Divorce

If nothing else this shows a couple of different methods of scholarship.

What God Has Joined by David Instone-Brewer in Christianity Today

Response:
Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce by John Piper

Related Scripture:
Malachi 2:13-16, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9-11, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2, 1 Corinthians 7:15

48 Responses to “Divorce”


  1. 1 David Instone-Brewer

    Thanks for highlighting this. There is lots more, including a response to Piper here.

  2. 2 ScriptureZealot

    Thanks for your reply. I’ll add this to the mix just so people know it’s really you:
    More from David Instone-Brewer on divorce

  3. 3 Scripture Zealot
  4. 4 Scripture Zealot

    Here is David-Instone-Brewer’s response to the above article:

    Thank you for this careful and detailed review.

    You have correctly understood the main thrust of what I have found. That is, in the first century the Jews were debating whether “a matter of indecency” in Deut.24.1 meant that you could get divorced for two grounds (“indecency” and “any matter”) or just for one ground. Jesus was asked about this “divorce for any matter” and he rejected it, with the same words which the critics of this theory used in the first century. They said that there is no other ground for divorce in Deut.24.1 “except for indecency”.

    However, you have misunderstood some of what I have said in my books. In particular:

    1) When I unpack the abbreviated account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce in the Gospels, I am not trying to reconstruct what he said, but I am merely trying to explain what how his original hearers understood him. He used phrases which are not immediately obvious to us, and we need to complete the translation process by unpacking them. Consider the phrase “The speaker made an altar call”. This would be misunderstood by someone from another culture – they might think this was some kind of ventriloquism by which an altar was made to call out! We would need to unpack it by saying “The speaker [a church evangelist] called [to the congregation to give their lives to God and come to the] alter [rail at the front of the church to signify their commitment].” Although this is a considerable expansion, it says no more than is implied by the phrase.

    2) When I point out that Jesus agreed with some Jewish teachers of the time, I am not saying that he said nothing new. Out of the two views on Deut.24.1, he had to agree with one and disagree with the other. As well as this, he taught that marriage is made up of two people, thereby disagreeing with most Jews who believed in polygamy, though agreeing with Qumran Jews who taught monogamy. Also he taught that one was allowed to be a eunuch for the kingdom, which disagreed with all Jews (so far as we know) because they taught that the command to “go forth and multiply” applies to all men. And Jesus disagreed with those Pharisees who taught that adultery was a compulsory ground for divorce, because he said that Moses did not “command” divorce for sexual indecency, but he “allowed” it.

    3) The insight that Jesus was responding to a debate which was well known to first century Jews is not a new one. Every serious commentary from about 1850 has pointed this out. It is true that this insight comes from outside Scripture, but this is equally true for other insights by which we interpret the Bible. For example, we know that first century culture considered it indecent for women to wear their hair loose in public and for men to have long hair, so we understand that Paul was forbidding indecent dress rather than making theological statements about hair fashion. If we do not allow insights from history to educate us, we will have very few tools with which to understand or even translate the Bible.

    4) The ethics of the Bible are timeless, and do not conform to culture. God does not change, and the way that he wishes humanity to behave does not change. But this does not mean that the specific laws given to people in a specific culture in order to achieve this behaviour will also achieve the same behaviour in another culture. The law of levirate marriage in ancient Israel was part of the care for the poor widow, who needed a son to look after her and to inherit the family land. The law against loose hair was concerned with preventing the appearance of loose morals in Corinth. We should obey these laws by giving practical support for widows and avoiding anything which implies an immoral lifestyle. This kind of cultural insight does not mean that ethics change with time, though specific ways of carrying out those ethics may change.

    5) It is true that I do not think divorcees should be judged or told what to do by a minister or by a church, but this does not mean that a pastor does not have an important role to play. A pastor should always aim to support a marriage, helping the wronged partner find the strength to forgive and helping the other to stop breaking their marriage vows. Jesus taught that divorce should only occur when a partner was sinning ‘hardheartedly’ – a word which occurs only twice in the OT. Jesus was presumably alluding to the occurance in Jer.4.4 which deals with God’s divorce from Israel after she sinned ‘hardheartedly’ by repeatedly committing adultery and refusing to repent despite many pleas. I do not think that someone outside the marriage can determine when the point of no return has been reached, where forgiveness will merely lead to more sin without any chance that repentance will occur. So I do not regard it as the role of the church to decide when a marriage should end.

