“ Religious Liberty No. 1” The Southern Watchman

 August 15, 1905 

RELIGION is “the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it.”  

Liberty is “the state of being exempt from the domination of others, or from restraining circumstances. In ethics and philosophy, the power in any rational agent to make his choices and decide his conduct for himself, spontaneously and voluntarily, in accordance with reasons or motives.”  

Religious liberty, therefore, is man’s exemption from the domination of others, or from restricting circumstances: man’s freedom to make his choices and decide his conduct for himself, spontaneously and voluntarily: in his duty to his Creator, and in the manor of discharging that duty.  

Since God has created man, in the nature of things the first of all relationships is that to God; and the first of all duties could be nothing but duty to God.  

Suppose a time when there was only one intelligent creature in the universe. He was created: and his relationship to his Creator, his duty to his Creator, is the only one that could possibly be. That is the first of all relationships that can possibly be. Therefore it is written that “the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord: and Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” All there is of any soul is first due to God; because it all came from God. This, therefore, is the first of all commandments, not because it is the first one that was ever given by spoken word, or that was ever written out; but because it is the first that could possibly be; and this because it is the expression of the first principle of the existence of any intelligent creature. The principle was there, inherent in the existence of the first intelligent creature, in the first moment of his existence.  

Now, though that is the first of all possible relationships, and the first of all duties; though that relationship and duty are inherent in the very existence of intelligent creatures; yet even in that inherent obligation, God has created every intelligent creature free—free to recognize that obligation or not, free to discharge that duty or not, just as he chooses.  

Accordingly it is written: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.” “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Thus it is absolutely true that in religion—in the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it—God has created man entirely “exempt from the domination of others and from restricting circumstances;” has made him free “to make his choice, and decide his conduct for himself, spontaneously and voluntarily.” Thus religious liberty is the gift of God, inherent in the gift of rational existence itself.  

Any service as to God that is not freely chosen by him who renders it is not service to God. There can be no virtue in it; there can be none of God in it. Any service rendered as to God that is not freely chosen on the part of him who renders it cannot be of God; because “God is love”: and love and compulsion, love and force, love and oppression, never can go together. Therefore any duty, any obligation, anything, offered or rendered as to God that is not of the individual’s own freely chosen choice, can neither be of God nor to God. Accordingly when the Lord created whatever creature—angel or man—in order that that creature should be happy in the service of God, and in order that there should be virtue in rendering service or worship to God, He created him free to choose to do so.  

And freedom to choose to do so carries with it, and in it, freedom to choose not to do so. Therefore, when God says to all creatures, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve,” it is left to each creature in the universe to decide for himself in his own freedom what he will do; whether he will serve God or not. And when in that freedom he makes a wrong use of his choice, and chooses not to serve God, then, even then, mark it—even then, God, being God, does not persecute him, does not set him at naught, does not hunt him; he does seek him; yet not to pursue him, but, as it is stated in the parable of the one sheep that was lost away on the mountain alone, he goes to find him, and seeks him to bring him back.  

Therefore note this truth: When God has made every creature perfectly free to choose to serve him, and in that, free to choose not to serve him—when that creature exercises his choice in the way not to serve God, even then God only loves him: for God is only love. The only disposition that God has toward him is to love him, and by every possible means to win him yet to the choice to love him and serve him. That is God, and that is religious liberty. A. T. JONES. SOWA August 15,  1905

–——————-

“Religious Liberty No. 2” 

ATJ 

ALL that was said in the preceding article of God’s disposition only to love, and not to condemn or oppress, one of his children who has made a wrong use of his freedom to choose, and has chosen not to honor God, is fully expressed in that proclamation and revelation which God made of himself, of what he is, when in the mount, as Moses was there with him, God promised to make all his goodness to pass before him, and to make him acquainted with himself. Then in this revelation of himself, the Lord passed by before Moses and proclaimed: “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.” This is what he is, not what he does—as if he could do something else. No, this is what he is; and in this he is God. He cannot cease to be God; and therefore cannot cease to be what is here said, for this is what he is.  

What is it, then, that he is?—Merciful—full of mercy. Mercy is the disposition, the very heart’s life, to treat people better than they deserve. That is himself, and he never treats anybody, he never will treat anybody, he never can treat anybody, in any other way than better than he deserves; because merciful is what he is. Therefore, when one, in his freedom of choice which is essential to virtue, which is essential to happiness, and to the true worship of God—when in the exercise of that freedom, any person exercises it the wrong way and makes the wrong choice, makes the wrong use of it, God is ever merciful to him, treating him better than he deserves, in order that he may be brought to reverse his choice and put it on the right side.  

