Blog Archives

Questions I'm asked:Women in church, women in ministry 2 of 2

6/26/2021

Hi all,
Having laid the foundation that in Christ there is neither male nor female, there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Let us go on to see how Paul taught to implement this equality and freedom within cultures and customs that don't recognize Christ.

The issue of veils
In I Corinthians 11:1-16 Paul addresses the issue that some of the wives were discarding their veils when the church came together in a meeting. In the second half of chapter 11 he dealt with rich people not wanting to fellowship and eat with the lower classes. Before that he dealt with a man in chapter 5 who had a sexual relationship with his step mother and not a single person confronted him about it. In chapter 6 there were 2 men suing one another in civil court and Paul told them to deal with in within the church. Chapters 8 and 10 were about some who felt free in Christ to eat meat that had earlier been sacrificed to idols, while others thought it a sin to do so. In chapter 9 though he had spent so much time with them and they owed him their spiritual lives, no one thought to support his ministry.

In chapter 12 he dealt with the gifts of the Spirit in a meeting, chapter 13 is about their love for one another which should guide all things. And chapter 14 is about the order of a meeting itself as well as one's personal 'prayer language'. Each of these issues involved people being free in Christ yet feeling no sense of responsibility nor accountability for their actions. It had to do with what we might call today, hyper-grace. They had such freedom in Christ they felt no obligation to anyone but themselves.

The reason in part is the local culture. Corinth had a city motto:"Freedom and knowledge". Basically if it feels good, do it. No wonder Paul had to deal with 10 separate issues involving 'freedom' in his first letter to them.

They were experiencing equality in Christ and seeing only freedom without restraint. Paul taught grace always has boundaries and expectations. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, which is grace. That all who believe on Him will have eternal life, is the condition, the boundary, the way that grace may be received. Grace always has structure and accountability, and purpose.

Put your wedding ring back on
Can you imagine a married woman removing her wedding ring as she walks through the door of her church when she 'goes to meeting'?

In that region in that day veils were the wedding ring for a wife. The Corinthian wives were finding their freedom in Christ and removing their veils when they came to Justus' house for the gathering of the saints. (See Acts 18:7-8 to see that Jews, Romans, and Greeks all met in Justus' house)

Paul addresses the issue first by explaining creation order and how man's 'covering' is God and therefore to have a husband covering his head when praying or prophesying dishonors the Lord, his 'covering'. But the wife has her head covered to honor her husband, her 'covering'.

There is no Greek word for 'wife' so we rely on context to distinguish between women in general or a wife. Here, when Paul is talking about a man 'covering' a woman, it is a clear reference to marriage. You may recall the ancient Jewish wedding ceremony called 'the veiling of the bride'. The groom is accompanied by the rabbi and the groom's and bride's fathers, as the groom covers his bride with a veil. This signifies both his covering and protection of her, and her dedication to him and their marriage. .

Therefore the wives of Corinth removing their veils when the church gathered, dishonored their husbands, the angels in charge of their family, and the Lord. He told them to put their veils back on. Yes they are equal in Christ, but Paul refers to the custom and tradition of the veil 2x. In v13 he asks them to judge it themselves. In v16 he calls it a custom. Yes they are free in Christ to remove the emblem of their marriage, but why upset the local customs?

Women in a 'church' meeting
In the passage of I Corinthians 14:26-40, Paul deals with order in the house church meeting. Acts 18:1-8 reveals new believers were Jewish, Roman, and Greek all gathering in the home of the Roman, Justus. Now for the first time all 3 cultures were thrown together under one roof and the only thing they had in common was Christ in them, the hope of glory.

