The Gospel For The Miserably Married (Pt 1)

by Norma Neal Gause

What The Bible Really Says About Divorce and Remarriage

This study was made for all such Christians. G-d did not doom them to second class citzenship in the Church. He made a way out of bondage, hopelesness and guilt for them just as He did for all other types of sinners. Yet sometimes the church seems to teach that the gospel is good news to everyone who fails--except to those who fail at marriage.

We have acted as if Christ says to these men and women, "I came to make your burdens heavier and your bonds tighter," rather than, "I came to set the captives free and to give you my joy that you might have life and have it abundantly."

This careful examination of all pertinent scriptures will prove that G-d Himself insisted upon divorce as a way out of marriage in certain cases and that He insists upon the right of divorced people to remarry in every case, with one surprising exception--that of remarriage to the first spouse after the death of, or divorce from, a second spouse. You will know the reason for this strange command when you have finished reading this study. But, even if you should fall in this category you will discover that G-d does not condemn you; instead, He uses the principle implicit in the strange command to teach all of us-- who are willing to learn --a most wonderful truth.

A failed marriage with its loneliness and hardship is burden enough for anyone to bear without also having to bear condemnation and ostracism from his or her denomination or conscience, or from fellow Christians. How delighted the Church should be to discover what G-d really says about divorce! It will enable us to bear one another's burdens and will allow the wounded to receive solace from the saints. But more important, it will let the divorced person re-establish fellowship with a G-d who loves him or her as much as he loves married people, one who places no stigma on those who are divorced, nor on those who are remarried after having been divorced. G-d's word will establish and demonstrate these truths.

G-d Hates Divorce-- But Why?

Occasionally a Christian may hear a pastor say something like this: "Nancy, I wish you could teach in Sunday School, but because you've been divorced we can't let you," or "Bill, you would have mad a fine preacher; but, you may as well forget it-- since you've been divorced." Even more devastating to those in some denominations, they may hear apriest say, "If you are divorced, you cannot take communion again." How many lives have been robbed of the joy of Christian communion and service by such words! But just as tragic are the words, "No, I'm afraid you can't divorce your husband if he wants you to stay together, even if he is an alcoholic, won't support you, and is cruel to you and the children." But perhaps worst of all is the case of the remarried Christian who is advised that he or she is living in adultery as long as the first spouse is still living. Some Christians have heard this even though they were not saved until after their divorce and remarriage. What are the supposed to do? Abandon their present spouse and children-- or pray for the death of the first spouse? All of these are actual cases that I have met in my years of counseling.

Countless numbers of Christians are bound in tragic marriage situations because they have been told by pastors or well-meaning friends that a Christian has no choice but to "stick it out." Many women continue to live with men who violently abuse them or fail to provide for them, or refuse to sleep with them, or even worse, bring home sexually transmitted diseases to them. And all the time they are made to feel guilty and stricked because they are not winning their husbands by their "chaste conversation coupled with fear" (1 Peter 3:1,2).

Pastors and friends are quick to quote Peter's words, but they usually fail to mention Paul's warning: "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave' the brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases, but G-d has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband?" Seldom does a man struggling to hold on to a hopeless marriage hear Paul's next statement: "Or how do yo know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?" (1 Cor. 7:15,16). In these verses Paul is speaking to believers whose unbelieving spouses want to leave them; he says, "Let them go," But, as we will see later, he also addresses the problem of the believer who wants to leave a marriage partner.

Many a woman clings in desperation to a cruel or drunken husband, thinking she has no alternative within G-d's will and assured that she can never marry again if she leaves him. And the same is true for many sincere, dedicated men who long with all their hearts who serve the Lord but cannot because of shrewish or alcoholic wives who despise their husband's faith and Christian profession.

Is this really what the Bible teaches on divorce, or have we mised something along the way? When we examine what the Bible actually says, instead of what men have said it says, we will discover that men have done G-d a terrible injustice.

It is true that G-d hates divorce. He says so unequivocally in the last book of the Old Testament: "I hate divorce," says the Lord, the G-d of Israel." However, the verse doesn"t end there; it ends with the words: "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously" (Mal. 2:16). Treacherous dealing is what leads to divorce, and G-d hates treachery; but He does not penalize divorced person by forbidding them ever to marry again. In fact, G-d instigated divorce so that the person who has been dealt with treacherously can marry again. And, although G-d hates divorce, we will find many cases in the Bible where He commands it.

But do the same principles apply to Christians today? I think we will discover that they do; first we will look at what the Old Testament says about divorce. Then we will see what Jesus teaches; and finally we will examine Paul's instructions, comments and conclusions on the subject.

What God Says About Divorce Through The Life Of Moses

The case of Moses himself is instructive and suggests that G-d allows divorce when religious differences would prevent one of the spouses from serving G-d as He commands us to serve Him. When Moses' first wife, a Midianite womand named Zipporah, showed disgust and antipathy toward the Hebrew rite of circumcision which G-d had commanded, Moses divorced her. We discover this by comparing Exodus 4:24-26 with Exodus 18:2. The first passage is admittedly a most mysterious passage; nevertheless, it is clear enough that G-d wanted Moses to circumcise his son, and Zipporah had refused to allow it. So God sought to shed Moses' blood in the place of the son's. Zipporah hurriedly cuts off her son's foreskin and throws it ( margin "made it touch") at Moses' feet just in time to save his life as she screams, "You are a bridegroom of blood to me."

Apparently the son's salvation depended on Moses' obedience, and if the parents would not circumcise the son, G-d would take Moses' life in the place of the son's (perhaps the lesson for Christians is that we are responsible for teachin our children the way of salvation).

The next time we hear of Zipporah it is to learn in Exodus 18:2 that Moses has divorced her: "And Jethro, Moses father-in-law, took Moses' wife Zipporah, after he (Moses) had sent her away..." The phrase "sent her away" is the same expresssion translated "divorce" in Malachi 2:16 (where G-d says, "I hate divorce"), as well as in several other places.

It appears that Jethro has brought Zipporah and her two sons back to Moses to try to effect a reconciliation. But the attempt must have failed, for the chapter ends with Moses sending off his father-in-law (Exodus 18:5,6 &27, margin), and that is the last we ever hear of either Jethro of Zipporah. In a later passage (Numbers 12:1) we discover that Moses has remarried: "Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite (Ethiopian) woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman)." There is no evidence that G-d ever reprimanded Moses for divorcing his first wife. And He obviously did not disapprove of Moses having married again, for He punished Mirriam with leprosy for speaking against Moses' second marriage (Numbers 12:9,10).