Next he is gracious. Gracious is favorable, extending, holding forth favor. And this God does to all creatures, whatever their condition or position may be. God being God, being gracious, he is gracious to every creature, whatsoever the creature may be and whatsoever his condition may be. Consequently when any one exercises his choice in the wrong way, makes a wrong use of it, instead of God abandoning him, threatening him, throwing him over, persecuting him, blotting him out of existence, he is ever gracious, holding forth to him favor, not in any sanction or approval of his wrong course, but in order that if by any possibility he may reverse his choice and use it on the right side.  

God is not only merciful and gracious, but long-suffering. The definition of God’s long-suffering is “salvation”: “The long-suffering of our Lord is salvation.” Then when one makes the wrong use of his freedom, turns his choice to the wrong side, and goes the wrong way, all the disposition that God has toward him, all that God has for that person, all that he holds out to him is mercy and grace and salvation, seeking to save him from that wrong course, to win him from the wrong use of his choice, to awaken him to himself and to God that he may choose to make the right use of his freedom of choice and choose to recognize and serve his Creator.  

By the way, I just now used the expression, “Awake the person to himself,” —awake him to himself and God. This recalls the word that Jesus spoke in the parable of the prodigal son. That parable tells this whole story. There was that son, who chose to leave his father’s house and go off for himself; but he made the wrong choice when he started. He was free to choose to do just as he did, but he made the wrong choice, and things did not go well with him.  

When he made the choice to live outside his father’s house, and away from his father, he went down and down and down, until he reached such a point of deprivation that he fain would have picked up the husks and wrung some more substance from them after they had been abandoned by the swine. When he reached that point,—remember the record is in the words of Jesus—“he came to himself.” And the next thing in the record is, when he came to himself, he thought of his father. And the next thing is that he said, “I will arise and go to my father.”  

Note the moment he came to himself, the first thought was of his father. And what, all this time, was the father’s attitude toward him? While that son was away, wasting his father’s substance and degrading himself in riotous living, thus lost to himself and to his father by his wrong choice, his father was still thinking of him, was still waiting for him, was still longing that he would come to himself, and come home. And when at last this son did come to himself, and think of his father’s house, and said to himself, “I will arise and go to my father,” even when “he was yet a great way off, his father saw him,” and when he saw him he “ran” to meet him with joyous welcome, caresses, and kisses.  

What is that parable for? What does it tell?—It tells the heavenly Father’s attitude toward those who make a wrong use of the freedom which he has given to every soul. It tells the divine story of religious liberty. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as freedom. If it were not so, if God treated any creature otherwise than just that way, the word freedom would not express it, for it would not be freedom; for then the service might be of constraint, not willing, and so have the taint of bondage  not the fragrance of freedom. Bear in mind that the freedom of which God is the Author and Giver is freedom indeed. Absolutely, infinitely, and eternally it is so. A. T. JONES. SOWA August 22,  1905

Christian Profession and Anti-Christian Practice” The Southern Sentinel and Herald of Liberty

 January-March 1897 

THERE are multitudes of people who profess to be Christians.  

The vast majority of this multitude are diligently endeavouring to secure legislation enforcing their religious views upon all the people.  

They desire and require that religion shall dominate politics, shape the laws, and control the state: they want a union of religion and the state.  

In truth they want a religious state; an earthly, political, kingdom of God; with “Christ reigning as King” and throughout the nation, through themselves as His representatives.  

All this is seriously proposed by people who seriously profess to be Christians.  

What, then, is it to be a Christian? What is Christianity anyhow?  

In the Scriptures it is written that  Christ left us “an example that we should follow His steps;” and that “He that saith that he keepeth His commandments ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.”  

It is Christianity to follow His steps alone, to walk only as He walked. For again it is written, “As My Father sent Me, even so send I you;” “as He is, so are we in this world;” and we are “in Christ’s stead.”  

What steps, then, did Christ take toward the domination of the politics of His day? What steps did He ever take to gain control of the government, or to dictate in the affairs of the state?—Just none at all. Everybody knows that He never in any way gave the slightest indication of any such thing.  

This, too, in spite of many solicitations of different kinds. He was not only more than once openly invited to do so; but it was the longing expectation of the whole people to whom He came. So strongly was this implanted that they were willing to take Him by force and set Him at the head of the government.  

Yet never by a word, a look, or any sign whatever, would He countenance any such thing. On the contrary He openly repudiated every suggestion of the kind; and withdrew Himself from the people who were bent on having it so, and went away by Himself alone and prayed for the people that they might have better views of Himself and of His mission to the world.  

