No, indeed, it is not, in fact if you look closely at the passages you quote Marx writes 'abolition of the *old* division of labour' using the qualification 'old' before 'division of labour', meaning that he does not refer to the division of labour as such, but a specific form of the division of labour, namely a capitalistic one achieved spontaneously through the exchange of commodities.
That was what I drew your attention to in the first place, and why it was misjudged of you to say that what I was saying was the opposite of what Marx meant, when it was simply what Marx meant.
Ted writes further:
'It's self-evident that instrumental activity (the activity that defines what Marx calls "the realm of natural necessity") will always be necessary and that it must always be divided among different activities. What isn't self-evident is that these activities will be carried out by "educated men" - "fully developed individuals" - "who can do everything that others do."'
That is not really Marx's problem with the realm of natural necessity, it is Ted's problem with Marx.