These passages clearly imply that because Zipporah did not join Moses in the worship of Jehova, in fact despised his religion, Moses "sent her away." Then he married another woman. G-d seems to have approved; at any rate, He heartily disapproved of the criticism aimed at Moses for his choice of a second wife (which criticism, as indicated by verses two throughnine, was mixed with jealousy).

In the book of Ezra chapter 10, 112 men are named who were required to send away their pagan spouses just as Moses sent Zipporah away. We will refer to that sorrowful event again (by way of contrast) when we look at Paul's teaching on divorce.

Divorce in the Law of Moses

The first command concerning divorce is found in Exodus 21:7-11. It has to do with a female slave whom a man has bought as a wife for himself or his son. If he grows tired of her and wants to be rid of her, he cannot simply turn her out to go free, as he could a male slave. Verse eight says, "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his dealing treacherously" (margin).

He must let her be redeemed (brought back), for G-d does not want the girl to have to live with a man who might be cruel to her because he no longer desires her. Furthermore, if her father cannot or will not redeem her (pay back the purchase price or dowry), and the man takes another woman, he must not cut down on the food, clothes or conjugal rights of the girl he tired of. Verse eleven says, "And if he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money." That is to say, if a man fails to provide sufficient food, clothing or sexual relations, the unwanted wife is free to return to her in order to remain a bona fide marriage, conjugal rights must be maintained along with sufficient food and clothing. And, although the man is commanded to let her go even without the return of her purchase price, he must give her a divorce certificate, as we will discover (in the third reference to divorce).

The second command concerning divorce is found in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Here G-d is dealing with women captured in war. If a man sees one he desires and takes her as a wife and then is not pleased with her, G-d says to that man: "You shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her." If G-d cared for the welfare and the happiness of wives taken as captives in war, does He not have at least the same care for His own daughters who today may be in bondage to men who neglect or abuse them, or have simply grown tired of them? Surely G-d would say, "You shall let her go wherever she wishes." That, as you will see in the next reference, requires him to put a divorce certificate in her hand.

The third scripture that deals with divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, teaches some startling things. First it teaches that a man may divorce his wife because he has become displeased with her over some indecency he thinks he has found in her. Why would G-d allow divorce on such broad and general grounds? Again it can only be because He wants no woman to have to live with a man who finds her presence so objectionable be doesn't want her around. Neither does He want any woman to have to resort to prostitution or to be stoned for adultery, for it is in this passage that we find that the unwanted wife is to be sent forthe with a certificate of divorce in her hand. The only purpose for a divorce certificate is to prove that she is fee to marry; if she were to try to remarry without the divorce certificate she would be stoned to death for adultery. Without a husband or father to provide for her she would be forced into prostitution in order to buy food for herself (there were no jobs available for women then-- not even as waitresses or secretaries). The hardship for a woman sent away without the possibility of remarrying is difficult to imaging. But isn't the same true today? Women who are unloved-- abandoned, or sent away-- whose church refuses them the right to remarry, are in the same plight abandoned slave women would have been if they could not have remarried. It begins to look as if our G-d is far more compassionate than men are.

The Gospel For The Miserably Married (Pt 2)

by Norma Neal Gause

The One Stipulation Against Remarriage

The only stipulation against remarriage is also found in the same passage we are considering. If the divorced woman marries again and her second husband dies or turns against her and sends her away with a divorce certificate, the first husband must not take her back as wife (Deut. 24:2-4). G-d says such a marriage is an abomination that would bring sin upon the land. In spite of that clear injunction against remarriage to a formerly divorced, remarried and then widowed person, some Christians advise men or women to put away their present mate and be reunited to the original one on the grounds that they are living in adultery so long as their first mate is still alive. Thousands of lonely, grieving women pray continually for their ex-husbands' to leave their present wife and return. I personally know of one group of young women who meet weekly to pray against their ex-husbands' second marriages. They refuse to believe that their own marriages are really over, and as a result they cannot get on with their lives. In addition to the practical reason (of women needing to get on with their own lives), G-d had (as mentioned above) a spirtual illustration He wants to make by the injunction against remarrying the twice divorced wife (or once divorced and once widowed by death) which will become clear before we finish.

Not only does this remarkable passage teach that a man may divorce his wife for any indecency he thinks he sees in her, that if he does he must give her a divorce certificate, and that he must not remarry her if she becomes widowed or divorced from a second man, it clearly teaches that the divorced person is no longer a husband or wife to the one he or she is divorced from. That would seem to be a self-evident truth, but some (e.g. those mentioned above) have not accepted it. They believe that Jesus' words, "What G-d has joined together, let no man separate," indicate that a marriage can never be dissolved (we will examine His meaning when we get to His teaching).

Many ministers grieve over the advice they feel they must give to hurting people about marriage, divorce and remarriage. Are we to think that G-d is less compassionate than men?

The Old Testament makes it very clear that, although G-d hates divorce, He allows it-- even commands it under certain circumstances. Yet it is not His plan; He hates it because it is the end result of sin and a treacherous, hardened heart; it often humbles and humiliates the woman, and it results in hardship and unhappiness. On the other hand, G-d allows divorce because in some cases the lack of divorce would cause even more hardship and unhappiness and lead to worse sin (even with divorce easy to attain, more women are killed by their own husband then are murdered by strangers, and incest and child abuse are epidemic).

Jesus Teaches on Divorce

(The Sermon on the Mount)

But we've been talking about the Old Testament. Didn't Jesus forbid divorce except on the grounds of adultery? No, He did not. Let's see what He does say. He mentions divorce for the first time in the Sermon on the Mount where He is comparing the Law of the Old Testament with His own teachings: "You have heard--but I say." By what they had "heard" Jesus was not referring to rumor or traditions of men. He had reference to what they had heard from G-d through Moses (e.g. "Thou shalt not murder;" "Thou shalt not commit adultery, etc.") Six times in chapter five of Matthew He repeats the formula, "You have heard...but I say."