Was this because politics was so pure, laws so just, and government so altogether correct, that there was no call for any readjustment, no room for any reforms? Was there at that time no need of careful watching to see that none but good men should hold office?  

Were such as these the reasons why Christ had nothing to do with politics, nor with affairs of government in any way? Not by any manner of means. Corruption in politics and in office was never more rife than at that very time, and in Judea. Then as it was altogether from choice, and not at all from lack of necessity or opportunity that Jesus had nothing whatever to do with politics nor any of the affairs of the government, wherein do the churches, leagues and societies of to-day follow His steps in their persistent intermeddling in these very things? And when they do not walk as he walked, wherein are they Christians?  

It was His steady refusal to countenance the political aspirations of the people, which, more than anything else, caused the scribes, the Pharisees, the lawyers, the priests, and the Herodians, to reject and persecute Him. These were the church-leaders of that time, and correspond to the sects, leagues, unions, and endeavour societies of the present day.  

It was to the Pharisees with the Herodians that He announced the everlasting principle of the separation of religion and the state, in the words, “Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s.” And when the whole combination together had made against Him the false charge that He would make Himself a king, He answered them and all other combinations for all time, “My kingdom is not  of this world:” “My kingdom is not from hence.”  

Such was ever His word and His attitude. Such has been His will concerning His church, from the foundation of the world. He is “the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever;” and it was impossible that, when He came into the world, He should walk contrary to all the instructions that He Himself had given before He came into the world.  

And now to all the church combinations, leagues, unions, and endeavor societies, that are afflicting the politics, shaping the laws, and directing the government of the country, He pointedly exclaims, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”  

Why do you call Him Lord, and then do your own will? Why do you profess to hold His word in reverence, and then utterly disregard that which from beginning to end is one of the great vital principles of that word? Why do you bear the name of Christ, while in this great matter you walk directly opposite to the way in which He walked?  

Surely nothing can explain this contradiction between profession and practice, but worldly ambition that can never learn anything, and religious bigotry that is never content without power. 

A. T. JONES. SSHL January-March 1897, page 31-SSHL January-March 1897, page 34.4

Biblical Light and Darkness

The Purpose of the “Church”

The church is not a worship service- it is a government outpost

By Dale Moreau

The Church Is Not a Worship Service — It Is a Government Outpost

Most Christians think they are attending a worship service.

The New Testament thinks they are assembling at a government outpost.

That difference is not semantic. It is structural. It reshapes how we understand authority, gathering, discipleship, and even the meaning of “church.”

When Jesus says in Gospel of Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church,” He does not announce the creation of a religious event. The word ekklesia did not mean “worship service” in the first century. It referred to an assembly—an authorized gathering called for civic purpose. In Israel’s Scriptures, it echoes the qāhāl, the covenant assembly gathered before Yahweh at Sinai. That assembly was not convened for inspiration. It was convened for covenant. Law was given. Allegiance was declared. Boundaries were established.

Assemblies govern.

If we read Scripture inside a Divine Council framework, this becomes even clearer. The biblical story unfolds in a world of contested authority. Deuteronomy 32 describes the nations allotted and divided. Psalm 82 portrays corrupt rulers judged by the Most High. Authority over the nations is not abstract; it is territorial, personal, and accountable. The earth is not spiritually neutral ground.

Then Christ ascends.

Paul writes in Letter to the Ephesians 1:20–23 that Jesus is seated “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” That is governmental language. It is jurisdictional language. It is cosmic enthronement language. The ascension is not a sentimental goodbye; it is a coronation.

But what happens next is the part most Christians have never been taught to see.

In Ephesians 3:10, Paul says that through the church the manifold wisdom of God is made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. The church is not merely worshiping upward; it is declaring outward. The gathered assembly becomes the visible announcement that a new King reigns and that His jurisdiction has begun to press into contested territory.

That is not metaphor. That is cosmology.

An embassy is foreign soil planted inside another nation. It carries the authority of its homeland while physically existing in contested space. It does not blend into the culture around it. It represents another throne.

This is how the early Christians understood themselves. When believers gathered in homes under Roman rule, they were not hosting a spiritual event. They were publicly confessing that another Lord reigned. In a world where “Caesar is Lord” was political orthodoxy, “Jesus is Lord” was a counter-claim. It was not merely devotional language. It was jurisdictional defiance.

Every Lord’s Supper was covenant renewal under a different King. Every baptism was a transfer of allegiance. Every prayer was petition directed toward a throne higher than Rome’s.

Modern church culture has quietly reduced gathering to atmosphere. We evaluate sermons by emotional impact, music by aesthetic preference, and community by personal fulfillment. But if the church is a government outpost, the gathering cannot be reduced to inspiration. It is about allegiance. It is about formation. It is about embodying the rule of heaven in visible, lived obedience.

