moses, pre-Jesus expansion by <em>rabbinical tradition<\/em> to cover capital offenses, against which the instructions given in Deuteronomy 22 could no longer be carried out due to foreign occupiers, including Persia and Rome, both imposing a legal ban on stoning. \u00a0 We’ll get into that a bit deeper below.<\/p>\n<p>We dealt at length in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8216\">Part 1<\/a> with the false assertions of\u00a0 serial and concurrent polygamy apologists which are based on elevating Torah Observance over the New Covenant. \u00a0 Here we will ask Mr. Servant for <em>New Testament<\/em> evidence that God ever delegated to humans any authority to create, regulate or “dissolve” holy matrimony. \u00a0 After all, we have presented the direct evidence from the mouth of Jesus that He did not….”<em>from the beginning.”<\/em> \u00a0 All Servant can cite is Mosaic regulation that Christ explicitly abrogated at the start of His public ministry…\u00a0 <strong><em>“you have heard it said \/ it is written……BUT I SAY UNTO YOU….”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Nowhere does scripture tell us that Jesus was the “author of the law of Moses”, nor does it tell us that Jesus had no authority to abrogate the law of Moses with a higher law as He saw fit, and as in fact, the sermon on the mount shows several instances where the Mosaic standard was <em>not good enough<\/em> for the standards of the kingdom of God, where He did just that. \u00a0 \u00a0<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>#2 of 8 –\u00a0 Servant’s Attack On The Plain Meaning of Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39<br \/>\n<\/strong>(Pseudo-hermeneutics profusely in evidence here.)<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress\u2019 (Rom. 7:2-3).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n(Sarcastically) <em>So clearly, only death can end the marriage relationship, and anyone who marries another person while his former spouse is still alive is living in an adulterous relationship, just a<\/em>s<em> Paul taught.\u201d<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Answer: Only if we ignore content and context could we come to such a conclusion.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>First, the content: Note that the example Paul uses is that of a \u201cmarried woman\u201d (Greek:\u00a0hupandros gune<strong>)\u00a0<\/strong>not a divorced woman. Of course, if a married woman is \u201cjoined to another man,\u201d she would be an adulteress.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC: \u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>First of all, we would vigorously argue with the characterization, <em>“former”<\/em> spouse who is still alive. \u00a0 There’s no such thing as an “ex” in the kingdom of God, unless it’s an ex-adultery partner (legalized or otherwise). \u00a0 The correct statement is “…anyone who marries another person while his (or her) <strong><em>estranged covenant<\/em><\/strong> spouse is still alive is living in an adulterous relationship.”<\/p>\n<p>Secondly, there’s a semantic <em>#fail<\/em> on Servant’s “content” claim. \u00a0\u00a0 Yes, we are speaking of a “married” woman – <em>she’s married for life<\/em>, and in God’s eyes, it is <em>only to the one He joined her to<\/em>, not the counterfeit replacement on a piece of overreaching paper. \u00a0 The only sense in which she is\u00a0 therefore “divorced” is the man-fabricated civil sense. \u00a0\u00a0 Untwisting Servant’s contorted logic here,\u00a0 as a consequence of getting back to the correct, biblical\u00a0 definition of terms, the “adulteress” argument is<em> not<\/em> because she’s joined to some random man, but because she has joined in pseudo-marriage \/ civil-only union to somebody who is only her “spouse” on paper, since the one-flesh entity is still intact with her true husband, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=2510\">because God declines to participate in #2.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<strong><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/strong><em>A divorced woman, however, is not a married woman, but an unmarried woman. <\/em><em>Paul, a former Pharisee who was well-versed in the Law of Moses and who appealed to the Law in this very passage in order to make his point (7:1), knew that a divorced woman was not \u201cmarried to her former husband in God\u2019s eyes\u201d under the Law of Moses. In fact, Paul knew that the Mosaic Law\u00a0forbade\u00a0her to remarry her former husband if her second husband divorced her or died (Deut. 24:1-4).\u00a0So there is absolutely no way he could have thought God viewed the divorced and remarried woman as still married to her original husband.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC: \u00a0 <\/strong>Term-twisting again. \u00a0 A civilly-divorced woman is still a married woman in God’s eyes so long as the husband of her youth remains alive. \u00a0\u00a0 While it may be very true that Paul was aware of the Mosaic view of this, scripture tells us that he hung out with Jesus for three years in the Arabian wilderness following his conversion (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Galatians+1%3A16-17&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">Galatians 1:16-17<\/a>). \u00a0 \u00a0 He knew that the Mosaic era was now passe and the higher standards of the Messianic age were now in full effect. \u00a0 \u00a0 He <em>for sure<\/em> knew that the kingdom of God is a place where the King is OBEYED. \u00a0\u00a0 He was not about to be staring wistfully back at Moses, as if he were in rebellion against Christ. \u00a0 Servant’s theory, which is (shamelessly) based on elevating Moses over Jesus, simply doesn’t hang together. \u00a0\u00a0 Jesus said what He said, and He s<em>traightforwardly meant<\/em> what He said. \u00a0\u00a0 Paul always aligned with Jesus and not with Moses. \u00a0 \u00a0<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<p>(Now let’s see if Servant myopically misses the part of the scripture below that <strong><em>severs us<\/em><\/strong> from the law of Moses in Rom. 7:4….note: the bold font below is <em>his<\/em> emphasis.)