He begins the section by warning us not to think that He came to abolish the Law or the Prophets and adds, "I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished." And again He warns us: "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven" (remember that granting a divorce certificate to a despised wife was part of the Law). After making it clear that He did not come to annul even the smallest part of the Law, He adds that our righteousness must surpass that of the Scribes and Pharisees if we are to enter the kingdom of Heaven(v. 21).

We know now, of course, that the righteousness required to enter heaven is Christ's righteousness received by faith as a free gift. Our own righteousness, as He proceeds to show in the rest of the Sermon, falls infinitely short of the requirement. His comments (notice that they are not commandments) on divorce are designed to show men that it is the sin in men's hearts that makes them desire divorce-- or makes divorce necessary (as you will see in the following explication).

Immediately after telling us we must be more righteous than even the Pharisees, Jesus says (Matthew 5:22,23), "You have heard that the ancients were told (remember that it was G-d who had told them), "You shall not commit murder" and "Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court." Now comes the first "but I say to you": "that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be quilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, "Raca," shall be quilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, "you fool" shall be guilty enough to go into the hell of fire." Now when He says, "But I say to you," we understand that He does not thereby cancel the Old Testament commandment. It is still wrong to murder. But He makes it plain that anger and contempt are as sinful in His sight as murder. They are, in fact, what lead to murder.

In the next comparison (verses 27 & 28) He shows that lust is as sinful as adultery: "But I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." Again we understand that doesn't mean that adultery is permissible. In verses 29 & 30 Jesus tells us to pluck out or cut off the member of our body that causes us to stumble rather than risk our whole body being cast into hell. What kind of stumbling does He refer to? Surely it was sexual sin-- the sin of lust or adultery, for in verse 31 He quotes from the Old Testament again, "And it was said [by G-d, as we have seen] "Whoever divorces His wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal" (Deut. 24:1). Now when He adds, "But I say to you," Jesus does not annul that commandment any more than He annulled the commandment not to murder or commit adultery. What He does is show that the giving of the certificate was the result of the sin of the heart--lack of love, contempt, treachery, hatred, lust--which had already been committed.

Any time two people come to the crisis point of needing or seeking divorce, sin on the part of one or both partners has already wrecked havoc in their lives (unless abandonment by one of the spouses is a result of insanity, a catastrophic accident or something over which they had no control, perhaps exile). Today it is almost as likely to be a wife who despises and abandons her husband as it is a husband who deserts his wife. The abandoned husband is as much in need of a divorce certificate, if he is a Christian, as a woman would be--so that he can remarry.

What Jesus has done in the Sermon on the Mount is to show that murder is an outgrowth of anger and contempt, adultery is the outcome of lust, and divorce is the result of treachery--the stumbling caused by the offending eye or hand in the verses which immediately preceded his comments. The church has missed the connection. At another time He will teach that some men make themselves eunuchs (thus, in effect, "divorcing" their wives if they have wives) for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven, but here He is talking about divorce as a result of hardness of heart and treachery.

Out of compassion for the unwanted woman, G-d had commanded a man who discarded her to give her a certificate of divorce. Jesus did not forbid the divorce; He simply pointed out the sin behind the necessity for it and the ramifications of that sin. Not only is the man who divorces his wife a sinner, he causes his wife to commit adultery along with anyone who marries her unless her own unchastity was the cause of his divorcing her-- in which case she herself was responsible for her own unchastity (Matthew 5:32).

In order to understand why the woman is made an adulteress when she remarries, even though she was the innocent party, we must know that G-d's original plan for man was for one man and one woman to live together as man and wife--not just for life but for eternity. But sin spoiled G-d's plan. Nevertheless that is the ideal and perfect design for marriage. In that plan anything other than total single-eyed and single-hearted devotion to one life-time partner without a single slip-up either before or after marriage is adultery; lust is adultery, hatred is muder and anything less than perfection is sin. The point is that all are sinners-- as Paul says in Romans 3:10, "There is none righteous, no not one,...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of G-d" (Romans 3:10,23). This is why Jesus said, "You must be born again" (John 3:7).

The purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to show us all just how far short of righteousness we come and how impossible it will ever be for us to meet G-d's requirements by our own efforts. Jesus is showing us how desperately we need a savior! It is the same lesson He was teaching the men who brought to Him the woman they had taken in adultery: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Under His standard all men fall short--not one could cast a stone. Under His standard all men--and women-- are adulterers.

How The Two Become One Flesh

In the matter of divorce the Church has failed to take into account that Jesus came to lift men's burdens and to set them free, not to entangle them in a tighter yoke of bondage. But even under the Old Covenant, G-d was a G-d of tenderness and compassion. That was why He made divorce available. Jesus said it was because of the hardness of men's hearts that G-d had given women the right of a divorce certificate if her husband wasn't pleased with her. Would Jesus rescind that right? That question is what was behind the trap the Pharisees set for Him when they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce His wife for any cause at all?" (Matthew 19:3).

Why did they think this question would trap Him? It posed a problem similar to the one He faced when confronted with the woman they had taken in adultery. Would He uphold the Law and command her to be stoned, or would He oppose the Law and thus be branded a law-breaker? Because of His compassion toward women, the Pharisees felt sure He would oppose divorce, for a woman without a husband was often in desperate straights with no means of support. Yet the Law did permit men to divorce their wives for any cause at all. However, if Jesus were to contradict the Law, He would be in trouble with the Jewish authorities and guilty of opposing G-d. The Pharisees, like many whole denominations today, felt certain Jesus would oppose the Law granting divorce.

Jesus responded to their test by asking them a question. "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh " (Matthew 19:4-6). Jesus is being "wise as a serpent" in order to escape their trap, just as He was when confronted with the adulterous woman. Notice that He has given no commandments, nor even instructions. He has simply quoted some Scripture about male and female reproduction (Genesis 1:27,28 and 2:24) that has to do with the outcome of a husband cleaving to his wife--the two will produce a child which will be a combination of the genes of both, united in one flesh.

