Comments on: Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154 ALERT: Dr. Köstenberger’s blogs are now becoming available in Spanish. We will continue to add new posts as soon as they can be translated. Click on “Espanol” above Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:35:08 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Isaac Owalinga http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-81125 Isaac Owalinga Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:00:37 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-81125 The first step any one is to take concerning DIVORCE, is they have to read what Jesus says in matthew 23:8,9,10 and then be in position to know the mind and heart of God the father, God the son, God the holy spirit concerning divorce. thank you for all your study please for any hard copy notes use the address bellow Isaac Okwalinga p.o.box, 31896 clocktower kampala, uganda. i will be glad to share with more on this subject The first step any one is to take concerning DIVORCE, is they have to read what Jesus says in matthew 23:8,9,10 and then be in position to know the mind and heart of God the father, God the son, God the holy spirit concerning divorce.

thank you for all your study please for any hard copy notes use the address bellow

Isaac Okwalinga
p.o.box, 31896 clocktower
kampala, uganda.

i will be glad to share with more on this subject

]]> By: Following up on our talks about divorce… « The Village Pastor’s Weblog http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-80079 Following up on our talks about divorce… « The Village Pastor’s Weblog Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:05:53 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-80079 [...] 4. Andreas Kostenberger’s response to both sides. [...] [...] 4. Andreas Kostenberger’s response to both sides. [...]

]]> By: Don http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-79507 Don Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:47:49 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-79507 Kostenberger at least tries in engage DIB’s scholarship in some sense, but misunderstands part of it and therefore makes DIB’s arguments weaker than they actually are. Again, a Berean will need to actually READ DIB for themselves and not expect an opponent to present the author’s arguments. DIB discusses his results in summary form here: http://www.playmobible.org/videos.html. Kostenberger’s mistakes are: 1. He misses that Mat 19:3 sets the context for all that follows. Jesus is responding to the question about the Hillel “Any Matter” divorce and not a general question about divorce. So Jesus did not discuss Ex 21:10 as he was not asked about it. 2. He misses that Jesus corrects 7 misinterpretations of the Pharisees on marriage and divorce, so his silence in the case of the other interpretations is more compelling than it might appear. In summary (see DIB or my teaching for details), the Pharisees taught 8 things about marriage and 8 things about divorce; Jesus was asked about 1 thing about divorce (Hillel’s “Any Matter” divorce); but before he could answer it he needed to correct some other misunderstandings and ended up correcting 7 of the 16 things Pharisees taught. (In other words, Jesus was not reticent to correct the Pharisees, so if he disagreed with something else they taught, that would have been a great time to correct it.) 3. He misses that adultery is NOT the sole exception allowing divorce as taught by Jesus, rather adultery is the only valid reason mentioned in Deu 24:1, per the question. Kostenberger at least tries in engage DIB’s scholarship in some sense, but misunderstands part of it and therefore makes DIB’s arguments weaker than they actually are. Again, a Berean will need to actually READ DIB for themselves and not expect an opponent to present the author’s arguments.

DIB discusses his results in summary form here: http://www.playmobible.org/videos.html.

Kostenberger’s mistakes are:

1. He misses that Mat 19:3 sets the context for all that follows. Jesus is responding to the question about the Hillel “Any Matter” divorce and not a general question about divorce. So Jesus did not discuss Ex 21:10 as he was not asked about it.

2. He misses that Jesus corrects 7 misinterpretations of the Pharisees on marriage and divorce, so his silence in the case of the other interpretations is more compelling than it might appear. In summary (see DIB or my teaching for details), the Pharisees taught 8 things about marriage and 8 things about divorce; Jesus was asked about 1 thing about divorce (Hillel’s “Any Matter” divorce); but before he could answer it he needed to correct some other misunderstandings and ended up correcting 7 of the 16 things Pharisees taught. (In other words, Jesus was not reticent to correct the Pharisees, so if he disagreed with something else they taught, that would have been a great time to correct it.)

3. He misses that adultery is NOT the sole exception allowing divorce as taught by Jesus, rather adultery is the only valid reason mentioned in Deu 24:1, per the question.

]]> By: Andreas Köstenberger http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-78138 Andreas Köstenberger Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:28:43 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-78138 I intend to comment on McFall's paper in a forthcoming edition of God, Marriage & Family if I judge this to be necessary after a closer reading of his essay. I intend to comment on McFall’s paper in a forthcoming edition of God, Marriage & Family if I judge this to be necessary after a closer reading of his essay.

]]> By: More Christ Like http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-77749 More Christ Like Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:35:39 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-77749 Leslie McFall has an interesting way to deal with the so-called exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that appears to allow for divorce and remarriage for marriage unfaithfulness. He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall's paper at <a href="http://morechristlike.com/except-for- fornication-clause-of-matthew-19-9/" rel="nofollow">Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9</a>. I would love to hear some feedback on this position. Leslie McFall has an interesting way to deal with the so-called exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that appears to allow for divorce and remarriage for marriage unfaithfulness.
He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall’s paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.

]]> By: Charles http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-76385 Charles Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:43:01 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-76385 If you are abandoned or divorced by a non-practicing believer who forces a divorced upon you. If you have sat willing to reconcile without any desire from the spouse who divorced you. Does the Bible allow you to remarry without either you or your new spouse from sinning? (Luke 16:18) If you are abandoned or divorced by a non-practicing believer who forces a divorced upon you. If you have sat willing to reconcile without any desire from the spouse who divorced you. Does the Bible allow you to remarry without either you or your new spouse from sinning? (Luke 16:18)

]]> By: Marriage and Divorce Links | Bowden McElroy http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-66688 Marriage and Divorce Links | Bowden McElroy Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:53:23 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-66688 [...] Responds to Instone-Brewer Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce Divorce and [...] [...] Responds to Instone-Brewer Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce Divorce and [...]