    I am pleased that you have taken my findings as seriously as you have. Clearly you disagree with some of the conclusions based on these findings but, as you can see from the above, we do not disagree on as quite many points as appears to be the case.

    Best wishes

    David IB

    /// Dr David Instone-Brewer
    dib http://www.DivorceRemarriage.com
    .^. divorceremarriage.blogspot.com
    \=/

  5. 5 Aria Tifa

    Well, this article is really the freshest on this worthwhile topic. I concur with your conclusions and anxiously look forward to your future updates. Saying thank you will not be adequate, for the phenomenal lucidity in your writing. I’ll immediately grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Admirable work and much success in your business efforts,but I can’t seem to find the RSS subscribe button.Could you tell me your rss address?

  6. 6 Scripture Zealot

    Hi, You can find it part way down the right column.
    Jeff

  7. 7 Robert

    All I have to say about this book is it has caused more damage in my marriage than can be related. My wife and I separated over a year ago and she has been living with her parents who have gone back and forth on even alowing me to come to their house to see my wife or our son. We did not separate because of infidelity of abuse we separated because of financial stresses and other relational issues. I have now been accused of neglecting my wife even though I have been shut out of her life. I have been accused of abandonment even though is was her that has chosen to leave. This book is dangerous and she is using it as grounds to justify the divorce. I would warn against this book ever being used for counsel for a married couple going through a hard time.

  8. 8 Scripture Zealot

    I’ve held back my opinion but it’s time to say I agree with you Robert. Thanks for the comment.

    I’m happily married so I don’t have experience with this however. I’m extremely saddened by your situation.
    Jeff

  9. 9 David Instone-Brewer

    Dear Robert

    I’m very sorry to hear about your situation. From what you have said, it sounds like the book has being mis-read. The main message of the book is that divorce should ONLY be based on the biblical grounds of adultery, neglect and abuse.

    David Instone-Brewer

  10. 10 Robert

    If you could Mr Brewer please clarify what Biblical adultery that should be clear, but what about neglect and abuse. What grounds are those please give an example to clarify.

  11. 11 David Instone-Brewer

    The details are in my books, and most of the text can be read at http://www.DivorceRemarriage.com

    If you don’t find all your questions answered there, please do ask for more information.

  12. 12 Stan McCullars

    …what about neglect and abuse. What grounds are those please give an example to clarify

    David, I went to your site and to be honest couldn’t find a quick answer. How about answering the question here where it was asked? Be specific.

  13. 13 Robert

    David where is the clarity in what you are saying. God is always clear he leaves no room for confusion. What you are stating here is the Church is confused and you are not. I have put alot of study on this topic. Primarily I have had to protect my marriage against your book. Everything I read goes against what you are writing in your book. If Jesus came to only repeat what the Rabbi’s were saying then why did they kill him. Why then were the Disciples on so many occasions shocked about what Jesus had to say if it did not go against the norm. The problem that I have found so many times with academic interpretations of what the Bible has to say is the Holy Spirit is taken out of it alot of the time. Jesus came here as a redeemer and so many time our relationship with him is compared to marriage let me ask you this David what if Jesus decided to divorce us where would we be. I know you have probably hear all these arguments but I will not alow any marriages I can have some influence on to be effected by this book. I will warn every pastor and Church I come across what these teachings can do to marriage. It is a sad state of affairs when the divorce rate in the Church is higher than the worlds. There no more for better or worse or death to us part. It is until for happiness and til the next divorce. This is what the limp wristed version of Christianity has given us. We have no standard and there are too many churches and pastors wanting to teach the popular versions instead of wanting to possibly challenge their flock to make them better. It is sad.

  14. 14 Stan McCullars

    Usually (if not always) when I read about a new understanding of what Jesus taught I have found little more than error in a pretty package.

    Reading David Instone-Brewer’s Christianity Today article was no exception. His expansion of Biblical divorce is tragic. Exodus 21:10-11 was tortured.

    Along with Robert, I will not alow any marriages I can have some influence on to be effected by this book. I will warn every pastor and Church I come across what these teachings can do to marriage.

  15. 15 David Instone-Brewer

    Robert, I agree with you that Jesus disagreed with the rabbis almost all the time, and that was one reason he was crucified.