In I Corinthians 14:26 Paul writes that "each one of you may have a Psalm or a teaching or a revelation or a tongue and interpretation, but let all things be done to the edification of all." He then starts listing social skills some lacked, in their day as in ours:

If there are 2 or 3 who have a tongue needing interpreting, take turns and make sure there is an interpretation. If there is no one with the gift to interpret the tongue, then keep quiet and keep your message between you and God. (You haven't sinned, there is just no opportunity to give it, so keep it to yourself and God.) Let those with inspired messages speak, but let the others judge what they say. (This is a warning that anything you say may be rejected, or at least doubted, so don't take offense, you are among friends.)

If someone else has a word and you do too, defer to them and let them speak. Take turns, speak in order so you all may be comforted. Your spirit is subject to you, just because you have something from God doesn't mean you have to give it. For God is a God of order and peace, not of confusion. Let the wives be quiet in the meeting and let them be in submission as the law says, if they have questions they can ask their husbands at home.

Clearly the context is order and politeness in a meeting, these verses about the wives included. Paul doesn't say the law forbids them to speak, but says the law requires they be in submission to their husbands. Again we see Paul talking about order, and creation order in marriage.

Remember the Jewish wives in synagogue were separated from the men and not allowed to take part in a meeting, Here in Christ they were for the first time sitting next to their husbands in a meeting. They had many questions as a result, threatening the flow of what the Lord was doing in the meeting.

Balanced with the many women apostles, deacons, and church leaders Paul greeted in his letters, we see here the context is order in the meeting, and making sure things are done in an honorable way.

What do we see concerning women in church and ministry? We see throughout history women having important leadership roles just as we do in Paul's letters. From the Didache to Clement and Ignatius in the 1st and 2nd centuries, they do not place any restrictions on women in leadership. It was not until the middle of the 3rd century, when Christianity became legalized, that we see restrictions on women placed.

The early church determined leadership by the spirit gifts and character of each individual, seeing no difference between men and women - it was all about what the Holy Spirit had gifted them to become. But when called out of homes, the former pagan temple structure of the auditorium required a hierarchy, and it was a man's world suddenly. The thought of 'office' over 'gift' prevailed, and women were denied moving in their gifts and call in Christ.

In I Timothy 2:11-12:"Let the wives learn in submission with quietness, for I am not allowing a wife to teach or usurp authority over her husband but to be in quietness."

This is consistent with his message to the Corinthians, which was about marriage order and then order in a meeting. And again it is about learning while maintaining divine order. So it isn't a blanket doctrinal statement that all wives must be quiet, for the passages about veils, order in a meeting, and here all have to do with wives, without a mention about single women.

The Word and Spirit are always in agreement, and we can see in Paul's 3 passages where he addresses women in a meeting it is about marriage order, not a blanket doctrinal statement that all women, married or single, girl or teen, can't talk. This is confirmed by centuries of women in notable leadership positions, from apostle Junia and deacon Phoebe and others in Paul's time, to notable women prophets and teachers and pastors in our time. The Word and Spirit agree, we are equal in Christ, but we have to live in cultures that do not recognize equality among the genders, races, or socio-economic levels.

Hope this helps - food for thought at least. I'd also recommend Ank Kleinmeulman's book available on our web site on the subject. It's a good and short read, and the best book on the matter I've seen. New subject next week! Until then, blessings,
John Fenn
www.cwowi.org and email me at [email protected]

0 Comments

Questions I get asked: Women in church and ministry? 1 of 2

6/19/2021

0 Comments

Hi all,
This is a very common question I receive, so let's get started by laying the scriptural foundation.

The foundation
In Galatians 3:28 Paul said this: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: You are all one in Christ Jesus."

In Christ there is no race, no social status, no gender to differentiate us, for we are all one in Christ Jesus because this is on our spirit-man's level. The power of God is based on our spirit man, which is born of the Father's Spirit. On the level of our spirits we are equal and one in Christ.

But that equality in our spirit is housed in our human body which lives in the natural realm where people are judged based on gender, race, and socio-economic level. The question then: How do we handle equality in Christ in our spirit while we live in societies that do not recognize equality of gender, race, or socio-economic status?