]]> By: Michael Whennen http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-65578 Michael Whennen Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:29:29 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-65578 Dr Les McFall critique on Instone-Brewer found within this document www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/divorce_mcfall.pdf Dr Les McFall critique on Instone-Brewer found within this document

http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/divorce_mcfall.pdf

]]> By: Anna Wood http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-48230 Anna Wood Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:32:26 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-48230 I've been wrestling with this problem for many years as when I was in college I drifted away from the Lord and married a man who had been abandoned by his first wife after 18 months of marriage. I had enough presence of mind to seek the advice of my preacher and elders at the time and was told that since he was abandoned, even though he was not a NT Christian, he was free to remarry. I have since sought counsel several other times and have received the same answer but I myself still wrestle with it. We've had a less than perfect marriage but we have several children. I am not looking for an easy way out, prefering to stay and hopefully see him converted; however, I don't wish to stay if I am living in adultery by doing so. It is hard, as I still am unsure....Thank you for your work. Anna I’ve been wrestling with this problem for many years as when I was in college I drifted away from the Lord and married a man who had been abandoned by his first wife after 18 months of marriage. I had enough presence of mind to seek the advice of my preacher and elders at the time and was told that since he was abandoned, even though he was not a NT Christian, he was free to remarry. I have since sought counsel several other times and have received the same answer but I myself still wrestle with it. We’ve had a less than perfect marriage but we have several children. I am not looking for an easy way out, prefering to stay and hopefully see him converted; however, I don’t wish to stay if I am living in adultery by doing so. It is hard, as I still am unsure….Thank you for your work. Anna

]]> By: G.E.Dominy http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/blog/the-church/154/comment-page-1#comment-45701 G.E.Dominy Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:22:32 +0000 http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154#comment-45701 Thank you Dr. Köstenberger for the review of Dr. Instone Brewer's articles. I think some of the comments that resulted from the discussion have brought some very salient points to the argument. Such as the need for church discipline - otherwise your attending a country club and not a church, the need for involvement by the church versus Piper's and unfortunately many others position to crucify all parties regardless of circumstances. Much unlike the story of the good Samaritan but rather the unrighteous characters in that story. From what I have read of Piper's article, he would seem to condemn all parties involved because of the actions and free moral choice of just one. A action that I cannot find biblical support for.(save for the guilty one only) Much of this same ideology I observed when I lived and attended school in NC and is very prevalent here in West TN also. What I sincerely do believe we need is a more biblical practice of restoration within the churches, less respect of persons in regards to the "d" word and more practice of Galatians:6:1: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. The gamut of responses and the attitudes that come with them that I have seen remind me more and more every day of the characters written about in the gospels, pharisees, scribes, Samaritans. It brings to mind Jesus's Words in Matthew 5:20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. I struggle with the responses of many "RELIGIOUS" teachers when comparing their teachings on the subject while I read about Joseph in Matthew 1:19: Then Joseph her husband, BEING A JUST MAN , and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. That clause BEING A JUST MAN just flies into the face of many of these traditional party lines on how to handle divorce. THEIR IS a deeper point here, while we never can escape the letter and always should hold it in highest regard, we must also seek the spirit of that law, otherwise we are dead and deal in death to those who need our savior the most. I fear that far too many of my brethren have diverted to worshiping the letter of the law and have also forgotten the same spirit of that law. I again thank you for the thoughtful, balanced and intellectual response to the writings , I just discovered your responses tonight and will try to read them all at length here soon. I might then desire to ask a few more questions on the matter that have not been covered. If you would humor me. Blessings Your Brother in Christ, Gene from ODBC Thank you Dr. Köstenberger for the review of Dr. Instone Brewer’s articles. I think some of the comments that resulted from the discussion have brought some very salient points to the argument. Such as the need for church discipline – otherwise your attending a country club and not a church, the need for involvement by the church versus Piper’s and unfortunately many others position to crucify all parties regardless of circumstances. Much unlike the story of the good Samaritan but rather the unrighteous characters in that story. From what I have read of Piper’s article, he would seem to condemn all parties involved because of the actions and free moral choice of just one. A action that I cannot find biblical support for.(save for the guilty one only) Much of this same ideology I observed when I lived and attended school in NC and is very prevalent here in West TN also. What I sincerely do believe we need is a more biblical practice of restoration within the churches, less respect of persons in regards to the “d” word and more practice of Galatians:6:1: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

The gamut of responses and the attitudes that come with them that I have seen remind me more and more every day of the characters written about in the gospels, pharisees, scribes, Samaritans. It brings to mind Jesus’s Words in
Matthew 5:20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I struggle with the responses of many “RELIGIOUS” teachers when comparing their teachings on the subject while I read about Joseph in Matthew 1:19: Then Joseph her husband, BEING A JUST MAN , and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

That clause BEING A JUST MAN just flies into the face of many of these traditional party lines on how to handle divorce.

THEIR IS a deeper point here, while we never can escape the letter and always should hold it in highest regard, we must also seek the spirit of that law, otherwise we are dead and deal in death
to those who need our savior the most.

I fear that far too many of my brethren have diverted to worshiping the letter of the law and have also forgotten the same spirit of that law.

I again thank you for the thoughtful, balanced and intellectual response to the writings , I just discovered your responses tonight and will try to read them all at length here soon. I might then desire to ask a few more questions on the matter that have not been covered. If you would humor me. Blessings

Your Brother in Christ,
Gene from ODBC

]]>