    I also agree with you that fewer Christians should get divorced. The main thrust of what I am teaching from the Bible is that divorce should always be based on biblical grounds and that no-one should be getting divorced simply because their marriage isn’t working out or they don’t feel fulfilled as a person, or other similar reasons which can’t be found in Scripture.

    I’m not sure I can agree with you that it is easy to understand what the Bible is saying on the subject of divorce. Different churches have come to different conclusions. This is a complex subject, as I’m sure you understand because you say that you have spent a lot of time studying it. I am not saying that I know the solution. I merely offer some information which hasn’t been put into the pot before, and ask the reader to consider whether this helps to explain the situation better.

    One reason it has been so difficult to understand Jesus’ teaching is that we haven’t realised what an “Any Cause divorce” was. In Jewish legal texts and in Josephus and Philo we find that this was the name for the 1st C equivalent of a no-fault divorce. So when they asked Jesus “Is it lawful to get divorced for Any Cause?”, they were asking about a specific form of divorce. Anyone listening to Jesus or reading the Gospels in the first century would have realised this. Jesus said this new form of divorce was unscriptural and if anyone used it and remarried, they would be committing adultery because they were still married.

    I’m sorry that you have come across a misrepresentation of what I have written, and I am saddened that such views are being used to suggest that Jesus approved of non-biblical divorces. It might be that you are relying on a quick reading of the summary in Christianity Today – some other people have also misunderstood this very shortened version.

    Stan, I’m sorry you got lost on the site at http://www.DivorceRemarriage.com – there is rather a lot there.
    If you want the quick version, I suggest you click on one of the Summary articles – the one in Whitefield Briefing is probably the best.
    If you want to read a more details, I suggest you look at the Books – the “Pastoral” one is probably the best one to look at.
    If you want a quick fun read, click on version made by PlaymoBible – it’s great!

  16. 16 Robert

    David,

    Again I am not as learned as you and I know that my understanding may be limited. The danger that I see however is to state that any of the other reasons such as abuse and neglect can be rather ambiguous. Lets give the example of the economy right now in the US is hard unemployment is high and getting higher. According to what you have stated if a husband gets laid off and cannot provide for his family then he can be accused of neglect depriving food and clothing. If a husband or wife is suffering from depression or something else and not capable of providing the affection to the other can be accused of neglect there or could be considered emotional abuse. The marriage covenant is exactly that. When one person is not able to maintain their side the other picks up the slack. That is why I asked for clarity and if you can provide it then please do.

  17. 17 David Instone-Brewer

    I can appreciate that you’d like to have some definitions, but I try to limit myself to what Scripture says, and leave it to others to decide how this works in detail. I’m not a lawyer or pastoral counsellor so I stick to the Bible as much as I can. Have a read and see what you think.

  18. 18 Robert

    So you release a book that can cause potential damage to families and then don’t take responsibility for what you have published and leave it up to more interpretation. You put it on people that are hurting and seeing things the way they want to. You with your credentials have a responsibility to the people that may read what you have written and because of the state of their mind they take it and make decisions that are contrary to what the Bible says. Then you say after the damage is done that you leave it to others and not leave yourself limited to what scripture says. Mark 9:42 “But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone hung around your neck.” Take some responsibility for your own words.

  19. 19 Stan McCullars

    David,
    I agree with Robert. You reference a misrepresentation of what I have written yet all I’ve read about your writing is what you have written yourself. When ask for specifics you point to other writings of yours and then to others.

    I’ve now read all I care to of your writings. You remind me of N.T. Wright supporters. No one can ever disagree with Wright without being told they need to read yet another of his works.

    Enough! Come clean or be gone!

  20. 20 David Instone-Brewer

    Robert & Stan, I don’t think you are being fair to so vehemently for not giving definitive pastoral applications. My expertise is in Bible, and not in pastoral or counselling work.

    Let me repeat – I do NOT say that Jesus allowed easy divorce. On the contrary, Jesus rejected the easy divorces allowed by Jews in his day, and Paul rejected the similar Roman divorces available to his gentile readers. The Bible allows divorce for a very restricted number of grounds, which includes abuse. Jesus urged forgiveness for broken marriage vows, including adultery, even 490 times, rather than get a divorce. However, Jesus did allow divorce for persistent and unrepentant breaking of marriage vows.

    It would be very helpful if you could tell me which sections misled you. I could then correct the online versions so that others will not come to similarly damaging conclusion.