The common understanding of verse 6 is that it refers to the man and woman becoming united as one body for life. Jesus could not have been referring to the husband and wife themselves becoming one with the impossiblility of separating them, for Paul, warning against fornication, applies the same words of G-d to a man who joins himself to a harlot and thus becomes "one body with her"; "For [G-d] says, "The two will become one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:17,18). Surely no one would suggest that a man must never separate from the harlot but is bound to her for life (often he has a wife already). Yet the words have to be just as true when G-d applies them to a man and a harlot as they are when He applies them to a man and wife. How can this be? The answer is simple: the one flesh they become is the body of the new baby that is often produced from the union between a man and wife--or a man and a harlot (see Genesis 38:15-24). The Bible takes for granted that intercourse produces children, whether with a wife or with a harlot-- making of the two "one flesh." The natural and intended outcome of intercourse is progeny, and birth control was not a common option.

The sperm and the ovum, when joined, do literally result in one flesh, whether joined in the womb of a harlot or in the womb of a wife. "The two shall become one flesh" is a factual statement, not a moral dictate. The literal Greek translation is , "and shall be the two for one flesh." Paul says the mystery of it is great, but that it really refers to Christ and the Church (see Ephesians 5:31,32).

Jesus followed the quotation from Genesis with what most translators and readers have taken to be a command or at least a warning: "What therefore G-d has joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). Because men have assumed He was speaking of the man and wife rather than the child produced by their union, they have scarcely dared to translate what He almost certainly said, which was, "What G-d has joined together no man can sunder." The phrase can be translated either "no man can sunder" or "let no man sunder." One literal Greek translation says, "What then G-d has joined together, a man not disunites." That is another factual statement. No man can separate the father's contribution from the mother's in the one flesh of their child. To attempt such a separation results in abortion or murder. Christ's words can be taken either as a command not to abort the child or as a literal statement of fact: either "What G-d has put together, let no man separate" or "No man can separate."

The Hardness of Men's Hearts

The Pharisees could not argue with Christ's use of Scripture. Instead they asked Him another question, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce Her?" Jesus answered that it was because of their hardness of heart and then adds, "but it was not so in the beginning" (i.e. , before men sinned). The permission to divorce became necessary only after man's fall. Men's hearts are no less hard now than they were when G-d gave the Law; He still permits divorce for the same reason. Surely, just as Christ grieved at the hardness of the hearts of men who would rather see a withered hand remain unhealed than see one of their religious rules broken, so He grieves today over the hardness of religious hearts that deepen the suffering of a failed marriage by ostracism and condemnation. The church has acted as if divorce and remarriage were the unpardonable sin. More compassion and forgiveness is extended to repentant murderers or homosexuals with AIDS than to the one who has suffered a divorce or to someone married to a violent or alcoholic husband.

The Gospel For The Miserably Married (Pt 3)

by Norma Neal Gause

Christ Came Not To Call The Righteous But Sinners

An incident later in the same chapter (Matthew 19:16-26) sheds more light on what Christ attempted to teach the men who had tried to trick him inot saying it was unlawful for a man to divorce his wife. A rich young man came to Jesus wanting to know what he must do to inherit eternal life. The self-righteous young man said that he had obeyed G-d's Law in every respect. Jesus told him one thing was lacking; he must sell his possessions and give to the poor if he wanted to be perfect. We have not heard many churchmen of the twentieth century telling men that they must sell all their possessions and give them to the poor if they want to be Christ's disciples. Preachers have rightly undrstood that Jesus was simply showing him (and us) how far short we really come of being righteous enough to inherit eternal life by our own law-keeping. When the young man went away grieved because he owned much property, Jesus turned to the disciples and said, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven...it is easier for a camel to go throught the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of G-d." The disciples may have begun to see the truth. They asked Jesus in dismay, "Who then can be saved?" His answer confirmed the truth He wanted them to grasp: "With men this is impossible, but with G-d all things are possible."

However, they seem to have missed the same truth in the answer Jesus had given to the Pharisee's question about divorce just before the young man come to Him. Their reasoning seems to be the same as the church's when it forbids priests can nuns to marry-- (as if that would eradicate sin from mens' hearts and make them any less hard!). After saying G-d allowed divorce because of men's hardeness of heart, He added, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9). The Church, on the whole, seems to have missed the point He was making (that it is not divorce that is at issue--it is the condition of men's heart). Not understanding, the disciples exclaimed in consternation: "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry!" They were thinking, "It's impossible for men to live up to such standards. We'd be better off if there was no such thing as marriage. If you have to remain single or be quilty of adultery after divorcing a wife, you'd better not risk getting married at all" (verse10).

Jesus' response to their consternation was that not all men could accept His statement, but only those to whom it has been given. Isn't this the same answer He gave when they asked "Who then can be saved?" ("With men this is impossible, but with G-d all things are possible" [19:26]). Only G-d can save men--salvation is a gift; and only G-d can make men able to make themselves "eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven" (verse 12)--or make them faithful to one woman for their entire life without a single slip.

Whence Come The Single Eye And The Pure Heart?

The whole burden of Christ's teaching on lust, divorce and adultery is that men are hopelessly unrighteous. G-d's verdict is that all since Adam are sinners. As Paul says, " God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all" (Romans 11:32).

Christ came to show mercy; He came to set men (and women!) free. He gives the single eye and the pure heart to anyone who recognizes his or her need and asks with faith, "seeking first the Kingdom of G-d and His righteousness." He does not do it by our "tying up heavy loads and laying them on men's shoulders," (as He accused the Pharisees of doing). Sad to say, the Church keeps turning Christ's words into harsh laws and heavy loads while all the time His purpose was to show us that law-keeping cannot make anyone righteous--only He can; "for if righteousness could come through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21).

Jesus is saying to us all, "Go and learn what this means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13).

What Paul Really Said About Divorce And Remarriage;
"G-d Has Called Us To Peace And Freedom From Bondage"

"Let him leave," Paul says about the unbelieving spouse who wants out of the marriage. it is almost as if he says, "Good riddance!" Then he adds, "The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but G-d has called us to peace" (1 Cor. 7:15). The hearts of unsaved men and women and carnal Christians are still hard; and life together, in some marriages, is hell on earth. When Paul says the brother or sister whose spouse wants to leave are not in bondage, he means they are free; that surely is obvious. But free of what? Free of marriage ties to the one who left--free to marry again, if they desire (the Greek word translated divorce means "to free fully"). There is no other possible meaning. Paul will spell that freedom out later in the chapter.

