Comments on: Divorce, Remarriage and The Gospel 5: Jesus http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:19:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Michael Spencer http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus/comment-page-1#comment-6776 Michael Spencer Wed, 24 May 2006 21:57:27 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus#comment-6776 I agree to that extent, but I will have more to say as we move on to Paul and then to a view that takes sees all of scripture in a Christ-central way. I agree to that extent, but I will have more to say as we move on to Paul and then to a view that takes sees all of scripture in a Christ-central way.

]]> By: Scot McKnight http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus/comment-page-1#comment-6775 Scot McKnight Wed, 24 May 2006 21:12:50 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus#comment-6775 Michael, To me it is clear that Jesus is poking permissiveness in society with a robust defense of Deut 24, and probably as undestood by Shammai. In other words, marriage is permanent -- except in the case of sexual infidelity (Paul expands this in 1 Cor 7). That seems his point. You agree? Michael,
To me it is clear that Jesus is poking permissiveness in society with a robust defense of Deut 24, and probably as undestood by Shammai. In other words, marriage is permanent — except in the case of sexual infidelity (Paul expands this in 1 Cor 7). That seems his point. You agree?

]]> By: Michael Spencer http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus/comment-page-1#comment-6774 Michael Spencer Wed, 24 May 2006 20:41:57 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus#comment-6774 I said the text was simple. I said the background, context and application are difficult. I said the text was simple. I said the background, context and application are difficult.

]]> By: Beyond Words http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus/comment-page-1#comment-6773 Beyond Words Wed, 24 May 2006 20:34:52 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus#comment-6773 What a wonderful post. For a moment there, I thought I was reading N.T. Wright. :) What a wonderful post. For a moment there, I thought I was reading N.T. Wright. :)

]]> By: ed lebert http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus/comment-page-1#comment-6772 ed lebert Wed, 24 May 2006 20:19:25 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus#comment-6772 Never mind, I didn't read the whole position paper - he has a different explination at the bottom of the page. Never mind, I didn’t read the whole position paper – he has a different explination at the bottom of the page.

]]> By: ed lebert http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus/comment-page-1#comment-6771 ed lebert Wed, 24 May 2006 20:13:17 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/divorce-remarriage-and-the-gospel-5-jesus#comment-6771 I think the exceptions in Matthew 5 and 19 mean "marriage after divorce makes you guilty of adultery unless of course you are already guilty of adultery before the divorce." I had never heard of this explination before I read Piper's position paper you linked to earlier, and it seems to make good sense to me. Its funny how you seem to think Jesus' words are harder to understand than the old testament texts. I found these are more straight forward, especially in light of the fact that he explains the old testament texts as well. Tthe exception clause in Matthew is the only thing about the verses you brought up as difficult or complex. Were there other things in the verses which you thought made it difficult to understand? I think the exceptions in Matthew 5 and 19 mean “marriage after divorce makes you guilty of adultery unless of course you are already guilty of adultery before the divorce.” I had never heard of this explination before I read Piper’s position paper you linked to earlier, and it seems to make good sense to me.

Its funny how you seem to think Jesus’ words are harder to understand than the old testament texts. I found these are more straight forward, especially in light of the fact that he explains the old testament texts as well. Tthe exception clause in Matthew is the only thing about the verses you brought up as difficult or complex. Were there other things in the verses which you thought made it difficult to understand?

]]>