<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work\u00a0in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. <strong>But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter<\/strong> (Rom. 7:1-5).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Servant:<em><br \/>\n“Obviously, Paul was not teaching about the sole lawful means of dissolving a marriage. That was not his topic. Rather, he was simply using an illustration from\u00a0marriage to teach how Jewish believers in Christ are no longer bound to the Law of Moses since they have died in Christ.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>To claim that Paul\u2019s words in Romans 7:1-5 are teaching about the sole means of dissolving a marriage would be like claiming that his quotation of the old covenant law, \u201cYou shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing\u201d in\u00a01 Cor. 9:9\u00a0and\u00a01 Tim. 5:18\u00a0was written to teach the Corinthians and Timothy about animal husbandry.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:<\/strong> \u00a0 Mr. Servant is here trying to have it both ways. \u00a0\u00a0 Yes, Paul was using the marriage \/ widowhood analogy to demonstrate to us that Jews and Gentiles alike are not bound to the Law of Moses. \u00a0\u00a0 But he’d have us believe that the analogy Paul used was not a valid one, if he’s <em>then<\/em> going to claim that death isn’t in fact the only way that an unconditional covenant in which God Himself is one of the participants can be dissolved. \u00a0\u00a0 The whole point of both contexts is that death is the only way the Mosaic Covenant dissolved, and death is the only way the covenant of holy matrimony dissolves — due to God’s direct participation <em>in both<\/em>. \u00a0\u00a0 Speaking of “animal husbandry” and scripture context,\u00a0 Matthew 5:32 is clearly about an INNOCENT woman <em>not being turned into an adulteress by the heinous action of her husband<\/em>, not about allowing a man to divorce his wife for adultery. \u00a0\u00a0 See <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8900\">Part 3B<\/a> for further clarity on this.<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<em><br \/>\n“A similar passage that is twisted by Divine Divorce proponents to prove that marriage can only be dissolved by death is 1 Cor. 7:39: \u201cA wife is bound as long as\u00a0her husband lives; but if\u00a0her husband\u00a0is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.\u201d Honest interpreters, however, will admit that one sentence is not the sum total of all that Paul, or the Bible, teaches in regard to the subject of marriage or its dissolution.”<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Clearly, Paul was not saying that\u00a0only\u00a0death dissolves a marriage, as seconds earlier he made it clear that a believer married to an unbeliever who wants to divorce is \u201cnot under bondage\u201d in such cases and should let the unbeliever leave (1 Cor. 7:15). It would seem odd to claim that, in such cases, the deserted believer is still married to the deserter until death. \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:<\/strong>\u00a0 Honest interpretation, on the contrary, would point out that Paul’s instruction and testimony on the immorality and invalidity of remarriage while the spouse of our youth is alive is consistent throughout the Apostle’s writings, and more importantly, consistent with Christ’s view, while departing from Moses’ view, throughout. \u00a0 Servant is fabricating confusion out of his own cognitive dissonance.\u00a0 His argument is the classic redefinition of terms engaged in by liberal commentators for decades. \u00a0\u00a0 His pseudo-hermeneutics come into play here as he misuses the term “under bondage” found in <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/interlinear\/1_corinthians\/7-15.htm\" target=\"_blank\">verse 15<\/a>. \u00a0 We covered that at length in Part 1,\u00a0 and separately in our 2015 “<a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=4661\">Stop Abusing Scripture” <\/a>series. \u00a0 What Servant humanistically paints as “odd” is precisely what Jesus was directly speaking of in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+19%3A12&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">Matthew 19:12<\/a>, that is, becoming a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of God — one (but far from the <em>only<\/em> one) of those places in life where His disciples are called to take up their cross and follow Him instead of their flesh. \u00a0\u00a0 As Paul goes on to state in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A16&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">verses 11 and 16<\/a>, we are to leave open the possibility of return and reconciliation with our one-flesh who is at this point not only prodigal <em>to us<\/em>, but prodigal to God Himself, and who therefore remains in danger of hell if he does not make a U-turn in the road. \u00a0 The very worst thing a true spouse can possibly do is join the prodigal in their own leaky boat by replicating his or her adulterous sin in their own life. \u00a0 Carnal Christian society will “buy” the cheap, legalized veneer these days, but <em>Jehovah Berith<\/em> never will.<\/p>\n<p>Servant:<em><br \/>\nMoreover, Paul also allowed for those \u201creleased from a wife\u201d to remarry (1 Cor. 7:27-28), which indicates again that Paul believed divorce dissolves marriage. On top of that, as I have already said, Jesus\u2019 statement that \u201cWhoever\u00a0divorces\u00a0his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery\u201d (Mat. 5:32) indicates that whoever divorces his wife\u00a0for\u00a0immorality and remarries does\u00a0not\u00a0commit adultery. Clearly, Jesus believed that legitimate divorce annuls a marriage, thus again proving that death alone is not the only thing that can annul a marriage.