The church, on the whole, has ignored Paul's words about freedom from bondage. Instead, it has often used some of his words, taken out of context as if they stood alone, to bring men and women into tighter bondage, binding them in hopeless situations, or bringing them under condemnation and guilt.

Chapter seven of 1 Corinthians is the definitive chapter in the Bible on the subjects of sexual desire, celibacy, marriage, separation, divorce, widowhood, and remarriage. I urge you to open your Bible and refer to each verse as we examine it. Men often take a single verse out of the 40 verses in this chapter and try to let that one verse speak as the sole truth on the subject it addresses, without seeing how Paul, only a few verses later, qualifies or tempers that truth. Because of this "single verse" interpretation, the Church has issued reams of false teaching and caused untold heartache.

If The Divorced One Remarries He Has Not Sinned

Perhaps the biggest problem has been caused by verses ten and eleven. "But to the married I give instruction, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband." We have read that and quoted it and preached it as if it were the entire unqualified and final statement on the subject; it is not. The very next words give her permission to leave him if she wants to: "But if,she does leave, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband."

Some have read this far and then stopped. Yes, if he beats her she can leave him, but she can never marry again. However, this is not Paul's final word on the subject of remarriage; the part about remaining unmarried is qualified in verses 26 and 27. Paul says, "I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released (divorced/ Strongs Concordance). Are you released (divorced) from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you should marry, you have not sinned." This could hardly be any plainer: if you are divorced from a wife and remarry, you have not sinned. By "released" he could not mean widowed by death, for he would not have to admonish Christians not to seek a spouse's death. The King James Version makes it even clearer: "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned." Then he adds, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned." Neither the virgin nor the divorced person sins if he or she marries (he will address the case of the widow's remarriage at the end of the chapter).

Paul Does Not Write "To Put A Restraint On You"

Paul tells us in this chapter that he would prefer all single Christian men and women to remain single--and why? He considers marriage to be troublesome because the married one must be concerned with the things of the world, how to please a husband or wife (vs. 33,34), and he desires all Christians to be free from concern so they can concentrate on how to please the Lord (v. 32). However, he tells us plainly that he says these things, "not to put restraints" on us, but for our "benefit" and "to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord" (v. 35). How sad that men have used some of these very statements to put binding restraints on Christians who were already suffering.

Time after time throughout the chapter, Paul gives evidence that he is not laying down hard and fast rules; instead he is giving guidelines that are meant to spare us trouble, misery, bondage and guilt. The main point is that G-d has called us to peace and wants us to be free to serve Him with joy. Paul says he wishes that all men were like himself; (apparently he was one to whom G-d had given the gift of celibacy); but then he adds, "However, each man has his own gift from G-d, one in this manner, and another in that" (v 7). It would be good, he says, for the unmarried and widows to remain like him; however, he is quick to add, "but if they do not have self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn" (with passion, vs. 7-9).

Celibacy is not G-d's will for everyone, and He does not give the gift to everyone. Nevertheless, self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, and, if celibacy is not your gift, G-d will provide (according to your faith) self-control to meet every need of the Spirit-filled Christian for purity and virtue, until He provides a marriage partner.

Note: There is one remaining part to this teaching and will be posted soon. I hope many of your questions have been answered and perhaps new ones have taken their place. "Study to show thyself approved" is always the wisdom concerning all teaching so continue to look into these things and see if they be so.

The Gospel For THe Miserably Married (Final Part)

by Norma Neal Gause

Christians Do Not Have To Divorce Their Unbelieving Spouses

Verse 13 is another verse that has been much misused. Paul says, "And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away." Well-meaning Christians often use this verse to convince a woman that she must not leave a husband who wants to continue living with her, even though she has to support him, or he beats her, or abuses her daughter. That is not at all what the verse means. Paul does not say or mean, "You have to stay with him whether you want to or not." What he is saying is, "You do not have to separate from your unbelieving mate because he is not a Christian. If he wants to stay with you, you may keep him--if you want to."

We have seen how in the Old Testament many of G-d's people had to send away their pagan spouses just as Moses had sent Zipporah away. When G-d allowed a remnant of Jews to return from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, some of them married non-Jewish women. Before they could get on with the work, they had to put away their pagan wives "according to the law" (by putting divorce certificates in their hands, Ezra 10:3 & Deut. 24:1).

Picture the scene. A large assembly of men, women and children are gathered before Ezra, all weeping bitterly. Ezra, the priest, stands up and addresses them: "You have been unfaithful and have married foreign wives adding to the guilt of Israel [G-d had forbidden it; read Leviticus 18:20-30 to discover why]. Now therefore, make confession to the Lord G-d of your fathers, and do his will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives" (Ezra 10:9-12). Then follows a list of 112 names of men who had to put away their wives. The book ends with the sad lament, "And some of them had wives by whom they had children." Imagine the grief, the tears, the hardship on husbands, and wives and children.

It is against this Old Testament background that Paul tells unbelieving wives and husbands that they do not have to divorce their unbelieving spouses. It is a concession--by G-d's grace--made to Christians. G-d sanctifies the unbelieving husband "through the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy" (v 14). For the sake of the believer, G-d will not count the marriage an unholy alliance. But, nevertheless, if the unbeliever wants a divorce, the Christian is not to oppose it (7:13-16).

Stay As You Are In View Of The Present Distress

Notice that at least eight times in this chapter on marriage and divorce Paul urges Christians, "in view of the present distress" (v 26) to remain in the condition they were in when converted, whether single, married, divorced, widowed, circumcised, uncircumcised, bond or free (note esp. vs. 14-24). A sense of urgency pervades his exhortation; he was expecting tribulation and the Lord's soon return. No doubt his advice was written not only for the distressing time prevailing when he wrote, but for us on whom the end of the age is rapidly coming! However, even in view of the present distress, Paul was careful to say (again and again) that he was not laying down hard and fast rules.

After telling the Corinthian Christians he was trying to spare them trouble, he wrote: "But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away" (29-31). In other words, do not let your weeping, or your rejoicing, or your wife, or anything else have preeminence in your life. Only Christ deserves to be preeminent. The time is even shorter now--by nearly two thousand years. How much more should Christ be first in our lives.

Later Paul added to his counsel as G-d revealed to him that the church might have to wait longer than he had thought. If he had not, the church might have died out in the first or second century as the Shakers, who renounced marriage. In one of his last letters Paul writes, "I want younger widows to get married" (1Tim. 5:14). This is in contrast to his advice to the unmarried and widows in Corinth to whom he had said it would be good if they remained unmarried.

