(More Bible Studies Available @ www.marktabata.com)
It is written:
Matthew 19:9-And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
I have often heard that Matthew 19:9 teaches that any person who is divorced and remarried is committing adultery, because in God’s eyes, the persons in the new marriage are still married to their former spouse. Indeed, it was said that they were still married in God’s eyes, even if they were divorced according to the laws of man.
Of course, this never made sense to me with the statement of Jesus here. After all, Jesus said that man should not put asunder what God had joined together, not that it was impossible to put those asunder (Matthew 19:6). More to the point, the context of this discussion was always shown to be about what the Law of Moses taught (Matthew 19:3). This seemed to be a big shining sign that says, “Hey, this is about the interpretation of the Old Testament Law, not a new teaching of Jesus!”
Couple this with the fact that the Law of Moses allowed divorce and remarriage for other reasons (Exodus 21:10-11), and that Paul had some very interesting inspired remarks about this as well (1 Corinthians 7:10-16, 27-28), and it all demonstrated that there was something I was missing in the teaching of the Gospels regarding divorce and remarriage.
Part of that puzzle has to do with agunahs.
Let’s study.
In Jesus’ day, there was a great deal of debate among the Jewish people regarding the teaching of God in Deuteronomy 24.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4-When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
The debate centered around that word “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24:1. One school of thought (that of Hillel) said that the “uncleanness” was anything that the wife did to displease her husband, even “spoiling the dish” for supper. Another school of rabbinical thought (that of Shammai) said that the word “uncleanness” was “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” The evidence favors the view that God allowed divorce in this passage for the purpose of “fornication” but which included sexual or promiscuous activity of the spouse leading up to (but probably not culminating) in the actual act of adultery. In other words, the “uncleanness” was something sexually displeasing that the wife did in the husband’s view (promiscuous or revealing clothing, behavior, speech, etc.), and possibly sexual sin with another person but which could not be proven because of a lack of witnesses.
Dawson has this excellent breakdown of the word “uncleanness” used throughout the Bible:
“I believe, and am about to prove, that the word “indecency” here refers to fornication in this passage, and that the passage authorized, but didn’t demand, the husband to divorce his wife for her fornication. I further believe that God didn’t want him to divorce her, even for fornication, unless he couldn’t work the problem out, or if his wife wouldn’t repent, then he was authorized to put her away, just like God did with Israel, and Joseph was going to do with Mary until he found out she wasn’t an impenitent fornicator. Further, when she was put away for her fornication, she was authorized to remarry…. The Hebrew word translated “indecency” is ` ervah, which means nakedness, without argument. The word holds this meaning all the fifty or so times it occurs in the Old Testament. While everyone who writes on this subject realizes this, it’s customary for most of us to make statements like, “The word ` ervah basically means nakedness, and it’s usually used in a bad sexual connotation. But since adulterers were stoned to death, it wasn’t adultery. So the best guess is that the word refers to some sexual sin short of adultery.” While we won’t discuss every time this word is used in the Old Testament, we will give the reader a list of every time the word occurs (which will enable the reader to study every occurrence of ` ervah). Instead, we will discuss all the different ways the word is used. Nakedness of Land First of all, there are two times where the word is used, not of sexual or even personal nakedness at all, but of the nakedness of a land. In Gen. 42.9 and 12, the Jews were told “to see the nakedness of the land” in order to see how defenseless it was. In these two passages, the word ` ervah has no sexual connotation at all. Personal Sexual Nakedness, Not Sexual Activity, Just Shameful or Inappropriate Next, ` ervah is used of personal sexual nakedness not involving sexual activity, but in cases where such nakedness was shameful or inappropriate to the circumstances. For example, in Gen. 9.22 Noah’s sons saw the nakedness of their father, and took it lightly. In Gen. 9.23, they covered their father’s nakedness. There was no fornication here, no sexual activity, just personal sexual nakedness. In Ex. 20.26 we get an idea of what personal sexual nakedness actually meant when Moses said, “And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.” This, again, involved no sexual activity, but it was just shameful and inappropriate for the priest’s nakedness to be revealed while he was ascending the altar. In Ex. 28.42, Moses