When believers forgive one another, something more than relational harmony occurs. Rival powers see a kingdom that does not fracture under offense. When believers endure suffering without renouncing Christ, something more than personal resilience is on display. Allegiance is being demonstrated. When believers refuse idolatry—whether ancient or modern—the boundaries of heaven’s jurisdiction are being asserted in contested space.

The rulers and authorities are not spectators to a religious performance. According to Paul, they are learning something through the church. That means our gathering has cosmic visibility. The church is not performing for God; it is bearing witness before the unseen realm that the throne has changed hands.

This is why reducing church to a worship service is not a harmless shift in vocabulary. It flattens the metaphysical drama of the New Testament. It domesticates a movement that was born as a declaration of regime change. The earliest Christians did not believe they were attending weekly encouragement sessions. They believed they were participating in the visible manifestation of a kingdom that had invaded history.

If that sounds dramatic, it is because the New Testament is dramatic. The ascension of Christ is not spiritual poetry. It is a claim that all authority in heaven and on earth now belongs to Him. An authority that comprehensively cannot remain abstract. It must take shape somewhere. It must have an embodied presence. It must be represented.

That representation is the church.

When believers gather, heaven plants its flag. Not in spectacle. Not in triumphalism. But in covenant loyalty, embodied obedience, and public confession. The assembly becomes the living announcement that this territory, however contested, is not ultimately owned by the powers that claim it.

Most Christians walk into church wondering whether they will feel uplifted.

The New Testament envisions believers walking into assembly aware that they are stepping into an embassy of a King whose authority extends far above every ruler and power.

The difference is not stylistic.

It is cosmic.

And once you see the church as a government outpost rather than a worship service, you cannot unsee it.

What Does The Disciple Mean By These Words?

The pendulum of my christian experience has swung to either extreme over the last 30 years.

During much of that time I would have to say that I was pre-occupied with my own status among my brothers and with God. I was what some would call a "works" man.

I spent a lot of time trying to understand how to improve my character and be an example to others because I wanted others, christian and non, to know "the power of God" to change their lives. That was my witness because I didn't think too much of the door to door type of witnessing or the typical methods of "winning souls".

As I think about it now, there was nothing really wrong with this approach. If more christians had this type of attitude there would probably be many more souls added to the church daily.

That would be good.

However, I don't know if that would be enough.

I don't know about you but I have been coming to a realization over the past decade or so. A realization that has actually changed the way that I look at my walk with Christ and God. It hasn't been Earth shattering. But, then again, still, small, voices rarely are.

I don't know whether you have thought this or not, but, when I listen to most sermons and when I talk to most self professed christians, I rarely hear anything about loving one another or loving sinners. Not only do I not hear anything about it, I don't see self professed christians loving anyone but themselves.

I am not joking.

When is the last time you heard a parishener say anything compassionate about their pastor or any church leader, let alone the alcoholic down the block? When is the last time you saw a fellow congregant go out of their way to do something for someone just because Jesus would do it?

I'm not talking about the church food bank program or the weekly drive to get more people to attend a evangelistic meeting. Those don't count because some do those things just to be seen.

It's a good question to say the least.

We hear a lot from the church about this type of person or that type of person being bad. Many sermons do nothing more than to sow seeds of division rather than reconciliation. Let's face it, there is a lot of hate in the church.

I was reading in the first epistle of John, chapter 2 and ran across this:

6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

 7Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

 8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

 9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

 10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

 11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

What exactly did the apostle mean by this passage? Is it relevant now? If so, how does it apply?

I'm just asking....

Jesus Wasn't "Just Talkin'".

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When Jesus spoke, He mean't what He said. That was one thing about Jesus that attracted so many people to Him. He was genuine. He had personal convictions. He just didn't do or say things because it was what was "expected", "appropriate", or, "politically correct". 

Jesus said things that were, first and foremost, true. Things that were helpful to others. Things that revealed the true nature and character of the Father. He kept His own commandments in what and how He spoke. "Love to God and love your neighbor as you do yourself". "Say things to people you would want them to say to you".

Do you remember the story about when He was teaching in a home and had a company of conservative preachers sitting by and watching Him? For a refresher here's the story from Luke 5.

