Contradiction with Deuteronomy 24:1
This verse outlines the law allowing a man to write a bill of divorcement, which contradicts the prohibition against divorce and remarriage found in Luke 16:18.
Deuteronomy 24:1: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. [some...: Heb. matter of nakedness] [divorcement: Heb. cutting off]
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 7:15
This verse states that if an unbelieving partner leaves, the believer is not bound in such circumstances, which can be seen as permitting remarriage, contrasting with Luke 16:18.
1 Corinthians 7:15: But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace. [to peace: Gr. in peace]
Contradiction with Matthew 5:32
While it also condemns divorce, it provides an exception for marital unfaithfulness, which contrasts with the absolute prohibition in Luke 16:18.
Matthew 5:32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Contradiction with Matthew 19:9
Similar to Matthew 5:32, this verse allows for remarriage in the case of fornication, presenting a conditional contrast to the blanket statement in Luke 16:18.
Matthew 19:9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Contradiction with Numbers 30:2
Discusses the keeping of oaths and vows, which may imply the permanence of vows and agreements, contrasting the idea of remarriage after divorce.
Numbers 30:2: If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. [break: Heb. profane]
Contradiction with Romans 7:2-3
Suggests that a woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he is alive, but if he dies, she is free from that law, presenting a different perspective compared to Luke 16:18 regarding the binding nature of marriage.
Romans 7:2-3: For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.
Paradox #1
The theological conflict around this verse is that it seems to present a strict stance on divorce and remarriage, which can appear to be harsher than other biblical passages. In some other parts of the Bible, there are exceptions given for divorce, such as in Matthew 5:32, which mentions marital unfaithfulness as a valid reason. This can lead to questions about how to reconcile these different instructions on the topic within the Christian doctrine.
Paradox #2
Some people believe there is a contradiction with teachings on marriage and divorce elsewhere in the Bible. For example, Luke 16:18 appears strict on divorce and remarriage, which might seem inconsistent with other verses that offer exceptions, like in Matthew 19:9, where adultery is mentioned as a valid reason for divorce. This difference in teachings can be seen as a conflict or inconsistency in understanding God's view on divorce and remarriage.
Paradox #3
Luke 16:18 presents a possible contradiction or inconsistency when compared to other biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage. In this verse, divorce and remarriage are strictly condemned, which seems to conflict with other passages where exceptions for divorce are mentioned, such as in the case of marital unfaithfulness (see Matthew 5:32 and 19:9). This creates a tension between the absolute prohibition in Luke and the conditional allowance in Matthew.
Paradox #4
Luke 16:18 talks about divorce and remarriage. The moral conflict some may find is that it seems very strict and unforgiving, not allowing room for situations where a divorce might be necessary, such as in cases of abuse or danger. This can conflict with more compassionate or nuanced views on relationships.