ordained linen breeches to cover their nakedness from their waist to their thighs. Hence, nakedness, at least for men, referred to their genital area, not their ankles or shoulders. One extremely interesting passage is Dt. 23.12-14, where the reader should notice two things that were uncovered that need to be covered: You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement, since the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent [Heb. ` ervah—SGD] among you lest He turn away from you. The first uncovered thing that needed to be covered up was the person’s personal nakedness while he tended his bodily needs. This was covered by going outside the camp for privacy. His excrement also needed to be covered, and that was accomplished with the shovel. This could have been accomplished inside the camp, but of course, the person’s personal nakedness wouldn’t have been covered there. In Isa. 20.4, we read of the personal sexual nakedness of the Egyptians. This was not sexual activity, but the exposure of the Egyptians by the Assyrians as they carried them off into captivity. In Isa. 47.3, we read of the Babylonians’ personal sexual nakedness being exposed as they were carried off into captivity themselves. Other examples of this use of ` ervah are given in: Gen. 9.22-Noah’s sons saw NAKEDNESS of their father Gen. 9.23-covered the NAKEDNESS of their father Gen. 9.23-they saw not their father’s NAKEDNESS Ex. 20.26-priest’s NAKEDNESS not to be discovered when ascending altar Ex. 28.42-linen breeches to cover their NAKEDNESS Dt. 23.12-14-two things uncovered here excrement-covered with spade personal nakedness-covered by going outside the camp Isa. 20.4-Assyrians will carry off Egyptians NAKED into captivity Isa. 47.3-Babylon’s personal NAKEDNESS will be shown in punishment Ezek. 16.8-God covered Israel’s NAKEDNESS at the beginning Ezek. 16.37-Egyptians, Chaldeans will see Judah’s NAKEDNESS Seeing Someone’s Sexual Nakedness Dishonorably—Either Illicit or Legitimate Sexual Activity In Lev. 18.6, we read: None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness, I am the Lord. This is not speaking of changing a baby’s diapers, or adults having an accidental glance at someone’s personal nakedness. As we see in verse 19, marriage was for the right of uncovering nakedness. This use is synonymous with “lying with” a person. This passage is prohibiting incest. In Lev. 18.7, we see ` ervah used twice, once honorably, and once shamefully: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. Uncovering the nakedness of the woman was honorable as the right of marriage for the father to do it, but dishonorable for her son to do it. There are a number of cases of ` ervah used this way (v8 (incest), v10 (incest with granddaughter), v11 (incest with stepsister), v12-13 (incest with aunt), v15 (incest with daughter in law), v17 (sex with mother and daughter), v18-19) sex with a woman and her sister), v10 (sex during menstrual impurity), 20.17 (general incest), but let’s notice in particular Lev. 20.21: If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless. This is the situation described in Mt. 14.1-4 and Mk. 6.17-18 where John the Baptist told Herod that it wasn’t lawful for him to have his brother Philip’s wife. Dt. 24.1 is next , our present passage of interest, where the man wants to put his wife away because he has found some indecency in her. It should be obvious thus far that indecency isn’t burning the bread or spinning in the streets in which no sexual nakedness is involved at all. So far we would just know indecency is a matter of sexual nakedness, at least from her waist to her thighs. In Ezek. 16.36, we have an extremely important passage where God described Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness to him: Thus says the Lord God, Because your lewdness was poured out and your nakedness [Heb. ` ervah—SGD] uncovered through your harlotries [Gr. porneia in Septuagint—SGD] with your lovers and with all your detestable idols, and because of the blood of your sons which you gave to idols: This passage is important because here ` ervah is used synonymously with porneia, the Greek word for fornication in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). In Ezek. 23.29, God spoke again of Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness being punished by the Babylonians: And they will deal with you in hatred, take all your property, and leave you naked and bare. And the nakedness [Heb. ` ervah—SGD] of your harlotries [Gr. porneia in Septuagint—SGD] shall be uncovered, both your lewdness and your harlotries. This is speaking of the unlawful relations of the Egyptians with Israel, and is another example of ` ervah and porneia being used synonymously again. This isn’t spinning in the streets or burning the bread, but it is illicit sexual activity or fornication. When some of the rabbis thought indecency referred to fornication, they were exactly right, weren’t they? ‘ervah Is Translated by Askemon in The Septuagint Another major clue to the meaning of ` ervah in the Old Testament is to see how it was translated in the Greek version, or Septuagint. The Greek