Credible Bible Lesson 1

Our Credible Bible (Lesson 1)

Introduction

Prepared by Dr. John E. Marshall

 

Ruth and I are in our fourth year of hosting a college Bible study group in our home on Thursday nights during the school semesters. We have fallen in love with our students, and enjoy sharing life with them.

 

In these studies, Ruth and I have learned a painful truth. We are often reminded students can be unknowledgeable and unappreciative of the Bible.

 

Even students who grew up in church often show a lack of knowledge about rudimentary Bible truths. Even more alarming, they can be lax in their commitment to Scripture as the authority in their life for belief and behavior.

 

Due to this disconcerting observation, I took a three-week study break in January 2016 to investigate certain scholarly theological books that would help me better defend to our college students the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture. The six books listed here helped me immensely:

 

Bird, Michael F., "The Gospel of the Lord" (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI,

2014)

Blomberg, Craig L., "Can We Still Believe the Bible?" (Brazos Press, Grand

Rapids MI, 2014)

Cowan, Steven B., and Wilder, Terry L., "In Defense of the Bible"

(Broadman and Holman, Nashville TN, 2013)

MacArthur, John, ed., "The Scripture Cannot Be Broken" (Crossway,

Wheaton IL, 2015).

Ward, Timothy, "Words of Life" (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL,

         2009).

Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge, "The Inspiration and Authority of the

Bible" (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg

NJ, 1948 reprint).

 

         Warfield's book is the greatest book I ever read regarding the Bible. I think the other five authors in the above list would pretty much agree with this assessment. I think I can safely say Warfield's book is referenced in the other five books more times than all other sources combined. It would be hard for me to express how refreshing it was to read a masterful, scholarly book that was 100% totally sold out to the Bible being the Word of God.

 

Through 49 years of ministry, I have been guided by a firm belief that without a commitment to the truth of Scripture, we have no chance of living a successful spiritual life. The Bible is the crux of our faith. I respect and love the Bible. I want our college students to do the same—thus this class. I pray it will effectively teach the importance of Holy Writ.

 

I feel the timing is right for a class like this. Forces seem to have been let loose in our land that want to convince us the Bible has no current value for our culture. Sadly, these attacks sometimes come from within the so-called Christian movement. Some see it as antiquated, an ancient relic irrelevant to today. But many of us believe what the Bible says, God says. We feel we can make this claim based on rational, reasonable research.

 

People are prejudice against the Bible before they even give it a fair hearing. Nothing in the writings of the ancients has near the verification and support the New Testament does, but people do not reject the other writings.

 

Many reject the Bible on predetermined factors totally unrelated to the reliability of Bible manuscripts. Often they have a sin they don't want to forsake; thus the Lordship of Christ is not a welcome thought. Sometimes our interpreting the Bible is inconvenienced by its interpreting of us.

 

Others hate the Bible's worldview. They have no use for a God who became flesh through a virgin birth, lived a perfect life, died for the world's sins, rose from death, returned to Heaven, and is the only means of salvation.

 

THE APOSTLE PAUL AND MY DAD

 

         On Paul's second missionary journey (AC 15:36-18:22), Paul founded the church at Thessalonica (AC 17:1-4). Philippi was Europe's first church. Thessalonica was second. (Maybe they called it Second Baptist.)

 

         Within months of the church's founding, Paul felt a need to write his first letter to the Thessalonians. He probably took a pen made of hard reed that was cut diagonally across one end with a finely cut slit through the point. His ink would have been made of soot with burnt resin or pitch. Thicker and more durable than our ink tends to be, Paul may have had to use water to thin its gumminess. An inkstand discovered at Herculaneum, Italy, which was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius in 79 A.D., contained ink as thick as oil, and was still usable for writing.

 

         Paul's writing material would have been either papyrus or parchment. Papyrus, the more common, was made from the pith of a water plant that grew along the banks of the Nile. Parchment, sometimes called vellum, was made from the skins of cattle, goats, and sheep that were scraped till smooth.

