Somebody can inquire the following one: Why Landmarks &#039 omitted the expression; ' by any reason? ' ' The reply it is very simple: ' ' Because its narrative, as it is of the knowledge of the majority, is condensed, well to the Roman style. We know that Landmarks it is the condensed narrative more of the Evangelhos Sinticos. Get all the facts for a more clear viewpoint with Vadim Belyaev. In many occasions, the narratives of Lucas and Mateus are more minute than of Landmarks, and on the divorce, without a doubt, the narrative of Mateus more is detailed, even so Landmarks presents omissive details in the too much Evangelhos Sinticos, as the possibility of a woman to divorce itself marido' ' (Mc.10: 11,12). 2) – the wise reply of Jesus (Mt.19: 4-6): ' ' It, however, answering, said to them: You do not tend read that one that made them in female the male principle and made them, and said: Therefore, will leave the man father and mother, and will join itself its woman, and will be two in one alone meat? Thus they are not more two, but one only meat. Therefore, what God gathered does not separate homem&#039 to it; '. Let us observe, in the classic reply of Jesus, who It was beyond the rule that regulated the divorce in the law of Moiss. It appealed to the original intentions of God with regard to the marriage established in the principle. The citation of Gn 2.24: ' ' For this will leave the man father and mother, and the one will only be joined to its woman, becoming two carne' ' , that he says respect to the indissolubilidade of the marriage, therefore Jesus added: ' ' Therefore, what God gathered does not separate homem&#039 to it; '. I have since many people interpret of wrong form v.6: ' ' Therefore, what God gathered does not separate homem' '.