Paul's last word on marriage in 1 Corinthians seven concerns the widow. In verse 39 he says, "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives." This assertion has no reference to divorce; Paul has already dealt with that subject. A divorced person has no spouse (he has been released from the mate (v 27) or as Strong's Concordance says is "released""fully free"). Paul is simply saying in verse 39 that a married woman is bound (married) to her husband while he is living, but if he is dead--if she is a widow--she is free to remarry a Christian ("whom[ever]) she wishes, only in the Lord"; I believe this is the only statement that remains unqualified in the entire chapter). Then he adds: "But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of G-d." Paul is more concerned with the happiness of the widow than he is about rules or doctrines. G-d is too. That is why He hates divorce; it causes unhappiness. But sometimes lack of divorce causes even more unhappiness.

No Ultimatums In Paul's Teachings On Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage and Celibacy

Paul has been remarkably undogmatic throughout the discussion. No chapter in the Bible is so hedged about with qualification, extenuating circumstances and allowances. He began the discussion in verse six with the word, "But this I say by way of concession not of command." The rest of the discussion abounds with ifs, buts, neverthelesses and"I think." Thirty times Paul uses the word "but" or its equivalent, "yet" or "nevertheless"--more times than in any other chapter in the Bible. The word "if" occurs 13 times. Only one other chapter in the New Testament has as many, and none has more! Five times he uses the expressions "in my opinion" or "I think." Twice he tells us that he is not speaking by way of command (vs. 6 & 25) and once, as we have seen, that he is not saying these things to put a restraint upon us (vs 35).

Twice he gives directions (which men have labeled ultimatums) and immediately follows them by saying, "but if you go ahead and do what I said not to, you have not sinned" (vs. 28 & 36). That part the Church has overlooked ! In one instance, he says for a man not to marry; then he says, "but if it must be so let him do what he wishes." Then he adds that he who does it does well, and he who does not will do better (36-38).

Paul obviously never intended for us to take his advice as rules which are binding on all Christians no matter what their gifts or inclinations. He went to great pains to keep us from doing that. His directions are similar to Jesus' words, "Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babies in those days" (Mark 13:17). Jesus did not mean that women shouldn't have babies or nurse them; He was making an observation: in the time of great distress women without babies will have an easier time than those with babies. Paul is saying, "In times of great stress and urgency you'll probably be able to serve Christ better if you don't have to be concerned about pleasing a mate. So don't rush to change your status." But if you do, you haven't sinned (vs. 28, 35, 36), he adds.

Satisfying Sensual Desires

Paul's later instructions concerning young widows show that remarriage is usually G-d's will. The word for widow, chera, is from a word which means deficiency and implies one who is lacking a husband. The idea of death is not at all implicit in the word. Since there was no special term for a divorced woman, a widow was any woman who was lacking a husband through either death or divorce. In 1 Timothy 5:11-14; Paul says that because younger widows will have sensual desires and may fall into sin, he wants them to get married and have children. Would a young woman who is divorced be any less apt to have sensual desires than one whose husband is dead? Is she of any less concern to the Lord? The answer to both questions is a resounding "no!"

And what of a young woman whose husband has been sentenced to prison for life or a young man whose wife is insane or brain-damaged and institutionalized? Paul began his long discussion on divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7 by saying: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman, (e.g. to be as Paul was, a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of G-d) but because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband" (v. 2). Wouldn't this apply in the case of his or her mate? Should not this man too have his own wife, and this woman her own husband "because of immoralities?" Would G-d be any less concerned lest they would "burn" (v.9) than He is for those who have never been married? G-d's mercy is everlasting! These cases I have suggested are not far-fetched. There are tens of thousands like them.

We cannot simply say, "Let them pray for the gift of chastity," and assume that settles it. Jesus and Paul both make it clear that G-d doesn't give that gift to everyone. G-d has, however, promised that He will make a way of escape along with every temptation. The way of escape may for some be divorce and remarriage.

G-d's Will In Marriage

G-d's will is ignored or despised every time a man has intercourse with a harlot or commits adultery. His will was just as ignored when many marriage vows were made. The latter union is no more indissoluble than the former; of both G-d said,"The two become one flesh." Contrary to what is commonly believed in Christian circles, it is sometimes G-d's will that a marriage be terminated (as was proved in the book of Ezra, in the Laws of Moses on divorce and by Moses' example).

To teach that marriage vows must never be broken because they are sacred vows made to G-d is to overlook the fact that Jesus told us to make no vows to G-d (Matthew 5:33-37). But aside from that, marriage vows are, with few exceptions, exchanged between the marriage partners and are made to each other not to G-d.

G-d means for marriage to be a microcosm of heaven on earth. It is meant to be His greatest gift to men in this world. The wisest man who ever lived said, "Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given you under the sun; for this is your reward in life, and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 9:9). Marriage is supposed to be G-d's reward to men. But instead of being a microcosm of heaven it is too often a microcosm of hell. Where it was intended to be a haven, often it has become a prison. G-d is not honored by men and women keeping vows that are broken every day in spirit--vows to love, to cherish, to honor, or to obey.

The Meaning Of The One Forbidden Remarriage

"So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother andthe two shall become one flesh," so says Paul quoting the Lord G-d from Genesis chapter 2. And then he adds, "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church' (Ephesians 5:28-32).

What a beautiful, rewarding estate a long and happy marriage is! Solomon advises men to "rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; be exhilarated always with her love." The margin shows that the word translated exhilarated is literally intoxicated. Is such a delightful prospect for old age really possible? Yes. Even science and psychologists are at last waking up to the fact that joy in sex is common among couples past sixty who have been married many years. The Song of Solomon, too, extols married love and over and over compares lovemaking to intoxication (which to the world is the epitome of joy). Husband and wives are to be drunk on love! Solomon says to Shulammite, "How much better is your love than wine" (4:10). Like good wine, love and sex improve with age. G-d intended it to be that way for a reason.