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>At most, 1 Cor. 7:39 is a simple instruction for married women to remain faithful to their vows and to help widows understand that they are free to remarry.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a> <strong>SIFC: \u00a0 <\/strong>It should be abundantly clear by now that Paul “believed” no such thing! \u00a0\u00a0 In the Corinthian church, which did include some converted Jews, there were two ways a man could be “<em>released from a wife<\/em>“,\u00a0 neither of which encompassed those who immorally abandoned their one-flesh living wife under pretext of a legal system that violated God’s law. \u00a0\u00a0 An unmarried man could possibly be released from a <em>ketubah <\/em>betrothal contract, which was an agreement where under Jewish law and tradition, the betrothed woman had all of the legal standing of a consummated wife, and was referred to as such.<\/p>\n<p>The other sort man of man “released from a wife” in the Corinthian church was a widower. \u00a0\u00a0 It is inconsistent with the vast body of conflicting scripture for Servant to make the outrageous claim that a one-flesh, legally estranged husband is “released from” a still-living wife. \u00a0 \u00a0 Furthermore, Servant’s denial of\u00a0 the plain, straightforward meaning of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A39&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">verse 39<\/a> has no reasonable basis, for the same reason that his denial of the plain meaning of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Romans+7%3A2-3&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">Romans 7:2-3<\/a> has no supportable basis: circular reasoning. \u00a0\u00a0 This is discussed in greater detail in our <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=4667\">“Stop Abusing Scripture” <\/a><\/strong>series, this particular installment dealing with the evangelical rape of 1 Corinthians 7, and another installment with the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=4836\">rape of Matthew 19:9 and 5:32<\/a> to attempt to “justify” what Christ unambiguously and repeatedly forbid. \u00a0\u00a0 We all individually choose to obey Him or we find excuses not to,\u00a0 but in Servant’s case, he is deceiving others into holding onto those excuses (while forfeiting their inheritance in the kingdom of God), in a manner that shows unusual contempt for the authority of Christ and His word. \u00a0 \u00a0<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p><strong>#3 of 8 –\u00a0 Servant’s Off-Base Denial That Legalized Sequential Polygamy Is Equivalently Immoral to Legalized Sodomy As “Marriage”<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<strong><br \/>\n<em>If a married homosexual couple became believers in Jesus, we would tell them to \u201cdivorce,\u201d even if they shared adopted or surrogate children, because theirs is a sexually immoral relationship. So likewise, we should tell couples in adulterous marriages that they, too, should divorce, even if they have children, as theirs is a sexually immoral relationship.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>Answer: This is an invalid comparison, because all homosexuality is always wrong whereas, indisputably, not all marriage is wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a> \u00a0 <strong>SIFC: \u00a0 <\/strong>What makes this a <em>directly valid<\/em> comparison is the absence of unconditional covenant (along with the corresponding absence God’s participation in it), the complete absence of God’s act of creating\u00a0<em>synezeuxen<\/em>, supernatural God-yoking between them, hence no <em>sarx mia. \u00a0\u00a0 <\/em>This participation of God in either type of union is, by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+19%3A4-5&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">definition<\/a> and by His holy character,\u00a0 impossible. \u00a0 The one type of illicit union left their one-flesh partner instead of their <em>father and mother<\/em>, and the other type is <em>male and male<\/em>, or<em> female and female<\/em>, not male and female.\u00a0 Neither type qualifies under God’s unchanging definition of holy matrimony, even if an apostate “pastor” participates. \u00a0 Such a “shepherd” is misusing the holy name of the Lord to perform a vain act — breaking the 3rd and 9th commandments himself. \u00a0\u00a0 Both types of unions are explicitly listed twice by Paul, who pointedly says, “do not be deceived”, as costing the unrepentant participants in these unions their inheritance in the kingdom of God.\u00a0 (Note also the slick substitution of terms by Servant:\u00a0 referring to “marriage” instead of non-widowed “remarriage” as if the two were morally equivalent.)<\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>Jesus did not say that he who divorces and remarries \u201clives in an adulterous marriage,\u201d <strong>or \u201clives in a continual state of adultery,\u201d<\/strong> or \u201ccommits adultery every time he\/she has sex,\u201d or \u201cis still married to his\/her former spouse in God\u2019s eyes,\u201d and it is obvious, as I explained in my previous two articles, that Jesus did not intend for His words to be so interpreted. Moreover, none of the New Testament authors interpreted His words in any of those ways.