  21. 21 Stan McCullars

    It seems to me the prudent thing would be to have Christianity Today take down the article entirely. You could follow that up with taking down your website. As for your books, you could ask the publisher to stop selling them.

    Beyond that, perhaps a public apology.

    I’m not sure what your history is with divorce but something is keeping you from seeing clearly in this area. I think it would be best if you stopped writing on it entirely.

  22. 22 David Instone-Brewer

    Stan, this isn’t a very helpful reply. As you know, my main thrust is in agreement with you, that divorces should only be based on biblical grounds. How does it help anyone to remove material which agrees with this?

    Most readers haven’t misunderstood the book, so I guess you came across a section which wasn’t written very well. So please could you be helpful to everyone by pointing out which part(s) of the book you found misleading? You can see the text here.

  23. 23 Robert

    David,

    My entire point of this was to show you that your arrogant interpretation of the Bible has caused Damage to my marriage and I can almost promise that it is not the only one. You write the Divorce is ok when someone is not happy and that is the ambiguous point that you make. You give no real clear definition but with your credentials people take what you say as almost gospel. You say you are not offering pastoral advise or counsel but you write to pastors and mention that it came from when you were beginning as a pastor. You have a responsibility to the people that look to you because you have written a book that relates to the answers they are looking for. My wife is one of them you have caused damage beyond any that you may truly know. I do not doubt your heart or your intention but your writings have led some astray. Just accept your responsibility you know we as Christians do not live by worldly liability but our liability is higher and no matter what our intentions were the damage caused by our words we will answer for.

  24. 24 David Instone-Brewer

    Robert, it sounds like you are quoting something I haven’t written. The whole thrust of what I’m showing from Scripture is that divorce should ONLY be for biblical grounds. Please could you tell me where you read what you quote – ie “Divorce is ok when someone is not happy”. This is totally opposite to what I am saying. Where did you find this? We must change it immediately!

    Here are a couple of genuine quotes from my book which you might show to the person who has given you the false quote:

    “Jesus says that God does not want us to divorce if we can avoid it, even in the case of adultery; he wants us to forgive an erring partner rather than divorce them.” (in ch.5 “Divorce on Demand?” – “Divorce only for hard-heartedness”)

    “No one should initiate a divorce unless their partner is guilty of repeatedly or unrepentantly breaking their marriage vows.” (in ch.14 “What Should the Church Do Now?” – “Biblical Principles and Church Policy”)

  25. 25 Robert

    But David What is breaking the vows be specific. What is the exact offenses that would merit a divorce. If you can’t give the exacts then you should not say anything. You give people a way out without giving any real clear guidance.

  26. 26 Stan McCullars

    David,
    You seem to want specifics but ignore requests for specifics.

    Bad form.

  27. 27 David Instone-Brewer

    Robert & Stan, as you know from your extensive reading, I do discuss these in detail in my books “Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible” and “Divorce and Remarriage in the Church”. I discuss what the OT says, how the rabbis interpreted it, and how the NT interpreted it. The rabbis had some very clear definitions but I don’t find those very useful. The NT also appears to reject the idea of giving clear definitions – instead Paul uses general principles.

    If there are any details you have problems with, I’ll be happy to try and deal with those.

    And please, could you tell me what passages misled you about what I found in the Bible. This has to be corrected urgently for the sake of others who might be misled!

  28. 28 Stan McCullars

    David,
    You’re impossible. Away with you, troll.

  29. 29 David Instone-Brewer

    Stan, I am offended that you have called me a troll.

    I have given considerable time writing extensive replies to questions on this page (scroll up and review them) and I have always been polite and tried to be accurate. In response I have been charged with not answering questions, I’ve been criticised for things I haven’t written, while I haven’t yet been criticised for anything I actually have written, and I’ve been told that God will punish me on judgement day.

    If you really are concerned to help others who might get the wrong impression of what I have written, like poor Robert’s wife, please tell me which passages are misleading so that I can change them.

  30. 30 Robert

    David,

    I want to start and say that I do not think you are a troll. I do not think that your intention were misplaced either. I do think that opening a door allowing a “way out” based on the grounds of neglect and abuse you leave alot of interpretation that can be harmful. That is why I have asked for clarity on what you believe to be true neglect and abuse. You have not answered those questions. Like I said it is too ambiguous to state firmly that is what the Bible’s stand is. Is it not possible that Jesus meant exactly what he said that the only grounds for divorce is sexual immorality why is the possibility not explored and left alone. Open views such as this still lead us to more divorce more broken families. That is my point. Leave the Bible alone it is fine the way it is. The Holy Spirit will guide and protect the meaning of Gods Word. Isaiah 55:11 “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” Just leave the Bible alone.