From the beginning G-d designed marriage to be a visual aid or object lesson to teach men and women what spiritual union with Himself is like. Sin, of course, spoiled the picture; Christ has restored it in redeemed marriages. When two people are born again and Spirit-filled they can turn a marriage into a lovely picture of Christ and the Church. A permanent, gloriously fulfilling union of two dedicated Christians (a true marriage) pictures to us the truth that nothing can separate us from our union with Him--neither life nor death, nor demon powers, nor things in our past, nor things in our future, nor height, nor depth, nor any other thing--nothing in space not in time nor in eternity "shall be able to separate us from the love of G-d, which is Christ, Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:35-39). If G-d has joined us to Himself, no divorce will ever separate us from Him: "What G-d has joined together, no man can separate."

Now we should be able to see the reason for the seemingly strange injunction which says a wife cannot marry her former husband if her second husband dies or divorces her. Over and over in Scripture G-d uses marriage to picture His relationship with His people (i.e. Ezekiel 16:32ff; Hosea; Isaiah 54:4; Song of Solomon; Revelation 21: 2,9). And when His people go after strange gods, G-d calls it adultery.

Before man could become united with G-d in a union of Life, Adam sinned and joined himself to Satan in a union of spirit that brought forth fruit unto death (Romans 7:4-6; Ephesians 2:1-3). This is what is meant by the expulsion from the garden "lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever"-- joined to Satan. Now, through our identification with Christ in His death, we are set free from Satan and joined to the Lord-- one spirit with Him (1 Cor. 6:17 and Romans 6:5-7). If we attempt to return to Satan, our first "husband," after we have been separated from him and joined to Christ--if, in other words, we backslide from Christ into Satan's arms--it will be called by G-d an unlawful union. In fact, it will not be a marriage this time because it is disallowed by G-d's Law; G-d calls it adultery or harlotry but not marriage. This I believe is what the law against remarriage to a divorced spouse was designed to illustrate; there could be no such marriage under the Old Testament Law. The wonderful news of the Prophets "an abomination before the Lord" (Deut. 24:4),(in Ezekiel chapter 16 and in the book of Hosea especially) and of the New Testament is that G-d will take back His adulterous wife, after she is cleansed from her harlotries. He will never allow her to be joined permanently to her former mate, Satan; she belongs to Christ forever. Jesus said, "I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."

But would G-d really betroth to Himself a bride that had once been joined to Satan or take back a wife who had returned to adultery? That is exactly the message and wonder of the Gospel!
Because the sinful union between Satan and the creatures G-d has ordained for Himself brought about the real and awful defilement of death, the Blood of Jesus Christ was shed for man's purification and redemption. Once we are redeemed and born again we are new creations. Therefore G-d can betroth us to Himself in holiness. And the Blood continues to cleanse us from all defilement. What a glorious Gospel; what a Savior; and, oh, what love!

Conclusion

We have found that what G-d's Word actually says about divorce and remarriage is far different from what we have heard or thought. The church took the words of G-d in Malachi, "I hate divorce" and made them the entire teaching of the Bible on the subject. This was done at the expense of G-d's compassion and forgiveness made possible through the death of Christ.

We have found that Paul was not dogmatic about his advice concerning divorce and remarriage; but there is one thing he is dogmatic about: the Christian is not under law but under grace. We are dead to the Law, he says. Even the injunction against remarriage to a former wife who is now free from her second husband is not to be taken as a binding law for Christians. That injunction illustrated a spiritual principle which is valid and eternal.. But the illustration, so far as Christians are concerned, is now just that, an illustration.

The principal it illustrates is as valid today as it always has been. So are the other principles we have examined. G-d doesn't change: He still hates divorce for all the same reasons. But divorce itself is not the sin. G-d commanded that a writ of divorce be provided every woman who was sent away in order that she could remarry. It is not divorce that is sin; it is what leads up to and causes a divorce that is sin: lovelessness, unforgiveness, pride, treachery, cruelty, adultery, deprivation, lust--sin, in other words, of which every man and woman is guilty. Jesus was showing us our need of a savior in His first public teaching, the Sermon on the Mount. Ideally, we would all be perfect husbands or wives after we have come to know jesus. But who can say he is? most of us are not. And so even Christians sometimes need or get a divorce.

And because we still live in a fallen world, such things as war, slavery, prison, insanity, incurable disease and accidents resulting in permanent brain damage often cause physical separation between marriage partners. Here it is mankind's sin that results in the need for divorce so that those deprived of mates can remarry. G-d said, and Jesus--G-d in the flesh--repeated the words: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." The church needs to
"go and learn what this means."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a note in conclusion. Like any teaching, there are many excellent views and interpretations that are made, however, it is not imparative that any one agree with everything. Do throw the bones out but keep the meat. And please chew on the truths that have been presented here.

Norma Neal Gause, from the last we knew, is still living in Tarpon Springs, FL, married to the only husband of her youth. She is now in her 80's; a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother.

My Thoughts On Social Gospel Theology

"It is not a matter of getting individuals to heaven but of transforming the life on earth in the harmony of heaven"

The post Christian world has been locked into an individualistic approach toward the Gospel for so long that we have failed miserably in relieving human suffering. It has been so easy here in America to just let the Government provide services to the poor and indigent.

Several years ago my wife and myself worked for World Relief. We assisted refugees to resettle into an American life. Many of these refugees had heard that we would provide them with all that they wanted and needed. Such thinking resulted in disillusionment and despair for so many of the refugees, because of a promise to help they misinterpreted. We learned that the more you gave, the more the refugees wanted. This has been the case of welfare in America, as generations have been the recipients of a system gone off track.

For example, if someone is hungry I could give them food, only to have them return when the food ran out. But if I give them farming tools, seed to plant, water to irrigate and the knowledge to use them, then they would grow their own food, reaping a harvest. This harvest would not only feed them but could be shared with others and end starvation. If all of us only did a small part, then much of human suffering could be relieved. In Mark 14:7 Yeshua said, " For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good." It is in our ability to do, however, such suffering has continued without remedy. As a believing people, we haven't even begun to undo the works of darkness, as many are diseased and go hungry. Truly, the laborers are few and the problems have become immense. The AIDS crisis in Africa is a prime example. Suppose we had ministered early on, could this health crisis have been avoided? A hard question to answer, but we will never know because we did not try. So do the principals of the Kingdom of YHWH need to be administered by us who call on His Name?

