My car’s license plate renewal sticker came recently. As I was putting it on top of the other stickers from prior years, it reminded me that this sticker, once applied, cannot be removed without being ruined. I’m sure they designed it this way so that it couldn’t be stolen from one vehicle and put on a different one. Knowing this to be the case, I am more careful to put it on correctly.

Matthew 19.3-6

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

God designed marriage to be for life. What He “has joined together” was never intended to be separated by man. We live in a society of “no fault” divorce, where a marriage commitment lasts only as long as the husband and wife are both happy, and there is a denial of the permanent damage caused by the breaking of the marriage union. It is impossible to divorce and not have damage. The intimacy and trust that God made to be a part of the marriage union is irreparably damaged. Children whose parents divorce may deal with feelings of rejection and even guilt as they imagine they are somehow at fault for their parents’ decision.

Much like the sticker that cannot be removed without being destroyed, divorce cannot happen without doing damage. For the unmarried, great care must be given when choosing a spouse. Those of us who are married must understand that divorce must be an absolute last resort even if it is for a scripturally permissible reason. Spouses must make every effort to address the issues that exist between them with the goal of reconciliation. If such efforts are ineffective, then we must humbly seek wise counsel from other mature Christians.

Malachi 2.14-16

But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?And what was the one God seeking?Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

May God help us to be faithful in our promises, especially in the covenant of marriage. Let us see the damage that will certainly come from discarding one’s commitment to a spouse. Let us reject the world’s view that divorce is a harmless option. We must commit to serving God in our marriages and seek the holiness and godly offspring He desires. May we bring God glory rather than shame in our marriages and draw closer to each other in holiness as we faithfully serve our spouses as Christ commands.

hawkifanz@frontier.com

If you struggle to listen to a preacher because of the way he dresses, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. His clothing was rough and was neither stylish nor formal (Mt 3:4; 11:8).

If you don’t like a preacher because of his awkward social habits, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. He ate an odd diet of locusts and wild honey (Mt 3:4; Mk 1:6), “neither eating bread nor drinking wine” (Lk 7:33), and his disciples fasted often (Lk 5:33).

If you don’t like the inconvenience of traveling to hear preaching, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. He preached in the wilderness and not in urban areas (Mt 3:1).

If you insist that a preacher be from a certain region of the country or have a special education, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. He “was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Lk 1:80).

If you don’t like lessons about real repentance that hold people’s feet to the fire, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. He primarily preached on repentance and even refused to baptize those who had not repented (Mk 1:4; Mt 3:2-3, 7-9)

If you don’t want to study about divorce or have unscripturally married people told they are wrong, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. He did exactly that with Herod (Mt 14:3-4).

If you want preaching to be politically correct and never offend anyone (including the government), you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. His preaching offended the king (Mk 6:17-18) and addressed social, tax, and military issues (Lk 3:10-14).

If you don’t want to hear about caring for the poor, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. He taught about giving your second shirt to one who has none and sharing your food with the hungry (Lk 3:11).

If you aren’t comfortable with people confessing their sins, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. People regularly came to him confessing their sins (Mt 3:5-6).

If you are resisting being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. He preached “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3).

If you don’t want to be baptized by immersion, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist (literally John the Immerser) because John immersed people (Jn 3:6, 16; Mk 1:5, 9; Jn 3:23).

If you don’t like to think about God’s coming judgment, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist. He warned of the wrath to come as an ax that is ready to cut down a tree (Mt 3:7-9).

If you aren’t interested in the kingdom of God, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist’s primary kingdom theme (Mt 3:2).

If you don’t want criticism of religious leaders and false teachers, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist who called them a “Brood of vipers!” (Mt 3:7-9).

If you insist on miracles in order to believe, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist who “did no sign” (Jn 10:41).

If you are impressed with leaders, preachers, or writers because they are popular with other leaders, preachers, or writers, you wouldn’t have liked John the Baptist who was rejected by the Pharisees and the experts in the law (Lk 7:30).

We think, “No, no, I would have gone to John and listened to him.” But if you let even one of the above things stop you now from listening to the gospel preached, you would have let it stop you when you smelled John, had to walk to hear him, or get wet in the muddy Jordan River.

Jesus said, “…among those born of women there is not risen one greater than John the Baptist” (Mt 11:11). Jesus said John “…has borne witness to the truth” (Jn 5:33) and was “…the burning and shining lamp” (Jn 5:35). How could anyone not have liked this guy? How could anyone not have listened to him? But it is often the same today. People won’t look past the man to see the message. Jesus said there was no greater prophet, but I’m not optimistic that we would like him.

When Joseph, the carpenter betrothed to Mary, discovered his betrothed was pregnant, he “resolved to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19). Before he could do so, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream informing him that Mary had not been promiscuous and that the child she bore was a fulfillment of what Isaiah the prophet had spoken, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.” Matthew’s account specifies for us that Immanuel means “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). When we read this literal meaning of Immanuel through twenty-first-century eyes, I think we quickly jump to the deity of Christ. Jesus was, after all, literally God incarnate. This is certainly a part of what can be inferred from Jesus being called Immanuel; but if we spend time considering Isaiah’s prophecy, we will find that Jesus’ designation as “God with us” has more implications than the incarnation of deity alone.