The great question facing the early church as it is now involves to what degree do we walk in our freedoms in Christ, if they run contrary to local culture and customs? Because freedom and equality in Christ are true, do we flaunt our freedom in front of others? Or do we refrain from sharing our freedom to follow local customs that shackle that freedom to one degree or another? Before we can answer that, let's look at how Paul balanced spiritual truth of equality with local customs and culture.

The women in Paul's life
Recognizing there is neither race, social status nor gender in Christ, Paul lived this way in ministry. In Romans 16:2 Paul greets a woman named Phoebe of Cenchrea (a town near Corinth) who he calls a deaconess in the church there. In 16:7 he writes this of a husband and wife: "Greet Andronicus and Junia....who are of note among the apostles, who were also in Christ before me."

(Junia was a well known apostle outside of Romans 16:7. John Chrysostom in the 300's AD wrote of how well known she had been in her day.)

Philip's four daughters are recognized prophets in Acts 21:9, and Lydia, a single woman at the time, was the hostess and leader of the church in Philippi. Though my point here isn't to fully document this truth that in Christ Paul considered men and women, race and social standing equal, but to share just enough to provide a glimpse of the practice of the early church.

Perhaps the most well known example would be Priscilla and Aquila, the husband and wife leaders and (house) church hosts in Rome and then in Ephesus. Tradition says Aquila was one of the original 70 disciples mentioned as being sent out by Jesus in Luke 10:1, and those 70 tradition says, were among the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost. Priscilla is mentioned first 4 of the 6 times Paul writes of them, grammatically indicating she is the main speaker.

Having a woman apostle, a woman 'deacon', and noted female teachers are not exceptions to a rule, for in Colossians 4:15 Paul greets a woman named Nymphas: "Greetings to all the brethren in Laodecia, and to Nymphas and the church that meets in her house." The 'she' was changed to a 'he' in the KJV because they did not agree with women in leadership in the days the King James Version was published.

Women were known as bishops and all the other leadership roles as seen in grave markers via archaeological artifacts unearthed, as well as church history. When the church moved out of homes in the middle 300's and especially into the 400's AD, men took over in the auditorium structure and relegated women to lesser roles, if any.

Paul wrote his letters to men and women together
Paul wrote his general letters to the whole church, men and women together as equals:

"To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints..." Romans 1:7
"To the church of God at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ, called to be saints..." I Corinthians 1:2
"To the church of God at Corinth, with all the saints..." II Corinthians 1:1
"To the churches of Galatia..." Galatians 1:2
"...to the saints in Ephesus, to the faithful in Christ Jesus..." Ephesians 1:1

That's enough of the list to understand Paul was writing to both men and women. This is supported by internal evidence in his letters as well. For instance in I Corinthians 14:26 Paul wrote this:

"How is it brethren when you come together? Every one of you has a Psalm, a revelation, a teaching, tongues and interpretation. Let everything be done decently and in order."

Every one of you. Participating, sharing revelation, sharing something learned, moving in the gifts of the Spirit. In case it isn't clear, the word 'brethren' can mean just men, but in general use referred to men and women together, the way we might say 'you guys' but including men and women together. An example would be his closing in Galatians 6:18: "Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen." He opened by addressing his letter to the churches of Galatia, and he closes in the same inclusive way.

But society doesn't see it that way
This is the principle that is helpful in many areas of life. Though men and women are one in Christ we live in societies and cultures that DO see differences. The cultures in which we live don't recognize equality of the genders, races, or social standing. So we must live among them with this higher knowledge. That is why in ministry and within the church Paul allowed men and women to function equally, but when it came to living in a culture that did not have this higher knowledge, Paul advised caution and adhering to the local customs and traditions.