Absolutely! Each of us can make a difference if we do our part and avoid the pitfalls of thinking we have to be perfect. Loving our neighbor as ourselves truly is the Kingdom at work and the chosen fast that He has commanded.

Like Other Fathers, G-d the Father is "Out"

"With all the talk about abusive fathers and deadbeat dads, fathers nowadays-including the Heavenly One-don't get much respect. Evangelicals are obsessed with His Son, charismatics are in love with the Spirit, and Catholics find their model of christian perfection in Mary. Meanwhile Mainline Protestants, in their desire for inclusiveness, are busy purging hymnals and prayerbooks of any mention of the paternal deity.

The Bible itself isn't big on the Fatherhood of G-d. The Old Testament rarely refers to Him in those terms, and the New Testament is written strictly from the Son's perspective.

Although Christians and Jews still address prayers to G-d the Father, that will soon change if feminist theologians prevail. Already, students at elite divinity schools have to watch their metaphors, using God the Mother or resorting to the neuter term "Godself." "Few theologians these days seem to want a G-d who takes charge, assumes responsibility, fights for His children, makes demands, punishes as well as forgives. In a word, a Father."

From an article entitled: "Hallowed be Thy Name." Newsweek, June 17, 1996, page 75.

"G-d, the People of G-d, and the Poor"

(Part 1)

In Hebrew thought, the Torah, according to Judaism 101, is all of the teachings of the Covenant and is only separated for the spirit of study. The whole counsel of YHWH is written as a "teaching" to be learned and made practical to one's life. However, "the Law" in its truest sense is the ordinances, traditions, etc. that were added to this "teaching" which encumbered the people and brought condemnation. This bondage by the rabbinical order of Judaism was meant to enslave, bring under control, and to beat down any chance of esteem. If truly as it is taught today that "the Law" has been done away with, then why the call to minister to the poor? We cannot just take out what sounds good while throwing the rest away but, instead, it is by the Spirit of YHWH who will "perfect that which concerns me." Therefore, the commission to the orphan, the widow, and the poor we have with us and it is in our power to do good to them. This is the "chosen fast" of Isaiah and the hope of our calling, as the Messiah said "if you do it to the least of these my brethren you have done it to Me."

The Covenant makes sound principals for a community to interact and be relational. The justice principal was and is always a present to reign in lust and passions that have gone unbridled. Justice therefore metes out a punishment, but always in the Spirit of mercy and grace to the repentant. A good example is the woman caught in adultery. The rabbinical order, wanting to trap the Messiah, asked what they should do according to "the Law." The Messiah, the Son of the Most High, extends mercy because He knew her heart. They, on the other hand, only knew vengeance. Yeshua, full of mercy, thus extended her pardon, while the religious always need a scapegoat (someone to assign blame) while failing to see their own failures (sin).

The mercy of our Father is seen toward those needing restoration, healing, pardon, deliverance - the whole ministry of the Kingdom of YHWH. Religionists, however, always add, making it ever increasingly difficult to meet the requirement. The requirement has been made through His sacrificial death, burial and resurrection - extending His Life to anyone who calls upon the Name of the L-rd. The Torah of YHWH became flesh and as the embodied Word (Incarnate) has made a way where there wasn't any. As His body, the orphan, the widow, and the poor are our minisitry, and in His humility we must reach out to a sick and dying world.

"G-d, the People of G-d, and the Poor" (Part 2)

(Part 2)

If one were to look for a single word to catch the spirit of Judaism it would be mitzvah. A mitzvah is a "divine command" which are deeds that are pleasing in the sight of G-d. Mitzvah means "any good deed, an act of kindness, of compassion, or of justice, for the benefit of another human being."

The spirit of mitzvah is to always perform these acts not to gain anything but, rather, one does them for their own sake. We know this word mitzvah and associate it with the rite of passage, the coming of age and with this passage adult responsibilities are now expected of the recipient of this experience. "Putting away childish things" would certainly be appropriate as the self-centeredness of a child should make way for the maturity of an adult. This has ramifications on our commission toward the poor as we break from our self-interest and impart blessing to another. These acts of mitzvah also are to be done without fanfare but done in secret to avoid vainglory. You know, the "look what I have done" or making sure that my name gets in the newspaper.

If we could balance these injunctions without them being self-serving and truly fill the gap to alleviate human suffering, then we would truly know that the Reign of G-d has come to us. Today, it is especially disheartening to see and hear of religious programs to expand a corner of someone's kingdom. Building programs and "the Purpose Driven Church" take center stage while all around us the poor continue to barely make it. The focus is a seminar only to hear how to do it but never doing anything about it. Fortunately, there are fellowships who have caught hold of a vision and begun to provide assistance to the whole person.

Prison ministries, drug addiction programs, even sexual offender programs have begun to speak of hope, deliverance, and comfort to so many. It is my prayer that we all catch a vision and make a true and lasting difference in a darkened world.

Benevolence

The community of believers must avoid being self-absorbed and seek to bring equity, justice and righteousness. Community is to have all things in common and seek opportunity to affect human suffereing with healing and restoration. Our worship is to be a lifestyle, not a song that we sing that makes us temporarily feel good and as soon as the feeling subsides, we forget what just happened. The lifestyle of worship is shown by a set-apartness and does not fit in, but rather is a catalyst for change.

A central aspect of the mission of the community of believers is to reach out to others, and in that reflect the heart and life of Yahweh's own reaching out to humanity. This is the central theme of our mission as a community. Unfortunately, too often we are caught up with the political correctness of the time, failing to lead by example. The community is out of touch with our narrative. We have somehow forgotten the story that has gotten us here. We accept the status quo and have forgotten the Resurrection - the source of power which has been exchanged for compromise. "Awake, oh sleeper and rise from the dead, and Messiah shall shine (make day dawn) upon you and give you light." (Ephesians 5:14, Amplified version) The community is, for the most part, asleep at the wheel and the shofar must sound from the watchmen. So many needs and so many opportunities, yet the missionaries - all of us - must develop a disposition to do good. This kind of benevolence or wishing well both inspires and brings about hope.

Gemstones Restored

My husband just had to have a place to post things that don't fit on his other blogs, so Gemstones has been restored and is back in business. I'm supposed to be able to contribute to this one, too, but have so many to keep up with already that it'll mostly be him. Anyway, welcome back to visiting this blog!
Love and shalom,
Serena