 

         Armed with pen, ink, and papyrus, Paul wrote his name in Greek, "Paulos", thereby penning the first word of Holy Writ in almost half a millennium. His letter was the first New Testament writing, and is our oldest extant written Christian document. The year was 51 A.D.

 

In 1951 A.D., the year I was born, my dad began preaching from a Bible, which I now own, that contained a copy of Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. The purpose of this class is to analyze what happened to the message of that letter and of the other New Testament books in the intervening 1900 years. Can we be sure that the book my dad preached from was conveying the same message Paul wrote 19 centuries earlier?

 

Questions about the reliability of Scripture have to be viewed through the lens of Archaeology, which has become our true friend. (CW, pages 236-239, lists several significant archaeological discoveries.) Over the past few decades the archaeologist's spade has become a witness on our behalf.

 

I learned this on my study break. It had been 40 years since I had read in-depth theological books. I was surprised at how much more corroboration there is for Biblical reliability now than I was exposed to in seminary.

 

For example, in my seminary days, Rudolph Bultmann, the liberal German scholar, was a force to be reckoned with. Now, almost none of his tenets are widely accepted. That's a game-changer for me. I am grateful we have left his arguments behind us.

 

Though Archaeology is our friend, news outlets still seem to prefer to publicize any find that might in any way possibly contradict Christianity. Digs sometimes turn up factors that are quickly analyzed, and prematurely assumed to disprove some historical tenet of Scripture. These are almost always later shown to not evidence Bible error, but the damage is done.

 

The story of Archaeology's finest hour fits well here. Much criticism of the Old Testament was made passé by the greatest archaeological find ever--the Dead Sea Scrolls, which pushed back 1000 years the date of our oldest Old Testament manuscripts.

 

The scrolls helped us better appreciate the reliability of the text we have. We now know the Masoretes accurately conveyed Holy Writ to us.

 

For me, the Dead Sea Scrolls' biggest contribution is; they gave us copies of the Bible that predate Jesus. This is earthshakingly vital to me.

 

We have always known Jesus believed the Old Testament Scriptures were true and divinely inspired. He said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), and "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" (Matthew 5:18b). Critics, though, could say, "Yes, but we don't know for sure what the Old Testament manuscripts said in His day. We have no manuscripts extant within 1000 years of His lifetime."

 

They can no longer make this claim. Now we know what the Scripture of His day said. Dead Sea Scrolls have portions of every OT book except Esther. The most striking result of these 972 or so Dead Sea manuscripts, ranging from from 250 BC to 50 AD, is how similar they are to the Masoretic texts of a thousand years later. A stunning example of this is the handful of minor differences the huge scroll of Isaiah brought to the table.

 

Jesus' judgment is the most valuable one we have, and the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that what we have now is what Jesus had then, and He verified them all as trustworthy and holy. We know precisely what He was referring to when He claimed, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17).

 

Jesus' Corpse Went Missing

John 20:1-8

Jesus' Corpse Went Missing

Prepared by Dr. John E. Marshall

 

John 20:1 (Holman) On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came

to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the

stone had been removed from the tomb.

 

Magdala, a small town by the Sea of Galilee, was famous for fishing, boat building, wealth, and depravity. This latter trait had a devastating effect on its most famous citizen. Mary sided with the wrong crowd, began a downward slide, and eventually became possessed by seven demons.

Her life became a continuous tragedy, but one day a man looked into her soul, and cast those seven demons out of her (Luke 18:2). She devoted the rest of her life to Him. She followed Jesus in His travels, ministered to Him out of her own substance (Matthew 27:55-56), and endured the agony of seeing her Benefactor be tried as a criminal, and sentenced to death.