Once we know men and women in Christ are equal, how does that function in marriage? Paul defers to creation order, that Adam was created first, then Eve. Therefore though equal, the husband is the spiritual head of the union with the understanding he is to lay down his life for his wife as Christ did for the church. While that can mean literally laying down his life if called upon to do so, in day to day life it means honoring her, honoring her opinion as equal to his, and treated her as one in Christ. It is an equality through mutually serving and honoring one another as in Ephesians 5:21: "Submit yourselves one to another."

I'll add this: Submission is a condition of the heart, obedience is an action. A husband or wife can be obedient to one another without being in submission, or can be submitted but not in obedience. The best case is when they are mutually submitted in their hearts, thus both are in obedience to the Lord's guidance in their union. Paul tells husbands and wives to be submitted to one another, but does not say obey one another. He does tell children and 'employees' to obey their parents and bosses however.

And with that we'll stop for today, starting next week about veils, women being told to 'ask their husbands at home', and what about braiding the hair and teaching? Until then, blessings,
John Fenn
www.cwowi.org and email me at [email protected]

0 Comments

Questions I get asked: Christians and alcohol

6/12/2021

0 Comments

Hi all,
In the 1960's there was an American Christian couple who visited Germany on vacation, and were invited to dinner by a Christian German couple they had met. Their German hosts asked if they would like beer or wine with their meal, to which the Americans replied:

"No, thank you. We were raised that drinking alcohol is a sin. But we would like some coffee after dinner." Their German hosts were a bit surprised and replied: "We were taught drinking coffee was a sin."

Historical context once again
For those who know me, you know context is everything. So first, a little history.

All the ancient Mediterranean cultures diluted their wine - the Greeks and Romans usually 4 to 6 parts water to 1 part wine, the Jews the same - so about 16-25% of a cup would be wine, the rest was water. In the Odyssey, Homer mentions a 20 parts water to 1 part wine ratio.

Why did they dilute their wine?
The main reason is a bit counter-intuitive to you and I: There is a lot of ancient writing about using wine to purify water. The Roman historian Pliny the elder mentions the need to 'purify' the water by adding wine. It was more than wine being their drink breakfast to dinner, even for children and they didn't want to get drunk. It needed purified.

They added whatever they felt was needed to make the water taste better and to kill the bugs in it. Consider a local pond, river, or creek near you. What if that was your water source and you lived in ancient times and didn't know to boil the water and had nothing but cloth to strain it? What could you as an ancient do to kill the bugs in the water?

It was no doubt with this in mind that Paul urged Timothy: "Drink no longer water only, but add a little wine too, for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities." I Timothy 5:23

The instructions cautioning against too much wine therefore in the Word, in context, have to do with undiluted wine, the strong stuff - even Alexander the Great was known for not diluting his wine and being a horrendous drunk.

Anything God-given can be abused and misused. Sex. Marriage. Natural resources. Alcoholic beverages too. But there is nothing inherently evil about alcohol, or Jesus would have turned water into grape juice and Paul would have advised Timothy some other remedy. But lest one think scripture is saying alcohol is only good for medicinal purposes...

When Jesus turned water into wine
In John 2:10 in the wedding at Cana: "And said to him, Every man at the beginning brings out good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but you have kept the good wine until now."

The custom for the 7 day celebration of marriage was to serve the strongest wine - the less diluted wine - at the start when everyone's senses were sharpest, then serve the more heavily diluted wine as things went along. Jesus at the end of the feast turned the water into a higher ratio of wine to water, 'the best' or strongest wine for last.

Wine used in sacrifice to gods and goddesses in pagan temples
The issue of eating food that had earlier been sacrificed to an idol came up in Corinth and Rome. In I Corinthians 8, the whole chapter, and 10:20-33 Paul tells them an idol is nothing but God is everything. But not every disciple of the Lord has that knowledge. It bothered some that their brethren would eat/drink food previously sacrificed to an idol.

I've been to Corinth and the ruins of the central temple still stand. Around it were shops and restaurants. Like around a town square today with the county courthouse in the middle, there are always stores and restaurants there.

The stalls around the temple were roughly 10' across (3m) and maybe 15-20' deep (4-6m) - some were shops in their day, some restaurants, some meat markets. The meat from the temples would be sold to the shops and restaurants, which meant that steak with (diluted) wine you ordered maybe have been offered to Apollo or Athena 30 minutes earlier.

Is it okay for believers to eat and drink food used for sacrifice to an idol?
Some believers were eating the meat and drinking the wine without any care at all because they knew an idol is nothing. But to other believers, it bothered them, hurt their conscience. So Paul said that if you are going to eat by yourself eat what you want, but if you are going with someone who eats only veggies or abstains from idol-meat, then have the veggie plate yourself for their weaker conscience of your friend in the Lord.

In Romans 14 Paul broadens it a bit to include those who make one day more holy than another, or who eat only veggies rather than meat, who don't drink wine. He calls them 'weak in the faith'. But he says, what each person does they do unto the Lord, so don't despise them or criticize them, for they too are the servants of the Lord like you are. He said, "Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind."

In Romans 14:21 he again mentions not purposely putting a stumbling block before someone with a weak conscience, being sensitive to what they believe when you are at a meal with them: "It is good not to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor any thing that would cause your brother to stumble, or is offended, or is made weak."

So that brings us to our day - and it is the same as in Paul's day.

Barb and I don't drink alcohol. That's our choice. Barb had alcoholics on her side of the family and my grandfather was an alcoholic who committed suicide when I was seven years old. We just don't want it around. But I've been to Russia in 1992 and had my host pour wine for all and we all drank it - including a 15 year old with us - and I told them to drink as it was unto the Lord and in His service - it would have offended our hosts not to.

It is as Paul said, a personal choice, let everyone be fully persuaded in his or her own mind.

The amazing thing about having Christ in us is that 'all things are lawful' (that are lawful) but not all things are expedient. I could drink, but because Christ is in me I have the power not to if I don't want.

But I hope that helps with context, history, and the Word in balance. New topic about things I get asked next week. Until then, blessings,
John Fenn
www.cwowi.org and email me at [email protected]

0 Comments

Questions I get asked: Divorce and remarriage 2 of 2

6/5/2021

0 Comments

Hi all,
Last week I shared Israel's history concerning the law of divorce, how it was used and misused from Moses to Malachi. When God invented marriage He also had to invent a way out so that flawed people in a sinful world might start anew, which is what the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 divorce law provides.

400 years after Malachi, in the time of Jesus
God sent forth His son in the fullness of time, and young Jesus in the 1st century AD would have learned all that I shared last week and much more. Most boys of His time had to memorize the 5 Books of Moses and be able to recite them by age 5 or 6 (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy)

That is quite a kindergarten class! So He knew God's divorce law, knew Israel's history of unfaithfulness to (Him), knew how (He) had divorced Israel, knew how the priests of Malachi's time abused the law of divorce (He) had given them. He knew its intended purpose because He gave it!

Houses of Hillel and Shammai
During the early part of the first century two schools of thought emerged. One was the 'House of Hillel' and the other was the 'House of Shammai'. Rabbi Hillel died about the year 10AD and perhaps he knew the boy Jesus if we think Jesus was born in 4BC and at 12 years old visited the temple - about 2-3 years before Hillel died. We don't know. But Rabbi Shammai lived to about the year 30AD, and may very well have known Jesus.

They were both part of the Jewish leaders who added some 800 of their own laws onto the 613 laws of Moses, and it was those 800 Jesus debated the leaders about. As it pertains to the Israeli divorce law, Hillel taught the 'uncleanness' a man might find in his wife could include a burnt meal she cooked for him. That's right folks, Hillel taught if the wife burns a meal it was grounds for divorce.

Shammai however taught God's intent was for marriage to be life-long, therefore divorce had to be for something more serious like fornication, abuse, abandonment, neglect, or other serious issue. These were the 'hot' topics in Jesus' day, and that brings us to Jesus' statements about marriage and divorce. Now we have the history, now we have the context - at least in brief.

The difference between adultery and fornication according to Jesus
In Matthew 5:21-22 Jesus equated anger without a cause with murder, stating if a man is angry with his brother without cause, he is in danger of hell. That equates the unjust anger with the act. It equates the imagination of hatred with murder.

In 5:28-32 Jesus does the same thing concerning the thought of sex. To look on a woman with lust is to commit adultery. That is where we need to pause. Our definition of adultery is often different from His definition of adultery, and that leads to confusion when trying to understand His words. Understand what Jesus said: Looking on a woman with lust equals the act. Hating your someone without cause is the same as the act of murder. Jesus is dealing with the heart and imaginations of people.

v28: "Whoever looks on a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." After that He said to 'pluck out' the eye - the method by which lust is demonstrated, and 'cut off your right hand' - the hand represents taking action on the lust of the eye. So He is saying deal with the lust, deal with the imagination of the plans to consummate the lust with that other person. Deal with it. Cut off your thoughts, your imagination, think on other things.

In this context, adultery is the act of a married person imagining sex with someone other than their spouse. Adultery is the lust, the imagination, the fantasy. Jesus said cut off the lust of the eye and thought of action before you actually do the deed.

Adultery vs fornication
"Therefore if a man divorces his wife except for fornication, he is guilty of adultery and causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries her is committing adultery. v32

Because adultery is the imagination of an affair, Jesus in this verse is classifying a marriage born of lust as adulterous. He was classifying a marriage founded upon lust in the same way we might say 'He married her for her money' or 'She married him for political reasons'. Jesus said a marriage founded upon lust that caused the breakup of a previous marriage, is founded upon adultery and the two people are in adultery - an imagination with each other and fantasy of lust.

This does not contradict the Lord's own law of divorce, but builds on it revealing original intent for marriage to be free from lust and wandering eyes. Many churches and even denominations not understanding that the law of Moses already allowed for a man or woman to remarry, and Jesus would not contradict the very law that He Himself gave Moses, think Jesus is saying there is no cause for divorce at all except for fornication.

That's not what He said here. There is no 'stand alone' verse, but every verse is balanced in context with other verses. He said if a man gets caught up in lust and adultery and leaves his wife for that reason, his next marriage is therefore an adulterous one - founded upon lust and fantasy.

Why did He give the law of divorce in the first place?
In Matthew 19:3-9 Jesus is asked: "Is it legal to divorce a wife for any reason?" As I shared about the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, this was a much debated topic. Because of the two schools of thought, they tried to trap Jesus between opinions of the two houses.

But Jesus side-stepped the issue by going to the beginning in v4-6: "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female...that they may leave their families to cling to one another and become one flesh. What God has put together let no man separate."

In other words in answer to their question if they could divorce for any reason, Jesus said no. The highest and best is that they remain one all their lives. "What God has put together let not man separate."

Divorce given in case one spouse hardens their heart against the other
But they persisted, asking if that was the original intent when they did God provide for a divorce? So Jesus in v8 went beyond the written law to the heart of the law. "Moses (the law) gave the divorce law because of the hardness of your hearts. But from the beginning it was not so."

Jesus here reveals the true intent behind the law of divorce: It was given due to the hardening of one spouse's heart towards the other. Under that condition, the hardness of heart, the divorce law was given. Jesus justified the House of Shammai who said divorce was only for serious reasons like fornication, abuse, abandonment and such - indicating he understood it was granted for situations where one spouse hardened their heart against the other.

This is why Paul would later write in I Corinthians 7:15 that if a believing spouse is married to an unbeliever who wants a divorce, let them go. That indicates that unbeliever had hardened their heart against their spouse, and Paul said, let them go.

The Word and Spirit agree
If we believe the Holy Spirit is doing something in the world, then we will find it in the Word. If not, then its not the Holy Spirit. If we believe something is in the Word, then we'll see the Holy Spirit agreeing with that understanding through the centuries in the body of Christ, to our day.

When it comes to divorce and what I stated above as what I believe the Word says, let me ask this of those reading this who have been married, divorced, and maybe remarried: Is the Lord still with you as He was before? Has He ever treated you like a second class citizen of the kingdom by withholding His Spirit from you? (Or has the church and church culture made you feel that way?)

So if what I have shared is balanced, let me ask those who are divorced, or divorced and remarried: Is the Holy Spirit still with you? Still blessing you? If the answer is yes, then this balanced understanding of the Word is confirmed by the Holy Spirit in your life.

There are some who understand the Word differently, believing a person who divorced cannot remarry under any circumstances. Yet God promises to remarry Israel in the New Covenant. Can't we follow His example? Isn't God Spirit with you and blessing you proof He does not think of you as a 2nd class child of His? Did He show grace and His presence while you were going through the divorce? Isn't He with you now? Then rest. He is at peace with you.

What about leadership being 'the husband of one wife', from I Timothy 3:12?
"Let the deacons (servants/ministers) be the husband of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

From this verse some denominations and teachers say if a man has been divorced he (or she) cannot be in leadership. But taking that logic to its completion means deacons had to be married, so Paul would be disqualified as a deacon because he was single. See how that logic falls apart?

What Paul was talking about was polygamy, which was common in that day. What shocks many in the west is to learn that it is still an issue today in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and India in particular. Quite often we in cwowi deal with those who have a wife from an arranged marriage made when they were children, as well as a woman they fell in love with as an adult. Sometimes the arranged marriage can be annulled by paying the bride's family a large amount so they save face and the contract of marriage is dissolved.

I could tell you of former Muslims who have come to the Lord in recent years that include one with 17 wives the last I heard, and another very wealthy man in the Mid-east with over 35 wives. I could tell you of arranged marriages from India and parts of Africa, some that have worked well, others that have not.

But these issues of today are are relevant as they were in Paul's time, when he said if a married man wants to enter into leadership, he has to just have one wife. Again, to this the Word and Spirit agree, I see it almost monthly here in our network. Hey folks, we're just to catch the fish, God is the one to clean them, lol.

Summary
I hope the reader sees God's grace and mercy in this subject, in life's unexpected tragedies, like divorce. His highest and best was as Jesus said, that once joined together they remain so for life. But when He gave marriage He also had to provide a way of escape. To create marriage for flawed human beings, He also had to make a way of escape.

In I Corinthians 10:13 it says God will not allow us to be tested above what we are able to handle, and will when that trial comes in, make a way of escape that we may endure. Sometimes as Jesus taught, when one spouse becomes hardened against the other and there is no turning back, divorce is God's way of escape. God gave it for He is love, that there may a fresh start, as the Mosaic law says. (Which Jesus could not and did not contradict)

Nothing Jesus said contradicted the law of Moses which He as Christ, gave to Moses. Remember that. Jesus does not contradict Himself, and the NT is built upon the Old. A divorced couple is free to remarry the law of Moses says. Jesus said it wasn't the original intent, but provided due to hard hearts. Find your peace in that. Rest in that.

if you have had to use God's 'escape' in a failed marriage, know that as Christ was in you then, He is in you now. Nothing diminished, nothing lessened, no spiritual cloud over your head marking you as 'unclean'. The proof is His continued graciousness to you, His continued presence in your life, in your heart, and no one can come against that.

Sorry this one was so long, it is a big subject. If you don't agree, no problem, let us continue fellowship around what and on Who we do agree. He accepts both of us, but this is balance applicable in 'real life', and confirmed by His Spirit in our lives. New subject of 'Questions I get asked' next week. Until then, blessings,
John Fenn
www.cwowi.org and email me at [email protected]

0 Comments