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC: \u00a0 <\/strong>Servant will continue to preposterously claim that Jesus didn’t straightforwardly say what He <em>indeed<\/em> said:<br \/>\n<strong><em><br \/>\n“…and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>“…and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>“…and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em><strong><span id=\"en-KJV-24600\" class=\"text Mark-10-11\"><sup class=\"versenum\">\u00a0” <\/sup>And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. \u00a0<\/span><span id=\"en-KJV-24601\" class=\"text Mark-10-12\"> And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><span id=\"en-KJV-24601\" class=\"text Mark-10-12\">(Scriptures are:\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Matthew+5%3A32%3B+19%3A9%3B+Luke+16%3A18%3B+Mark+10%3A11-12&version=KJV\" target=\"_blank\">Matthew 5:32b; Matthew 19:9b; Luke 16:18b and Mark 10:11-12<\/a>)<\/span><em><span id=\"en-KJV-24601\" class=\"text Mark-10-12\"><\/span><strong><span id=\"en-KJV-24601\" class=\"text Mark-10-12\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Servant first rejects the notion that Greek verb tenses are crucial to rightly dividing what Jesus was saying, i.e. that this is an ongoing state of sin, and not a one-time act as he would prefer. \u00a0\u00a0 When that utterly fails, as we shall see below, he hypothesizes based on one “conservative scholar’s” pure speculation about what it would mean “if” Jesus used a <em>different<\/em> verb tense, despite the fact that none of the scholars provide any evidence that He actually used that alternative verb tense, and they unanimously provide abundant evidence that He very consistently used the<em> present-indicative<\/em> verb tense. \u00a0\u00a0 This way Servant appears to be conversant in hermeneutics, pretentiously so, but is deliberately blathering to distract from the inconvenient truth, while parroting someone who is admittedly not a linguistic scholar, and appears to be more liberal than “conservative” — but, all things are relative to their reference point, in this case, Christ. \u00a0 It is very common to prefer to compare men with men, instead of with Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Here’s what we authoritatively cited (as do all credible scholars) in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8296\">Part 2 <\/a>rebuttal:<\/p>\n<p>Without exception, every time Jesus says that \u201cmarrying\u201d another person while our God-joined one-flesh partner lives is entering into a state of ongoing adultery,\u00a0 He used the <em>present-indicative<\/em> verb tense \/ mood, \u00a0 According to the <a href=\"http:\/\/2016http\/\/www.ntgreek.org\/learn_nt_greek\/verbs1.htm\" target=\"_blank\">source ntgreek.org,<\/a><\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cThe present tense usually <strong>denotes continuous kind of action.<\/strong> It shows \u2018action in progress\u2019 or <strong>\u2018a state of persistence.\u2019<\/strong> When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes <strong>action taking place or going on in the present time. \u201c<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>The very fact that Servant is forced into this discussion of Greek verb tense should <em>alone<\/em> prove that none of the rest of his theory claiming holy matrimony is dissoluble by acts of men is supportable, when both Jesus and Paul plainly and repeatedly stated that it was not, as did Mark, Peter’s scribe.<br \/>\n<strong><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<em><br \/>\nJust from a purely legal aspect, to claim that a marriage covenant is still binding after an act of adultery is like claiming that any other mutual promise is still in force after one party fails to keep their part of the contract.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>And if I enter a mutual covenant with a member of the opposite sex that includes, among other things, exclusive sexual relations for life, and I later have sex with someone other than my spouse, I have no right to expect my spouse to honor her side of the covenant. <strong>She did not say in her vows, \u201cFor better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, in sexual faithfulness and adultery\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC: \u00a0<\/strong> Servant confuses contract with unconditional covenant here, while he himself describes a conditional covenant, which holy matrimony clearly is not. \u00a0 It’s a good thing for Servant that <em>Jehovah Berith<\/em> does not confuse these! \u00a0\u00a0 The Bridegroom in his salvation covenant with us holds Himself to it for as long as we live. \u00a0 Only when we fail to show up at the Marriage Supper, because we preferred the world system (including its evangelical chapter), does the covenant break, and only because we physically died in our own rebellion. \u00a0 \u00a0 By getting all legal about it, David Servant is showing himself to be a legalist, rather than appreciating the glory and unimpeachable character of the Bridegroom.<\/p>\n<p>As for appealing to the wedding vows,\u00a0 we all know that the groom vows unconditionally and the bride vows unconditionally, so long as they both shall live, not “<em>I’ll do X only if you do Y,\u00a0 and if you don’t do Y the deal is ‘effectively’ dissolved<\/em>“. \u00a0 \u00a0 What part of <em>“for better or worse”<\/em> does sexual infidelity not fit into, since Mr.\u00a0 Servant brought the matter up?<\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>Divine Divorce proponents sometimes appeal to Greek verb tenses to make the claim that Jesus\u2019 words, \u201ccommits adultery\u201d indicate He was referring to continual acts of adultery every time the remarried couple has sex. Again, above and in my previous articles, I showed why such a view cannot possibly be correct…..J. Carl Laney…’<strong>it is also possible that the present tense, \u201ccommits adultery,\u201d may be used in an aoristic sense<\/strong> expressing the idea of a present fact without reference to progress. The aoristic present sets forth an event as now occurring. So interpreted, the adultery would involve one punctiliar action at the time of remarriage.’