  31. 31 David Instone-Brewer

    Robert, I agree that we should not say more than the Bible says, which is why I have resisted your calls for more definition – ie definition which isn’t in the Bible.

    I also like your appeal for sticking simply to what the Bible says. Unfortunately, what Jesus says about divorce is not straightforward to understand, unless simply pick one interpretation and decide that’s what it means. Did he teach only divorce for adultery, or only for pre-marital fornication, or did he teach no divorce at all, or did he teach against the “Any Cause” divorce? And did Jesus allow divorce for abuse?

    As early as AD 200 the Church Father Origen was puzzled by Jesus’ teaching. He said that if a wife was trying to poison her husband, or if she deliberately killed their baby, then for her husband ‘to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational’ (Comm. on Matt. II.14.24).

  32. 32 Scripture Zealot

    First of all I hesitate to say anything, not being qualified, and being happily married only once.

    About Origen:
    “Origen (185-254) was an early church Father and apologist for Christianity. He was heavily influenced by Platonic and Gnostic thought. As a consequence his defense of the faith tended to sacrifice important teachings. He denied the historicity of critical sections of Scripture; he taught the preexistence of the soul and universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved) and denied that Jesus was raised from the dead in a physical body. These positions were condemned as heretical by later church councils.”

    So he seemed confused by a lot of things. I’m not sure why people go to Origen as an example of an early church father or why he’s that important in the first place.

    I’m not an expert on this and have not done research as an author and scholar would. But I think separation is a viable alternative in this country when someone is in danger, as difficult as that would be for many reasons, like if there is no means of income etc. Or at least a first step. If someone is not in danger, the marriage vows would have to take precedence I would think. I don’t think it has to be divorce or nothing, which people in this conversation already know.
    Jeff

  33. 33 Jaycee

    This is really late in the game, but having just read one of the books, I have to say I think the men above are being really unfair to Mr. Instone-Brewer and perhaps they are just afraid that their wives will find out they have not been such good husbands. I found the book to be immensely insightful and helpful. Very good explanations. Mr. Instone-Brewer has told you men, that he is not a counselor or pastor. Have you even read the books?

    If your wife has left you on unbiblical grounds, as you say, then your pastor ought to be dealing with her and you. That is not the job of an author!

    Mr. Instone-Brewer does not widen the bounds for divorce, he narrows them, by giving only the Biblical reasons for a divorce. Others, it seems, only want to teach what will keep them safe, even if they give their wives a few “slaps” now and then. I think God has used Mr. Instone-Brewer here, to free women (and men) from marriages defined by abuse and neglect and adultery, which are in fact the biblical grounds for divorce!

    Thanks to you Mr. Instone-Brewer, for doing God’s work here. It seems some of the others commenting here, particularly Stan, Robert and Jeff, think that if a husband abuses his wife, she should remain faithful to her vows and allow him to abuse her, even unto death. God divorced Israel. He remained faithful even though she did not, but He still divorced her. There is our greatest example of how to handle the breaking of the marriage vows by one spouse.

  34. 34 Scripture Zealot

    Who in the world would approve a few slaps now and then??? Talk about unfair.
    Jeff

  35. 35 John

    Is Scripture Zealot saying, then, that “a few slaps” is grounds for divorce? If not, then what level of physical abuse does? And when does emotional/verbal abuse rise to the level of severity that Scripture Zealot would allow divorce?

  36. 36 Scripture Zealot

    Why are you asking me this? I’ve never written anything about slapping. My name is Jeff.
    Jeff

  37. 37 John

    Hmmm… I’m new here. I thought the post above mine was from “Scripture Zealot”. It said, “Who in the world would approve a few slaps now and then???” I thought it was rhetorical with the obvious meaning that they wouldn’t “approve” of it.

    So my question was basically what does it mean that they “disapprove”? Perhaps the level of disapproval only requires a stern warning to abuser? Maybe a second chance for the abuser to abuse again is required? Or does that type of behavior threaten the marriage because it’s violated something sacred? Just wanting definition of their statement that they don’t “approve”.