It was brave to show continual love to a crucified man. This is precisely what Mary did. She had to be near Jesus. Her life had become a pure spiritual romance of devoted love to Jesus. All the disciples except John fled Golgotha in terror, but she stood by the cross, and followed Joseph and Nicodemus to see where Jesus was buried (John 19:25; Mark 15:47).

On Saturday, she "remembered the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy." But as Sunday dawned, she took the first opportunity to visit Jesus' tomb. It was still dark, there had been an earthquake that morning (Matthew 28:2), and unfriendly Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb (Matthew 27:66).

Despite the danger, Mary could not be deterred. Though the object of her love was deemed a criminal, she could not forget Him. He had rescued her from seven demons, and she had to do something. Little could be done now, but at least she could still show loyalty. By bringing spices and shedding tears she can show that this despised, rejected man was still loved.

Her mission of mercy became a nightmare of horror. The cross was agony enough, but now foul violators had snatched the most sacred thing she could conceive. His body was gone. His enemies wouldn't even allow Him a decent burial. It was a blow hard enough to make the bravest heart totter.

 

John 20:2 So she ran to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one

Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of

the tomb, and we don't know where they have put Him!"

 

Horrified, she did all she knew to do. She ran for help to Jesus' two best friends. It is good to see Peter and John together. John's loving heart made it easy for him to forgive Peter's shameful denial of the Master.

Peter had accented his denial with cursing. He knew if he cursed, no one would accuse him of being a friend of Jesus. The same is still true today.

Peter fell into cowardice; when he began climbing back up, John was there to welcome him. The reunion was good. They needed each other now.

 

John 20:3-5 At that, Peter and the other disciple went out, heading for

the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple

outran Peter and got to the tomb first. Stooping down, he saw the

linen cloths lying there, yet he did not go in.

 

Startled at Mary's horrifying report, Peter and John did all they knew to do. They ran to the tomb to see for themselves. They took off, seeing which one could reach the sepulcher first.

John, fleeter of foot, won love's race, but was too timid to enter the tomb. He had seen Jesus die, "smitten of God." He knew the Lord's mutilated body had been placed inside this tomb. Reverence held him back.

 

John 20:6-7 Then, following him, Simon Peter came also, and entered

the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. The wrapping

that had been on His head was not lying with the linen

cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself.

 

John outran Peter, but Peter outdared John. John looked without entering. Peter entered without looking. Impetuous Peter did not hesitate at all. This was his chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the disciples.

Someone had to take charge. Impulsive Peter would lead the investigation. He immediately rushed into the tomb, and saw something that left him with a sense of wonder (Luke 24:12). The body was gone, but grave clothes had been left in an orderly fashion. The small cloth used to cover Jesus' face had been carefully folded and laid aside. The tomb displayed decorum of dignity. The atmosphere was serene, perfectly calm. It looked like someone had gotten out of bed after a night's rest.

It was time to draw possible conclusions. Could friends have come and taken the body elsewhere? No, Jesus could not have had a better grave. Also, no friend would shame the Lord by carrying away His unclothed body.

Were grave robbers the culprits? No, they would have rather taken the linens than the body, especially since these were fine and new (Mark 15:46). Also, thieves don't set things right before they leave. Their mark is chaos.

Could this be ruffians who wanted to further desecrate Jesus' body? No, they would have snatched their prey and run, not taking time to arrange things neatly. Grave-clothes would have been removed elsewhere.

The scene was perplexing. The body had been removed in an orderly way, with no signs of haste or fear. Peter, awe-struck, could not figure it out.

 

John 20:8 The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then

entered the tomb, saw, and believed.

 

         Peter's boldness made John venture farther. He stepped inside and mentally photographed the tomb's interior. Sixty years later, when he wrote this account, the sight was still vivid in his mind. He, too, saw the linens and the napkin folded neatly nearby, saw no traces of haste, and had to draw conclusions. Friends? No. Grave robbers? No. Ruffians? No. Then who?

A thousand questions were whirling through his mind. Who would leave behind grave-clothes as if to say He would never need them again? In a cold, barren tomb, who would give methodical attention to little details? Who would hate to leave a borrowed tomb untidy? Who would leave behind order in the land of confusion? Who does all things "decently and in order"?

Who would leave a napkin for His loved ones to use to dry their weeping eyes? That napkin had been lovingly placed on the Savior's face as the last touch of a love faithful to Him in death. Now this symbol of love was reverently folded, as if someone had appreciated and respected the love.

Something began to stir in John. "What if? Could it be?" Mary said, "They have taken Him." What if it is not "they," but "He"? Had He done for Himself what He did for Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, and the widow's son?"

Assessing the data, John made a bold verdict based on the evidence. Jesus was alive! What John saw in the tomb was just like Jesus. John recognized His style as easily as we recognize the handwriting of a friend.

This is John's highest glory. He was the first to believe Jesus rose. Mary was the first to see the risen Christ, but John was the first to believe.

Peter penetrated the tomb first. John penetrated faith first. His faith was weak, but real. Love, always the best interpreter, gave John eyes to see and a mind to understand. Love understands when intellect is left groping.

Peter wondered, John understood. As Earth's solar light was rising at the horizon, John perceived the world's spiritual light had risen in this tomb. John knew he was standing on holy ground. Joseph's tomb had become a sanctuary, history's greatest and smallest cathedral. This grave became the spring salvation flows from, the cradle of everlasting life. Here Jesus had conquered death, and left behind grave-clothes as trophies of His victory.

Contemplate these deserted grave-clothes and find consolation there. Jesus left them behind forever. He never appeared to anyone in them, or reclaimed them. He rose never to die again and thus needed them no more.

Since Jesus is not in a tomb, He is here in this room, and can live in our hearts. For those who know Jesus, the grave is not a dungeon dark and drear, and no longer the foyer of Hell, but the vestibule of Heaven.

 

Don't Hoard Like a Piggy Bank

Matthew 26:15b-16

Don't Hoard Like a Piggy Bank

Prepared by Dr. John E. Marshall

 

Matt. 26:15b (Holman) So they weighed out 30 pieces of silver for him.

 

How sad that the beautiful moment of the woman giving to Jesus pushed Judas over the edge of treachery. Seeing goodness and generosity in others often angers mean and selfish people. We do not want this as our legacy. Prefer instead a life of kindness and holiness, which "will spread a halo over the dying couch" (David Thomas).

The religious leaders were thrilled to negotiate with Judas. He gave them hope. They had thought they would have to wait till after the holiday crowds left Jerusalem to arrest Jesus, but now they saw a potential crack in the Nazarene's armor; maybe not everyone in the crowd was on His side. His backing was possibly slipping, even among His inmost circle of supporters.

It is no surprise that Matthew is the only Gospel writer who recorded the amount of this transaction; he was a tax collector. Thirty pieces of silver was the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32; Zechariah 11:12). The religious leaders may have chosen this amount to show their contempt for Jesus.

He had healed the sick, blind, lame, and demon-possessed, and had raised the dead, but to them He was of little value, worth in cold cash only 30 pieces of silver. By identifying Jesus with slaves, the leaders were classing Him with the lowest and least valued in society; this humble association with the outcast was the reason He left Heaven in the first place.

Before leaving this 30 pieces of silver, let me emphasize again what I stressed in my last sermon. Beware the love of money; it is a root of all evils (1 Tim. 6:10), as Demas proved (2 Tim. 4:10). Too many people are like the piggy banks that have only one slot--a very small one for coins to go in. The money, once in, is hard to get out. To retrieve the change, people often turn the banks upside down and shake them at odd angles, hoping coins will fall out the slot.

Many people are this way. They make money, but find it hard to give away any to God's work or to the poor. They receive, but rarely dispense.

 

Matt. 26:16 And from that time he started looking for a good

opportunity to betray Him.

 

To avoid provoking a riot, the leaders wanted to arrest Jesus neither in public nor in daylight. A private place, under the cover of darkness, would be best, but they did not know where they could find Jesus alone at night.

By obliging them, Judas earned the title of ultimate betrayer. There is no way to escape the verdict Judas was an arch villain. Even Shakespeare played on this theme. His character Othello counted himself a traitor, saying he "like the base Judean, threw away a pearl richer than all his tribe".

Judas refused to accept Jesus as He was. The betrayer wanted to make His Master into what he wanted Him to be. People today still want to deny the Christ of Scripture. They want a God made in their own image.

In the last century, when theologians turned from the Bible, and began what they called a quest to find the historical Jesus, they kept looking down the well of history and amazingly ended up seeing at the bottom of their research a mirror of their own faces. They all made Jesus look like them.

This is backwards. Jesus must change us, not vice versa. Do not mistakenly think we are better and smarter than the Bible writers who knew Jesus firsthand.

In considering this Judas-tragedy, I do not want to end my reflections with thoughts about his darkness. Instead, I want to turn our focus to Jesus.

There can never be any doubt Judas was treacherous, yet Jesus loved him. The same gospels that record Judas' cruelty also picture a loving Lord who reached out repeatedly in love to the traitor. If ever a person could be excluded from God's love, it would be Judas. But as Judas became more and more a devil, Jesus remained Jesus, ever showing true love for His betrayer.

The question we often ponder is; why did Jesus pick Judas in the first place? It's a hard question to answer. Another tough question is; why did He choose us? Were we sinless, respectable, or have congenial personalities?

Jesus loved Judas from the first. Chosen as one of the Twelve, Judas was never negatively singled out or excluded. In fact, the opposite was true. Jesus placed honor on Judas by selecting him to be treasurer of the group.

By including Judas among the Twelve, Jesus everlastingly proved He would, if allowed to, save people as evil as a traitor. Jesus' love is strong enough to reach anyone. I appreciate the fact Jesus was willing to have a hardened sinner nearby. I fear we too often isolate ourselves from the very people who need us most. Do you and I regularly interact in our social lives with anyone who is lost? Do we consistently hang out with people who need Jesus, or are all our close acquaintances already safely in the fold?

Jesus loved Judas from the first, and to the end. When Jesus gathered the Twelve in the upper room, Judas had already contacted the religious leaders. Jesus knew this, but gave Judas a seat of honor. We know the traitor was within reach of Jesus; Jesus was able to hand a piece of bread to Jesus directly.

Jesus stooped to wash Judas' feet along with the other disciples. This was one of Jesus' humblest acts of condescension. He washed feet that had already sought out the chief priests, feet that would guide soldiers to Him. Within hours the deed would be accomplished, but Jesus continued to love Judas. Treachery it was, but Jesus still loved him.

How long should we followers of Christ be loving, kind, and gracious to those who are unkind to us? Till they crucify us, and even then our prayer is to be "Father, forgive them."

We know Judas went to Hell. We also know he went there not because he betrayed Jesus, and not because Jesus did not love Him. Judas entered perdition because he never asked to be forgiven by Jesus.

Judas' inaction was enough to condemn him. He did not have to curse the Lord. He merely held his peace and did no more. Silence was sufficient.

It is very easy to ruin our soul when Christ pleads with us and draws us to Himself. We don't have to attack God to go to Hell. Just stand still, close our hearts, become engrossed with earthly matters, and drift on until the time of reckoning arrives. Delay is refusal; non-submission is rebellion.

There is no need to lift a clenched hand in defiance. Just keep our hands folded and behind our back. A closed hand remains an empty hand.

His love deserves from unbelievers a full surrender, and from believers, our ongoing gratitude. Charles Wesley, when he first learned of the new birth, could not find any place to preach his newfound message. In his zeal to find someone to witness to, he began working among the condemned criminals at Newgate prison.

One of them, sick with a fever, listened to Wesley's description of Christ's suffering and death. The condemned man listened with astonishment. As tears trickled down his face, he cried, "What ? Was it for me? Did God suffer all this for so poor a creature as me?" Three days later, Wesley returned and found him, though condemned, happy as he could be.

I fear we all occasionally need to revisit our first feelings of being overwhelmed by Christ's love when He saved us. I have for years appreciated what Ruthie tells me. She says when I get to Heaven, I will find her at Jesus' feet, saying, "Thank You for the cross." Amen and amen.

 

Marrying After Divorce

Matthew 19:9

Marrying After Divorce

Prepared by Dr. John E. Marshall

 

Matt. 19:9 (Holman) "And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for

sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

 

This famous "exception clause" is difficult to know how to apply. We start by making sure we know the issue here is not divorce, but remarriage after divorce.

The Biblical ideal is for the divorced to remain single and celibate. The second best option, remarriage, is better than the third option, promiscuity. One reason for marriage is to reduce the number of sex sins (I Corinthians 7:2).

Our text has been so battered by the arguing of Christ-followers that it is easy to miss the chief message Jesus presented here. Its main emphasis is grace.

Under Old Testament law, sexual immorality was punishable by death. Jesus commuted this death sentence to divorce. The guilty, though spared from capital punishment, had committed an act equal, under the Old Law, to having died.

Had the guilty one died, the innocent could have married without guilt. Since God's grace to the guilty should not penalize the innocent, the text extended grace to the innocent, sexually pure, spouse, who can remarry without guilt.

Based on this principle of fairness, the early Church looked with favor on a divorcee entering with humble repentance into a marriage. Not till the Middle Ages did the Church adopt an ironclad law absolutely forbidding, on threat of Hell itself, remarriage after divorce. As the Reformers broke away, they generally rejected this rigid position. They deemed the law too harsh, not reflecting God's loving grace.

Protestants have from the first generally tended to okay divorcees remarrying. This is not universally true. A few hardliners still embrace the ironclad prohibition. Though the strict beliefs of groups like this, and the firm position of Roman Catholicism, are too severe for most of us Protestants, we are left in a quandary of our making. The lack of a uniform policy among us, especially Baptists, has drawbacks. Trust me. I have learned this by painful experience.

Individual Pastors are essentially left alone on this volatile issue, forced to struggle on their own with how best to handle it. Without a clear-cut Church law to fall back on, every Pastor sinks or swims alone. This can cause huge anxiety.

Trying to mix reverence for God's law with compassion for individuals can be absolute agony. As a matter of integrity, conscientious Pastors do not want to condone the guilty. Desperately wanting to bless and help the innocent (and the guilty), they ever juggle lifting the standard high while dropping the safety net low.

Pastors, caught in a predicament, essentially have three choices. One, they can adopt the rigid, hardline position and refuse to remarry divorcees. This position is consistent, and does keep a Pastor from having to try to determine guilt or innocence in those wanting to re-marry, but it is harsh and offends many.

Two, Pastors can opt to remarry only those they determine to be innocent victims of divorce. Playing this blame game is dangerous and essentially hopeless.

Only the husband, the wife, and God know all the details about any break-up in a marriage. No outsider can ultimately judge guilt or innocence in a divorce.

It is risky to try to place blame. However obvious a divorce's cause might appear to be from the outside, only the spouses know all that went on behind closed doors. They alone can determine the level of their own guilt or innocence.

Hear the stories of three preachers I know. In all three cases, the sex sins and divorce appeared to be 100% their fault. They did sin; no doubt about it. I am not justifying, making light of, or condoning their sin, but their level of guilt may not have been bad enough to warrant all the condemnation they received.

One wife's family convinced her that sex was dirty, and should be done only when trying to conceive. The second's wife let him be intimate with her twice in the years they were married; he told me the birth of their child was a timing miracle. The third wife had to forego intimacy for years due to cervical cancer.