word for ` ervah is askemon, and askemon is used just five times in the New Testament. Seeing how askemon is used in the New Testament will be extremely instructive, as to the meaning of “indecency” in the Old Testament, and it will probably enlighten us on the meaning of several New Testament passages as well. First, in I Cor. 7.36, Paul said: But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly [from Gr. askemon—SGD] toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will, he sinneth not, let them marry. First of all, the word daughter in this passage is in italics, indicating it was supplied by the translator. It is better omitted for two reasons: (1) it authorizes incest, condemned elsewhere in the Bible, and (2) it is not in keeping with the theme of I Corinthians 7, avoiding fornication. The verse teaches the general condition where it is good not to marry (verse 1): that if a man is not able to contain his sexual desires toward his virgin, he should marry her. This is just a special case of it being better to marry than burning with unsatisfied sexual desire (verse 9). Here the word askemon is used of a man either committing or about to commit fornication with his virgin. In I Cor. 13.5, Paul used this word when he said, “Love doth not behave itself unseemly [Gr. askemon—SGD].” Again, askemon, used for indecency in the Old Testament, is undoubtedly referring to indecency in the sexual realm, here to a spouse who loves his partner not being sexually unfaithful to him or her. It’s not talking about temper tantrums, or merely being inconsiderate, but illicit sexual activity. In Rom 1.27, Paul said: … and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness [Gr. askemon—SGD]. Here the word askemon is used with reference to homosexual fornication. In Rev. 16.15, Jesus said: Behold, I come as a thief, Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame [Gr. askemon—SGD]. Here the word askemon is used of one seduced by the harlot to commit fornication. The last New Testament passage where askemon occurs is I Cor. 12.23-24, where Paul said: … and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely [Gr. askemon—SGD] parts have more abundant comeliness. Our uncomely parts here are probably not our toes, but this is undoubtedly a reference to covering our personal nakedness with clothing, whereas our more honorable parts have no need of such cover, our faces, our hair, our hands, etc. In these five examples sexual nakedness was referred to each time, and fornication was referred to four out of the five times. When some of the rabbis said ` ervah referred to fornication, they were right! Thus, to conclude the first part of our study of Dt. 24.1-4, we notice what Moses said: When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency [ASV “unseemliness”—SGD] in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house… Moses was very probably speaking of a man whose wife had committed sexual sin not punishable by death (adultery with witnesses, a very rare case—most adulterers are so inconsiderate as to not commit their sin before witnesses… SGD), and that’s the reason “she finds no favor in his eyes.” Later where we discuss Jesus’ teaching on divorce under Moses, we’ll be able to refine our interpretation of Dt. 24.1-4 even further.” (Samuel Dawson, Proof Texts Misused by Most Churches of Christ, 214-221 (Kindle Edition): Bowie, TX: SGD Press)
For years, my personal belief has been that in Matthew 19:9, Jesus was simply expounding on the word “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24:1, and identified it with “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” It has been (and continues to be) my conviction that Jesus is simply identifying what the Law of Moses had explicitly taught in this passage, in opposition to the “liberal” view of Hillel and in support of what Shammai taught on the matter.
Another piece of the puzzle has been recently learned that I want to share with you. It has to do with the Hebrew word “agunah,” which is literally translated as “chained wife.” According to this aspect of Jewish culture, a man who had married a woman could actually “put her away” without giving her a certificate of divorcement. She would (in essence) be kicked out of his home, but still be married to him because he was angered or (as the evidence will show) he was a money-hungry jerk who was exploiting her for his personal financial gain. In desperation, the woman would often be forced to cohabit with another man who was not her husband as a means of survival. We see an example of this in the Old Testament with King David:
2 Samuel 20:3-Now David came to his house at Jerusalem. And the king took the ten women, his concubines whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in seclusion and supported them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood.
One of the topics that Shammai and Hillel debated in Jesus’ time was whether or not it was permissible for a husband to marry another woman while having an agunah, and if an agunah was permitted to marry the man she was cohabiting with without being granted an actual divorce from her husband.
“The written ‘certificate of divorce’ served as formal evidence for the divorced woman but also prevented her former spouse from making future claims against her. This method surpassed the Code of Hammurabi, where the absence of witnesses to a husband’s verbal dismissal left the ex-wife without dissolution proof. The God of Israel’s commanded written decree was an additional measure to protect divorced women from malicious ex-husbands. Still, this compassionate act was occasionally exploited. Once the three steps to dissolve the marriage are finalized, if she then marries another man and the second marriage ends either through divorce or the husband’s death, the first husband cannot remarry her (verses 3-4). This law was meant to protect the woman from being threatened or treated poorly, like a piece of property that could be discarded and taken back at the husband’s whim…. The process outlined in the Law is further developed in the Jewish Talmud, where the rabbis discuss various grounds for divorce, the steps to divorce, the rights of the involved parties, and the specifics of the “GET” (GET is the rabbinic term for the bill of divorce). The GET is the most crucial component of a Jewish divorce; without it, the woman is not free to remarry, and any subsequent relationships are considered adulterous. For example, if a husband refuses to give his wife, who left him, a GET, thereby preventing her from moving on with her life, yet she proceeds to marry another man, both she and her new partner would be living in an adulterous relationship. This was not uncommon. Regrettably, some Jewish men—then and now—exploit this technicality by physically separating from their wives (“put away”) without granting them the GET (bill of divorce), preventing them from moving on and finding new love. This tactic allows the husbands to “punish” their wives while also avoiding alimony payments. In Judaism, a woman trapped in such a predicament is called an Agunah (“chained woman”). According to Jewish law, for a marriage between Jewish partners to be legally dissolved, the husband must willingly give a divorce document (GET) to the wife, who in return must accept it. The Rabbinical court is authorized to impose a range of sanctions on a man who refuses to grant a GET. Sanctions can also be imposed on a woman who refuses to accept a GET from her husband, but this requires approval from the president of the Great Rabbinical Court. Consider this scenario: An Israelite husband, acting cruelly towards his wife, drives her into the arms of another man. In a punitive response, he withholds the bill of divorce, trapping her in a state of Agunah (anchored or chained) and preventing her from moving on legally. Overwhelmed by bitterness and frustration, she defies her marital bonds and chooses to marry her new love regardless. In this complex tapestry of actions and reactions, who is primarily responsible for the ensuing adultery? Such dilemmas have been central to Jewish theological discourse for more than three millennia, engaging even figures like Jesus, the Pharisees, and the teachers of the Law. Christianity often disregards this complex interaction between personal autonomy, religious law, and moral ethics.” (Eitan Bar, Christian and Divorced: What the Bible REALLY Says About Divorce & Remarriage, 21-28 (Kindle Edition): Shamus Magnificent Books)
Why would a husband do this to his wife?
There may have been several motivations (anger, cruelty, jealously, etc.). However, one reason that was paramount for this behavior in Jesus’ day was due to greed.
“What is the purpose of a husband sending away his wife without issuing the legal divorce certificate? Consider a scenario where a wife brings her own money into the marriage, and her husband puts her away without providing a legal bill of divorce. In such a case—keeping her as an Agunah—he wouldn’t be legally obligated to return her money since they are not legally divorced. As a result, he would continue to control and profit from her dowry. While the man was prohibited from depleting the original value of her dowry, he could benefit from the returns on its investment. So, from a financial standpoint, it was worth withholding the dowry (or Ketubah settlement), depriving the wife of the financial support she was due until she could remarry: Until the husband has returned his wife’s dowry and paid her the fine, or until she has accepted it, the husband remained liable for supporting her, even if they were no longer living together. Some (ex-) husbands, then as now, tried to avoid supporting their (ex-) wives. 9 This is why men would legally keep their wives on paper but practically put them away. Keeping them bound as Agunah was more cost-effective. Therefore, the Law aims to protect these women by requiring their husbands to provide a bill of divorce if they no longer wish to be with them. This allows the women to move on and find refuge with a new partner. Divorce laws were meant to protect the financial aspect of the marriage as well, emphasizing the importance of providing the bill of divorce that was linked to the monetary settlement: The certificate was vital for the woman, especially if the document relinquished the husband’s rights to her and her dowry and authorized her to return to her family of origin or to marry another man. 10 The Agunah dilemma was—and still is—a significant conundrum in Judaism: Unless some workable solution is accepted, the agunah is faced with three terrible choices. She can resign herself to her desperate fate, embark on an arduous and often unsuccessful search to find a halakhic authority willing and able to find some technicality to release her from an untenable marriage, or be forced to abandon the observant Jewish community to attain personal fulfillment in a new marriage. 11 To summarize In the hyper-patriarchal society of biblical times, men wielded power, authority, control, and possessions, while women, often viewed as property, had limited rights. During this period, it was a harsh practice for men to abandon their wives without issuing a divorce certificate. This left these women legally bound but effectively discarded, unable to remarry, and trapped in a state of limbo, like neglected possessions. The husband, no longer providing love, care, or support, barred the wife from finding another partner who might. Some of these women did remarry, but this meant both they and their new husbands were considered to be living in adultery. The introduction of the bill of divorcement in the Bible was a measure to free women from the plight of being Agunah. It was not sin but a remedy to sin: Such a form of divorce, gave only into the hand of the divorced wife that which would show, that she was legitimately dismissed, and so free, both generally and before other men, and over against her husband hitherto. 12”. (Eitan Bar, Christian and Divorced: What the Bible REALLY Says About Divorce & Remarriage, 48-50 (Kindle Edition): Shamus Magnificent Books)
From these facts, there are several things for us to consider.
First, the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 reflects not only matters of interpretation of the Old Testament Law (Matthew 19:3; Deuteronomy 24:1-4), but real life examples of cultural significance in His time (and before). Failure to understand these contextual facts can lead easily to misunderstanding. For example: Jesus is not here teaching that a man and his wife who divorce are somehow “still married in God’s eyes.” Instead, the context shows us situations where a couple was not legally divorced because the husband was an insensitive and brutish man who kicked his wife out of the home but refused to grant her a legal divorce, often so that he could hold on to her money.
Second, the Law of God had been designed to protect women from cruelty by granting them a certificate of divorce from their husbands and keeping them from being used as property. Sadly, people then (just as today) took advantage of others by twisting God’s Word to justify horrible and inexcusable behaviors. The Pharisees attempted to justify keeping their wives’ fortunes based on their twisting of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They could claim their wives as their own because they didn’t give her a certificate of divorce, even if they had removed them from their home and protection. By doing this, they were able to avoid financially supporting their wife and were able to hold on to her fortune. God had never intended Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to be a weapon used against women, but unjust husbands had used it for that purpose!
This is shown clearly by Jesus in Matthew 19.
Matthew 19:3-8-The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,’. 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’ ? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
For a time, God allowed the people to divorce their wives. However, His desire was that the husbands learn to show kindness toward their wives and not necessarily divorce them. The Law was designed to protect the women in this circumstance, even protecting them from the same husband trying to marry her again in the future. People often twist God’s Word to try and justify horrible things.
As another modern day example of this practice, please consider that some will appeal to Romans 13 and claim that we must follow the laws of the land, even if those laws are unjust. Modern situations include that of “illegal immigrants” who fled their homeland due to persecution or starvation. What’s a starving person to do if he cannot afford food for himself or his family in his native land? How can he afford a “green card” in such situations? What about a person fleeing from drug cartels and who cannot likewise attain citizenship because he lacks funds? Is this not eerily similar to the Pharisees keeping their wives as chained women?
More to the point, a simple study of Romans 12-13 in context shows that Paul is not addressing Christians obeying unjust laws at all. When he wrote, the Roman Emperor Nero was actually (at that time) showing mercy towards his subjects (https://marktabata.com/2024/10/25/the-dating-of-romans-13-and-the-emperor-nero/). Instead, he is discussing how Christians are not to give in to personal retaliation against enemies (Romans 12:17-21) because God is going to work through government to protect the innocent and stop and punish the lawbreakers (notice that in Romans 12:19, the phrase “give place to wrath” is synonymous with the government being “God’s avenger” in Romans 13:4). The Apostle is addressing government that is acting in harmony with God’s foreordained purpose for it (Romans 13:1-7), not unjust government (which is to be opposed non-violently: see Acts 5:29). Romans 13 does not justify acceptance of unjust or cruel laws any more than Deuteronomy 24:1-4 justified a cruel man keeping his wife as an agunah.
What God intended for good, man has often twisted for evil!
Psalm 50:16-17-But to the wicked God says: “What right have you to declare My statutes, Or take My covenant in your mouth, 17 Seeing you hate instruction And cast My words behind you?
Third, Jesus takes us back to the heart of the issue by returning us to Genesis. God’s ideal for mankind in regards to the family was for one man and one wife forever. That is the ideal! Yet, as the Book of Genesis goes on to teach us, humanity does not follow God’s ideal. So God in His graciousness makes laws to guide and instruct us in less then ideal situations and circumstances. Jesus shows us that we must look to God’s ideal in the beginning as our starting point. The “one flesh” ideal of Genesis shows us that man was supposed to treat his wife with tenderness and compassion, not like the hardened Jews of Moses’ and Jesus’ day often treated their wives when they kept them chained in terrible and abusive conditions.
Fourth, this reminds us of our need to be careful when working with people involved in divorce and remarriage situations. For centuries, the cultural idea of agunah has been either unknown or ignored. As Bar points out:
“Agunah” A Jewish term for a wife being put away by her husband without a legal bill of divorce. This issue has sparked significant disputes in Judaism for thousands of years while remaining largely unknown to most Christians.” ((Eitan Bar, Christian and Divorced: What the Bible REALLY Says About Divorce & Remarriage, 48-50 (Kindle Edition): Shamus Magnificent Books)
Our teaching on divorce and remarriage from Matthew 19:9 must be done especially alongside of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:1-8 and Ephesians 5:22-33. Let us approach all of these topics and subjects with love of truth, and especially with grace and humility coupled with love for the Lord and our fellow man.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.