  38. 38 Scripture Zealot

    Jaycee mentioned slaps. I don’t know what she’s referring to is all I was saying. In any case I don’t approve of slapping in marriage at any time. I haven’t dealt with this, so if it were to occur, I really don’t know how to handle it other than whoever is being slapped to tell someone about it to try to get it to stop, at the least. It’s not acceptable.
    Jeff

  39. 39 John

    Ok, it’s “not acceptable”. But what does that mean with regard to the marriage? Is abuse in your opinion biblical grounds for divorce? How much abuse would a spouse need to endure before you’d say the abuser has effectively divorced that spouse and, therefore, you could acknowledge it?

  40. 40 Scripture Zealot

    I really don’t know. I’m no authority on this and haven’t thought about it. If there’s abuse there should be separation for protection. Not an easy thing, I’m sure.

    All I did is post two opposing views so people could decide for themselves. I side with Piper but when I put up the post I didn’t say that because I didn’t want to sway people. Most who regularly read this blog would also side with Piper. People often make inferences from that.
    Jeff

  41. 41 John

    I don’t hold to Piper’s view. Personally I’m about to celebrate my 30th anniversary with my wife, so this issue isn’t something I’ve had to struggle with personally.

    But I think your response reveals a real practical weakness in your position — and one that seems like it could be easily strengthened. When one’s primary focus is on the fact that “no divorce” is an absolute standard from the Lord, that position and its adherents can appear rather heartless when they are asked about how they would handle real life marital tragedies and the only response they can muster is something along the lines of “I don’t know”. At best it appears willingly naive, at worst stubbornly callous.

  42. 42 Scripture Zealot

    I didn’t realize I have a position like that. Where are you getting all of this stuff?
    Jeff

  43. 43 John

    I got it from your statement that you “side with Piper” on the divorce issue.

    My understanding of Piper’s view is that he sees no valid reason for divorce. He sees Jesus’ “exception clause” as referring to the period of betrothal prior to the husband and wife becoming one flesh (i.e. think Joseph determining to put away Mary because of apparent unfaithfulness prior to their union). It is the most “conservative” of the various evangelical positions on divorce that I’ve read.

  44. 44 Scripture Zealot

    Read what Piper says:
    “One advantage of this interpretation is that the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 are in complete harmony with his words in Mark 10:11-12 where there is no exception mentioned (“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”). And they are in harmony with Luke 16:18 where there is no exception mentioned (“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery”).

    My aim here is not to persuade people that this understanding of the exception clause is right. My aim is to say that David Instone-Brewer’s argument is not compelling—neither the argument from the “any-cause divorce” in rabbinic literature, nor the argument from Exodus 21:10-11.” (added emphasis)

    He was making a point.

  45. 45 John

    Yes, I’ve read Piper on divorce and understand his/your position on the exception clause.

    My point is that your position, combined with an unwillingness or inability to discuss the practicalities of tragic sin in some marriages, is a weakness. Attempting to maintain an absolute “no divorce” standard in the face of horrendous marital circumstances without coming off as someone immune to human suffering isn’t easy. Avoiding those questions with “I don’t know” or “I’m not an expert” doesn’t help your case.

  46. 46 Scripture Zealot

    I haven’t given my exact position, and I don’t have one other than I don’t like widening the reasons for divorce wider than what the Bible says. Like I said, if you read it, is I posted two points of view for people to look at. I don’t know what else to say. I don’t have an exact position and great knowledge on every single subject in the whole world that affects people, even though you must think I’m that smart because I have this little blog or something. And I don’t know why you’re hounding me so I’ll have to delete any further comments.
    Jeff

  47. 47 John

    My intent was simply to point out how you (or those holding to a Piper-type view) might improve their argumentation. Sorry you took offense.

  48. 48 Scripture Zealot

    I haven’t put forth an argumentation. If you disagree with someone, that doesn’t mean their argumentation needs to be “improved”. Arrogance won’t get you very far. In fact I posted more about Instone-Brewer than Piper to be fair and because he took the time to reply, even though I tend to agree with more of what Piper says. I’m not his clone. I’m not going to spend any more time on a 5 year old post.
    Jeff

  1. 1 Divorce in the Bible | Scripture Zealot
  2. 2 Updated Posts | Scripture Zealot
  3. 3 Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce (by John Piper) « just after sunrise
Comments are currently closed.



%d bloggers like this: