For thinkers: Can a person remarry a former spouse after having married another?

One of the most unsettled issues in the Christian world (although most claim to have settled it — but they have not) is the relationship of the Law to the believer, specifically what applies and how it applies.

This issue comes up when we deal with tattoos, for example. But today’s issue is about divorce and remarriage. Some top commentators suggest that the main point of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is to prevent someone who is divorced and remarried to return to the first spouse. The concessions to human nature about divorce might be the secondary issue.

Discussion

1 John 2:2 - Does Grace Extend to Everyone? (Part 2)

Read Part 1.

An Exegesis of 1 John 2:2

To adequately handle any passage we must work through some important exegetical steps. We need to (1) verify the text and translation, (2) identify background and context, (3) identify structural keys, (4) identify grammatical and syntactical keys, (5) identify lexical keys, (6) address Biblical context, and (7) consider theological context. Then we would verify our work, put it into practice in our own lives as appropriate, and communicate it with others as God gives us opportunity.1

Discussion

1 John 2:2 - Does Grace Extend to Everyone? (Part 1)

Introduction

A literal translation of 1 John 2:2 reads as follows: “And He a propitiation He is for the sins of us, not for those of us only, but also for those of the whole world.” At first glance the verse seems simple enough, but there has historically been startling disagreement regarding its intended meaning.

John MacArthur concludes that the passage cannot mean that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, insisting that, “Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Judas … or Adolf Hitler.”1 MacArthur supports his view with an appeal to John 11:52,2 which he says indicates that Jesus died only for the children of God. The passage reads, “… and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”3 John Piper’s explanation of the passage is similar, as he, like MacArthur, supports his 1 John 2:2 interpretation from an appeal to John 11:52.4 R.C. Sproul explains 1 John 2:2 as follows: “He is the “propitiation” for us, the one who endured the wrath we deserve so that divine justice is fulfilled, not set aside. Christ is the propitiation for “the whole world,” not because He made atonement for every sinner, but because He redeemed not only Jews but people from all parts of the world” [emphasis mine].5

Discussion

Earliest Extant 66 Book Canon

Need help. Can anybody point me to the earliest extant 66 book codex? Thanks.

Discussion

Persuasion in Your Mind (Part 6)

The previous 5 papers in this series, we have focused on the “weak” brother. If you are just now joining the series, it would be wise to start with Parts 1-5. We’ve seen him to be weak in the sense that he is not capable of doing some action without self-condemnation. We have seen his weakness as a gift of God and a conviction from God. We’ve seen Paul take his side and discuss issues in which he himself was unable to act. All of this means that the “weak” brother should not be thought of as immature or lacking in knowledge. For many readers, this is a new way of understanding the weak brother. So, having seen him anew in the light of Paul’s writing, what does this mean for us today?

Applications, Not Principles

We are talking about applications, not Bible principles. Principles are truths from God’s Word. No part of Scripture means something different to one person than another.1 But we apply Bible principles differently.

Discussion

1 John 2.2

Christopher Cone has a new article about this controversial verse. I’ll list the PDF here:

http://www.drcone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Does-Grace-Extend-to-E…

Cone has written about this verse before and, in my mind, I have disagreed with him. Here I indicate what, I believe, he misses. If Cone is correct then it is hard to reconcile the whole of personal, loving redemption that the bible indicates elsewhere (as he says).

Discussion