<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC: \u00a0 <\/strong>This was dealt with in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8296\">Part 2<\/a> and above, where Servant obstinately denies that Jesus<em> said what he said<\/em> (also denies that<em> Jesus meant what He said<\/em>). \u00a0 Bottom line:\u00a0 Laney’s assertion is mere speculation and in any event, he has provided no credible evidence that Jesus was using the <em>aorist tense<\/em> for the word “commits” to counter the unanimous evidence of other scholars that He was using the <em>present-indicative<\/em> tense, according to all the reliable Greek interlinear text tools, including <strong>scripture4all.org<\/strong> and <a href=\"http:\/\/biblehub.com\/interlinear\/matthew\/19-9.htm\" target=\"_blank\">biblehub.com<\/a>.\u00a0 There is zero evidence that this is a “punctiliar action” and a mountain of evidence, not the least of which is context and scriptural consistency, that it is an ongoing state of sin. \u00a0 \u00a0 Once again, the very fact that Servant finds himself in the unenviable position of trying to find a defense for the obvious wrongness of adulterous nuptials –as he is intrinsically admitting–using Greek verb tense <em>hypotheticals<\/em> (to establish a suggestion that this <em>admitted<\/em> sin – presumably including theft, coveting and false witness – “only” occurs on the wedding night) indicates there is a YUGE problem with his theory – <em>pun fully intended<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>“What grace means is that a divorced and remarried couple need not break up. Although entering their marriage wrongfully, they should remain in that marital state in which they find themselves (1 Cor 7:17-24).<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a> <strong>SIFC: \u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>No, sir, that’s <em>hypergrace. \u00a0<\/em> What grace means is that, so long as the legalized adulterers draw breath, they have an opportunity to sever their unlawful union, make restitution to their real spouse(s) and famil(ies), and receive cleansing forgiveness. \u00a0\u00a0 If they truly are regenerated, and not a false convert who came to Jesus on conditional terms or false representation of what saving faith entails, grace is the Holy Spirit who indwells them and leads them to purity by inward conviction. \u00a0 \u00a0 As stated earlier, everybody to entered into holy matrimony with the spouse of their youth is “called” as <em>married-for-life to that person,<\/em> even if they are simultaneously in a legalized illicit relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, childless or otherwise. \u00a0\u00a0 Only the biblically-lawful estranged relationship survives regeneration. \u00a0 \u00a0 We previously pointed out Servant’s invalid-context usage of this (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A17-24&version=NASB\">1 Cor 7:17-24<\/a>).scripture he abuses to claim otherwise.<\/p>\n<p><strong>#4 of 8<\/strong> –\u00a0 <strong>David Servant’s Rejection Of Our Intellectual Rebuke: Arguing From Silence<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>You point out that there are no instructions\u2014by either Jesus or the apostles who authored the New Testament epistles\u2014for those who have been divorced and remarried to divorce again, nor are there any examples of anyone doing such a thing. But that is an argument from silence. Conversely, neither are there any instructions\u2014by either Jesus or the apostles who authored the New Testament epistles\u2014for those who have been divorced and remarried to remain married. So the opposite of your view can also be made from an <strong>argument of silence.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>“The burden of proof lies with Divine Divorce proponents, as it is quite reasonable to think that, if God requires all divorced and remarried people to divorce again as a requirement to \u201cescape an adulterous marriage\u201d and thus \u201cescape hell\u201d (as Divine Divorce proponents claim), there would be lots of information about that in the New Testament, as it would be a matter of great concern to both God and humanity….And if God does not require divorced and remarried people to divorce again as a requirement for salvation”<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 SIFC<\/strong>: \u00a0 \u00a0 The plain fact is that the <em>justification<\/em> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=2 Corinthians+11:2&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">purchased for us with the price of His blood is a betrothal<\/a> of sorts. \u00a0 We were not good enough for this Bridegroom, yet He bound Himself to us in a <em>ketubah<\/em> contract. \u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A20&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\">He paid our bride-price for us with His blood.<\/a> \u00a0 We promised to show up at the future Marriage Supper, wearing our wedding garments, and having our lamps filled with oil (our ongoing <em>sanctification<\/em>) so that our <em>salvation<\/em> can be consummated there. \u00a0\u00a0 We promised to keep ourselves pure of other gods, which will invariably lead us to walk in the opposite direction of that holy venue. \u00a0\u00a0 That <em>ketubah<\/em> He left in our hands is unconditionally binding on our Bridegroom, but we remain free to break it by choosing those<a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Luke+14%3A26&version=NASB\" target=\"_blank\"> other gods over Him<\/a>, by not showing up at the heavenly banquet hall because we preferred the comforts of our temporal abode, because this life appeared more attractive to us than what we were promised in eternal life.<\/p>\n<p>It doesn’t matter one bit what the “majority of Christianity” <em>believes<\/em>…it only matters what GOD SAYS. \u00a0 \u00a0 People who have stood celibate for their God-joined covenant spouse and authentic holy matrimony union will not be faced with any divine “burden of proof” on this topic whatsoever. \u00a0 Neither will anyone who stood on conviction and God’s word to terminate a covetous and immoral relationship with the spouse of another living person, while praying for that person to reconcile and forgive their own one-flesh, have to bear any “burden of proof.” \u00a0\u00a0 They are the obedient ones who said “<em>Lord, Lord<\/em>” and did what He said.<\/p>\n<p>Instead, it will be the ones standing before the Great White Throne who are being asked, “<em>Why do you call me, Lord, Lord…\u00a0 but refused to do what I commanded?<\/em>” who will bear the burden of proof. \u00a0\u00a0 Perhaps they will try to hide behind their pastoral wolf who said it was OK. \u00a0 \u00a0 They will then be asked whether they could read, and how many bibles and computers were in their illicit homes. \u00a0 The “burden of proof” is going to be on the false shepherds, as well. who misused the name of the Lord to perform the vain act of “joining” the already-joined to an adulterous partner, and then who hindered them from repenting by twisting His word to avoid the mass scandal that such\u00a0 a wave of repentance represents to their “ministry”.<\/p>\n<p>In Part 1, we said this about the “argument from silence” (<em>…that legalized adulterers are not “told” to leave their ongoing state of sin<\/em>), after we listed and linked <em>several dozen<\/em> OT and NT scriptures, in contrast to the four that Servant claims we “exclusively” rely on, which support the no-excuses, no-exceptions indissolubility of covenant holy matrimony:<\/p>\n<p><em>“The second reason the exhaustive list of related scriptures is important is to dispute the typical false claims of ‘scripture silence’ such as David Servant (and many others) have alleged….David Servant makes much of claiming that neither Jesus, nor any of the Apostles ever told anyone to divorce a \u201csecond\u201d time who was living in sin with someone else\u2019s God-joined spouse. \u00a0\u00a0 This is not entirely true. \u00a0\u00a0 John the Baptist called out Herod and Herodias, both of whom had divorced their God-joined spouses to \u201cmarry\u201d each other, saying to Herod, \u201cit is not lawful for you to have your brother Phillip\u2019s wife.\u201d\u00a0 (Mark 6; Matthew 14)….Then there\u2019s the episode of church discipline being applied in 1 Corinthians 5 at Paul\u2019s command to the man who had taken his father wife (probably his stepmother, following either the divorce or death of the father). \u00a0\u00a0 The scripture does not state that he \u201cmarried\u201d her, but there are three immoral possibilities:\u00a0 (1) the father was dead and they were cohabiting in fornication, or (2) the father had civilly divorced her and the son had civilly married her, or (3) the father had separated or divorced her, and they were cohabiting in adultery. \u00a0 Since the man was still in the church body whom Paul had to rebuke, (1) and (3) seem less likely than (2). \u00a0\u00a0 What we do know is that Paul felt strongly enough that the son\u2019s soul was on the line unless the church excommunicated him (\u201cturned him over to satan that his soul may be saved\u201d).<br \/>\n<\/em>Please read the full section in Part 1 for further details.<\/p>\n<p>We also dealt much earlier with other enemies of covenant restoration per Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor. 7:11 who claim “scripture silence”, in our blog <strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=2931\">What About That Samaritan Woman?.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Some courses of action connected with repentance are contextual, and the window of context matters greatly in that regard.\u00a0 With regard to repentance from remarriage adultery, the window of context is really the entire bible. \u00a0 There was no explicit command to the tax-collector Zaccheus to return <em>four-fold<\/em> what he had extorted from the citizenry in his covetousness, which he carried out lawfully (according to some historical accounts of the Roman law and practice), but he did as the Holy Spirit led him to do, and Jesus responded to this “salvation-by-works”:\u00a0 “<strong><em>Today salvation has come to this house.” \u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>The bible makes clear that repentance entails far more than “confession” while remaining in a state of sin. \u00a0\u00a0 It is heart-change that results in abhorrence, repudiation and cessation of the sin. \u00a0\u00a0 There seems to be more than plenty to fill the claimed “silence” to “<strong><em>he who has ears to hear<\/em><\/strong>“.<strong><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>#5 of 8 –\u00a0 Servant’s Denial of the Unanimity and Relevance of Early Church Father’s Teaching Which Was in Agreement with Christ and the Apostles<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Argument None of the church fathers who wrote after the apostolic age agree with <\/em>[<\/strong> David Servant, and others who deny that holy matrimony is indissoluble until death.]<\/p>\n<p><em>Answer: It is certainly true that the church fathers wrote at times about the subject of divorce and remarriage, and they of course quoted Jesus\u2019 words about illegitimate divorce and remarriage being adultery. I have never claimed that they did not. Some forbade remarriage under any circumstances, erring on the side of caution in my humble opinion. But to date, no one has been able to show me where any early church father instructed divorced and remarried people to divorce again, or for that matter instructed\u00a0anyone\u00a0to divorce period, prior to something Jerome wrote in 394 AD counseling one remarried woman. So is someone who lived\u00a0360 years after Christ\u00a0the ultimate authority? Jerome also defended the idea that Mary remained a virgin perpetually. Is that biblical?<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC: \u00a0<em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong> We’ve seen ample evidence so far that Mr. Servant’s opinion is just about as “humble” as it is <em>informed.<\/em> \u00a0\u00a0 We’ve already discredited his<em> arguments from silence<\/em> at length. \u00a0\u00a0 Servant is owed no evidence that these ante-Nicene leaders expected adulterous couples to separate and true spouses to reconcile. \u00a0 It matters not a whit to the Great White Throne what he personally chooses or declines to believe. \u00a0 He will be held accountable for his actions corrupting (true, not “blended”) families.<\/p>\n<p><em>Do not be in error my brethren.\u00a0 Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those who do this as respects mere human families have suffered death, how much more will this be the case with anyone who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified!\u00a0 Such a one becoming defiled in this way shall go away into everlasting fire and so shall everyone that harkens unto him.<br \/>\n<\/em><strong>Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, <em>Epistle To The Ephesians, 105 A.D.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>We do concede that some of the bishops and martyrs of the early churches differed slightly on whether “divorce \/ putting away” (whatever form that actually took, which may not necessarily have\u00a0 been civil proceedings, and depending on the actual Greek term used in the original writings) was permissible, but all were <em>unanimous<\/em> that “divorce \/ putting away” dissolved nothing, and hence they were unanimous that non-widowed remarriage was indeed adultery, which they <em>unanimously<\/em> did not consider to be a “punctiliar one-time act.” \u00a0\u00a0 (And, true to form, Mr. Servant can’t seem to restrain himself from <em>ad hominem<\/em> when the fact-bearers interfere with his carnal humanism, in this case, even besmirching the long-dead saints and martyrs who lived nearest the apostolic age. )<\/p>\n<p>The indisputable historical fact is that the early church was so unanimous in their practice of this conviction of indissolubility that they accomplished in just a few centuries (arguably, only four) a culture-change so sweeping and durable for fifteen centuries following, that the world has never again seen the likes of until unilateral divorce was enacted in the United States in the 1970’s. \u00a0 Even the most heretical elements of the Reformation only rocked it on a delayed basis until <em>after<\/em> this apostate modern development which the church failed to morally or politically resist.<\/p>\n<p>Quoting bible historian Kenneth E. Kirk, and author Milton T. Wells:<\/p>\n<p><em>“What is more astounding than the mere fact that the early Church taught and practiced the complete indissolubility of marriage for so long, is the fact that the Church chose to take its stand against the strong contemporary lax social and legal attitudes toward divorce which prevailed so universally all about them. The Church, today, feels that it is on the horns of a dilemma, because so many divorcees are coming to her for help and encouragement. Shall she accommodate the Scriptures to the apparent need of the unfortunate divorcees, or shall she uphold the Biblical standard of the indissolubility of marriage for any cause while faithfully<\/em> <em>discharging her duty to such distressed individuals?\u00a0 Every church of today which considers the lowering of its divorce standards should remember that the early Church stood true to the Biblical doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage in a world that was pagan and strongly opposed to the moral and marriage standards of the New Testament.<br \/>\n<strong>Not only did the Church maintain her stand on the indissolubility in the early centuries, she changed the attitude and standards of the whole world toward it. Even today the whole Church of Christ and the entire western world is still reaping the rich benefits of that heritage.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong> Shall the Christian Church of today <\/em>[mid-20th century]<em> be less courageous and faithful than the Church of the early centuries of the Christian era?\u00a0 Does she not under God have the same spiritual resources?<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cThere were other grievous social evils in the early Christian centuries. Slavery enveloped the Roman Empire of that age, yet the Christians did not set themselves to change the thinking of the masses against it, but they did set themselves to change the thinking of the masses toward marriage and divorce. Why did they not attack slavery with the same vehemence? The reason was that the Apostles had not received a \u201cthus saith the Lord\u201d from Christ respecting it. They had, however, received such in the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. No sect or school of philosophy is known to have influenced the early Church in this teaching. From whence, then, did she get the teaching? Certainly she received it from the teaching of the Gospels and from the teaching of the Apostles, who had earlier conveyed the same orally (as well as in writing) to the leaders of the early Church who succeeded them.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:\u00a0<\/strong> “Standerinfamilycourt” also has a “humble” opinion, and that is that this massive social change which introduced and sustained lifelong monogamy for the first time in history could not have been accomplished by ante-Nicene pastors who refused to excommunicate their adulterers, but instead performed faux nuptials over them. \u00a0\u00a0 Nor was it accomplished by 1st to 4th century shepherds who filled their pews with adulterers by not requiring them to sever those illicit unions, or by allowing them to continue in immoral abandonment of their true families based\u00a0 on the deceitful rationalization that their pre-conversion covenant commitments (things that were clearly not “sin”) were “washed clean” along with their actual fully-repented sin. \u00a0\u00a0 The astounding societal result shows these leaders were mindful of Christ’s words in Matthew 5,<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Near the end of our Part 2 response, we quickly listed a sampling of key quotes of the ante-Nicene church fathers concerning the lifelong indissolubility of holy matrimony, without the citations.\u00a0 Given the length of our Part 3 response, we now link the readers to an excellent recording where, starting at about 13 minutes in, Pastor Stephen Wilcox cites these with full literary references.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Earliest Church Fathers - Marriage is for Life Conference - Rev. Stephen Wilcox\" width=\"474\" height=\"267\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/AhhGSHJAef4?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Servant:<br \/>\n<em>One of the most amusing things is to hear people quote certain church fathers in order to support their particular theological beliefs, and then listen to their response when I ask them if there is anything those same church fathers wrote with which they disagree\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?attachment_id=502\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-502\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-502\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/FB-profile-7xtjw.png?resize=28%2C33&ssl=1\" alt=\"FB profile 7xtjw\" width=\"28\" height=\"33\" \/><\/a>\u00a0 <strong>SIFC:\u00a0<\/strong> One does not need to be an expert on all exhaustive positions of every church father to reliably quote them, provided they know and honestly convey the context of the quote they are relying on. \u00a0 Nor did these early leaders have to be perfectly on target on every issue, as long as they align with what Jesus and the Apostles said on the topic at-hand. \u00a0\u00a0 Peter was rebuked in scripture by Paul — do we therefore discount everything Peter wrote? \u00a0\u00a0 Paul rejected one of the Apostles who wrote a gospel – do we therefore summarily discount <em>all<\/em> of what Paul wrote? \u00a0 Moses was also shown to be fallible on numerous occasions, yet Mr. Servant is utterly livid that even one word from Moses be abrogated by Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>This concludes our discussion of David Servant’s points 1 through 5 of Part 3 of his article series,\u00a0<strong><em>“I’m Divorced and Remarried. \u00a0 Am I Living in Adultery?”<\/em><\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0 As promised, we will wrap up with his points 6 through 8 in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/?p=8900\" target=\"_blank\">next blog post<\/a>. \u00a0 Here, however we’ll address head-on David Servant’s greatest fear:\u00a0 that today’s trickle of repenting Emilys will become an embarrassing flood. \u00a0\u00a0 He has<em> good reason<\/em> to fear this because of the widespread apostasy of the evangelical church in creating a mass class of improperly-discipled people whom the Lord loves and does not want in hell. \u00a0 If this is a move of God, and we strongly suspect that it is, Servant can write his questionable articles until Jesus comes back, but he cannot stop the move of the Holy Spirit in orchestrating this flood, however bad it looks to the carnally-minded. \u00a0\u00a0 Ditto for Piper, MacArthur and anyone else on the long list of Christian celebrities who got that way by pandering to legalized adulterers and hindering authentic repentance from this sin.\u00a0 <em>This holy wave will be clearly distinguishable from increased last days evil, due to the celibacy and reconciliation that will accompany it.\u00a0<\/em> Blaming and demonizing\u00a0 the truth-tellers is pointless as well, because we only lay out the facts and encourage people toward sound avenues of self-study, leaving the rest up to the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.\u00a0<\/em> <\/strong>–\u00a0 Ephesians 5:11<\/p>\n<p><strong>www.standerinfamilycourt.com<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>7 Times Around the Jericho Wall |\u00a0 Lets Repeal Unilateral Divorce! \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p><b><span style=\"font-family: Thread-000073e4-Id-0000000c;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<p><strong><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by Standerinfamilycourt I\u2019m Living in an Ongoing State of Legalized Adultery with Somebody Else\u2019s Spouse. \u00a0 Can I Get Away With It? We have been responding to the 3-part blog series by David Servant called, “I’m Divorced and Remarried. \u00a0 Am I Living in Adultery?” \u00a0\u00a0 This appears to be the final installment. The first … <a href=\"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/2018\/01\/the-gospel-according-to-david-servant-versus-we-of-the-divine-divorce-doctrine-part-3\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">The Gospel According to David Servant (versus We of the “Divine Divorce Doctrine”) – Part 3A<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">→<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[26,22,36,5,13,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discipleship-religious-freedom-2","category-divorce-2","category-lost-culture","category-marriage","category-morality","category-spiritual-warfare"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p57mep-2eA","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8592","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8592"}],"version-history":[{"count":317,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8592\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9208,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8592\/revisions\/9208"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.standerinfamilycourt.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}