Three preachers. Guilty. "Brand the scarlet A on their brow" (which is precisely what Christians did). Again, I do not condone their sin. All I'm saying is, we cannot be judge, jury, and executioners in the divorces of others. In responding to a divorce, should we try to determine where most of the blame lies, or write off the guilty by treating them like they committed unpardonable sin? I don't think so.

Three, instead of remarrying no one or only those deemed innocent, Pastors can remarry everyone. Dad conveyed this position to me. It eliminates harshness, and keeps one from playing the blame game, but I admit I often feel guilty about some remarriages I perform (I feel bad about some first marriages I do, as when bride or groom seems flippant about their vows, or evidences not being a believer).

We Pastors who abdicate to the bride and groom the determining of their guilt or innocence find ourselves staying quiet in the face of everything. We end up feeling guilty of silently blessing a philosophy that essentially says anything goes.

I most fear my leniency could be misconstrued and used to encourage people to be presumptive before God. To presume on God's forgiveness is a grievous evil. To enter into a sin, as it were, with one's fist defiantly held high against God is a crime almost too heinous even to mention, much less commit.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Christian divorcees who have come to me seeking remarriage gave no hint of trying to defy God. They know they're not making an ideal choice, but this is far short of being presumptuous before God. They are usually trying to do the best they can in their current situation.

Whatever our position on remarriage after divorce, we must make sure one message comes through loud and clear. Whenever a person repents, God forgives the past. We are followers of Jesus Christ, One who accepted sinners where they were and who sought to help and encourage, not crush, them.

God wants to meet each of us where we are today. If you are married, do all in your power to stay married. If divorced and unmarried, try to remain single. If you were an innocent victim of divorce who has now remarried, and have nagging fears you erred, ask for and receive God's forgiveness now.

If you were guilty of sexual immorality in marriage, guilty in divorce, and guilty in remarriage, ask God to forgive you now. Even adultery of this triple magnitude is not an unpardonable sin. It is a serious evil, and we must not minimize it, but never let anyone feel they have sinned themselves beyond the reach of God's love and forgiveness. If you are guilty, something only you can decide, repent and cast yourself on His mercy. You will find it to be sufficient.

Wherever we are and whatever we have done, if we repent, God meets us there with forgiveness, and wipes our slate clean. The repentant are forgiven by God, and whom God has forgiven, the Church must not discriminate against.

The New Testament gives only one limitation for remarried divorcees. They are not to serve as a Pastor or Deacon (1 Timothy 3:2,12) in a local church.

This restriction concerning Pastors and Deacons is not a statement about a person's spirituality or about the value or quality of their marriage. Many Pastors and Deacons have terrible marriages; many remarried divorcees have wonderful marriages. The remarried, whether guilty or innocent in their first marriage and/or divorce, can have as much or more of the blessing and smile of God on their second marriage as others can have on their first marriage.

The Pastor/Deacon rule is given to let us have a tangible way to highlight the importance of marital permanence. I do not think this doctrine should be a test of fellowship between churches. Many godly leaders fall on different sides in this discussion. It behooves us to let each local church make its own determination.

Loose the divorced and remarried. Set them free to preach, teach, pray, lead singing, win souls, and whatever else needs to be done. Remarried divorcees can be as spiritual, as holy, and as consecrated as non-divorcees, and are often more so.

When dispensing blessing and power, God does not look on His children and see married once versus married twice, or single once as opposed to single again. He sees forgiven and unforgiven. In the forgiven category, there are no second class citizens. God's forgiveness includes as a benefit first class status.

The woman at the well had had five husbands and was living with a sixth man (John 4:18), but received forgiveness, and immediately became a world class evangelist for Jesus. To the well she came dirty and guilty. At the well she found herself swimming in an ocean of cleansing, forgiving waters. From the well she went to invite others to come swim with her. Let's do the same.