Isaiah’s prophecies regarding Immanuel were received in the context of the Divided Kingdom. Ahaz, the king of Judah, requested help from the king of Assyria to defend against the alliance of Israel and Syria. Looking forward from this point in Judah’s history, we can see that Ahaz’s actions led to Assyria taking Israel and laid the groundwork for Babylon (and later the Medo-Persian empire) to conquer Judah. However, before Ahaz requested Assyrian help, God sent him a message via Isaiah: “Do not fear!” (Is. 7:3-9). To assure Ahaz further, God instructed him to ask for a sign from God, but Ahaz refused under the pretense of not wanting to test the Lord (Is. 7:10-12). God’s response indicates that Ahaz’s protest was not sincere and demonstrated a lack of faith in God. Therefore, God determined to give the king—and, indeed, all his people—a sign anyway. The sign was a child named Immanuel. Over the course of multiple prophecies, Isaiah says that before this child is very old, Assyria would destroy Judah’s adversaries and Ahaz’s concerns about Israel and Syria will be irrelevant (Is. 7:16). However, because Judah has chosen the help of Assyria instead of YHWH, this child will also live to witness his land largely subjugated by Assyria instead (Is. 8:5-8).

In Isaiah’s prophecies, we see three themes which find their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus: Salvation, judgment, and redemption. The significance of the child born in the time of Isaiah was not the child himself, but the events that would come about in the child’s lifetime as a result of God’s presence (“God with us”). While the child was still young, God would provide salvation by ensuring that Israel and Syria were no longer a threat to Judah. But chapter eight’s prophecy demonstrates that salvation is not the only thing that comes with God’s presence—so does judgment. Within the child’s lifetime, God would enact judgment on Judah by allowing it to be overrun by the Assyrian empire. However, immediately following the description of Assyria subjugating Judah, God provides hope of redemption by reminding all nations (including Judah) that anyone who makes plans to conquer or threaten God’s people will ultimately come to nothing because “God is with us” (Is. 8:10). We see in this Old Testament context that Immanuel is a promise of God’s presence—a presence that meant salvation, judgment, and ultimately redemption for God’s people.

In the New Testament, Jesus’ designation as Immanuel brings the same implications of God’s presence. The angel of the Lord explicitly tells Joseph that Mary’s child would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21) and Paul describes the message of Jesus as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). In Jesus’ incarnation, we find God’s intent and power to redeem and save his creation. But Jesus said that whoever does not believe in him “is condemned already” (John 3:18) and is subject to judgment because “the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light” (John 3:19). So in Jesus’ incarnation, we find his condemnation of those who continue to reject him.

Since Jesus ascended to his throne, it might be tempting to think that the days of “Immanuel” are over, but even now God’s presence persists (as do its implications)! The most significant symbol of God’s presence in Israelite history was the temple. Only Levites could be priests, only the high priest could enter the holiest place of the temple, and even he could only go once a year and only with blood. In the new covenant, we are told that Jesus is our High Priest (Heb. 4:14-16) and we are his priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). Individually, our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit whom we have from God (1 Cor. 6:19); and, collectively, we are being built together into a holy temple and dwelling place for God (Eph. 2:19-22). God is indeed still with us! Jesus is still our Immanuel, serving as our High Priest and connecting us to God (Heb. 7:23-25). In Jesus, salvation from sin and redemption to a restored relationship with God are freely available; but the way of Jesus is exclusive (John 14:6), and those who reject Jesus reject God and are subject to his judgment. Just like King Ahaz who received judgment for trusting Assyria instead of YWHH, if we choose to trust some other way than Jesus, Immanuel is a promise of judgment.

God became flesh. Immanuel. We can be confident in the salvation found in his sacrifice. Immanuel. He continues to be with us through his Spirit dwelling in us. Immanuel. God with us!

nadiestel@gmail.com

The apostle Paul highly commended a Christian named Phoebe, referring to her as “a servant of the church in Cenchrea” (Rom. 16:1). His urging of the brethren in Rome to “receive her in the Lord” and to “assist her” (v. 2) suggests that she had some needs while away from home.

While we don’t know the specifics of her needs, I want to emphasize what a blessing it was for Paul to describe her as a servant of her local congregation. This serves as a challenge for each of us to become actively involved in a local church so that we, too, may be recognized as servants of that congregation.

All Christians are called to be servants of Christ (Col. 3:24) and, therefore, should be servants of His universal church. However, one cannot genuinely claim loyalty and service to the  body of Christ while neglecting wholehearted service within a local congregation of believers when possible.

Every local congregation needs Christians who are willing to actively participate in its work. While this includes faithfully attending and engaging in assembled worship, this does not encompass the entirety of our service. We must seek out ways to “through love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13).

In our modern world which offers easy travel, many Christians have various options for where to worship. The temptation is to look for a congregation that best serves them and their personal needs. However, wouldn’t it be better to look for where we can best serve others? After all, the One we profess to follow “did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mk. 10:45).

aldiestel@gmail.com