Jesus cures a paralytic in soul and body^17-20 One day while Jesus was teaching, some Pharisees and experts in the Law were sitting near him. They had come out of every village in Galilee and Judea as well as from Jerusalem. God’s power to heal people was with him. Soon some men arrived carrying a paralytic and they kept trying to carry him in to put him down in front of Jesus. When they failed to find a way of getting him in because of the dense crowd, they went up on to the top of the house and let him down, bed and all, through the tiles, into the middle of the crowd in front of Jesus. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “My friend, your sins are forgiven.”²¹ The scribes and the Pharisees began to argue about this, saying, “Who is this man who talks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins? Only God can do that.”²² Jesus realised what was going on in their minds and spoke straight to them.^23-24 “Why must you argue like this in your minds? Which do you suppose is easier—to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But to make you realise that the Son of Man has full authority on earth to forgive sins—I tell you,” he said to the man who was paralysed, “get up, pick up your bed and go home!”^25-26 Instantly the man sprang to his feet before their eyes, picked up the bedding on which he used to lie, and went off home, praising God. Sheer amazement gripped every man present, and they praised God and said in awed voices, “We have seen incredible things today.”

When you read between the lines at verse 21 and 22, you realize, by the response that Jesus gives to the preachers, that they were probably saying something like:

"Boy, we never thought we would hear this Jesus guy tell a bald faced lie in front of so many people. He's only saying that to make this poor guy feel better. No one can forgive anyone else's sins. Now we have Him. Everybody here has heard Him commit blasphemy. This will be a slam dunk case against Him." 

Once Jesus realized what they were thinking and plotting, He says something to the effect:

"Oh, so you think I am just talking? You think I am just trying to make this poor paralyzed guy feel better so he'd leave us alone? Hey, I don't work the way you folks do. 
So, since we're just talking here, and you don't think my words carry any weight... In your minds it would have been just as easy for me to tell this guy to 'get up and walk' as it was to forgive him his sins, right?
Well, just so you know that I mean what I say.... Hey, paralyzed guy, get up and walk for these men."

 When we read stories like this one it shows something that is hard for us in the 21st century to grasp but was one of the chief stumbling blocks of people who actually lived with and around Jesus.

This story reveals how utterly human Jesus appeared to those around Him. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". People during that time had a very difficult time believing that Jesus was divine. We, on the other hand, have a very difficult time believing that Jesus was human.

What does Jesus say about divorce?

Up front, this article isn't meant to be a complete study on the subject. But, you can use it as a building block if you like. Matthew 5 is the first instance in the Gospels that Jesus says anything about divorce. Let's look at it.

A lot of people in church (and out of it) struggle long and hard about the issue of divorce. Is it biblical? Is it a sin? What's does God think about me? What do others think about me?

Women, I think, really have it hard. That's because so many of them are stuck in a marriage with an abusive man. They want out. But, don't know if it's the right thing.

That's probably because there is a lot of misunderstanding and mis- (or dys-) interpretation of the Bible going on in an abusive "christian" relationship.

Let's face it, religion is used to cover up a whole lot of sins. The American slave trade was justified by religion. The murderous inquisition during Europe's middle ages was justified by religion. A lot of the turmoil that has gone on in the middle east from the time Abraham left Iraq to the present day, is justified by religion.

And, unfortunately, a lot of "christians" do a lot of bad things in their marriages leaving their spouses (men and women) wondering "how long can I stay in this marriage?" as they turn to their bibles looking for comfort and direction.

So, what does the bible, or, Jesus say about divorce? How should a person today read the scriptures and get a good understanding of it?

One thing to remember is this, while the bible does have a lot of answers, it doesn't have a definitive answer for each and every situation that you may find yourself in. It was written in a different time for a different purpose.

But understanding some of what the Bible does say about divorce will empower you. Let's take a look.

What Does The Bible Say About Divorce?

So, in Matthew chapter 5 the words of Christ are hard to misunderstand. In the passage below He's being pretty direct about it.

Matthew 5:31-32 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

In this passage Jesus does not address the issue of alcoholism, physical or mental abuse, addiction in any form from pornography to gambling to drugs. What if your spouse is a thief? What if your spouse is a chronic liar? What if your spouse is a murderer? What if your spouse has a mental problem or split personality? What if your spouse is leading or lead a double life that you are unaware of? And these are only some of the things that actually go on in marriages today.

The bible doesn't address these issues. But, I would suspect that Jesus would be just as concerned about someone in these situations too. Whether divorce is appropriate is between the individual and God.

Looking a little closer at what the Lord is saying in this passage can shed a little more light on how people interpret things.

Who exactly is He talking to? It seems He's talking to the men in the audience. So, that raises the question, "why isn't He addressing the women too?"

Now the context of this statement is interesting because in verses 27-28 Jesus addresses the issue of men "lusting" after women. He goes on to tell the men that it's adultery just as much as physically sleeping with a woman who you're  not married to.

²⁷ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:²⁸ But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And He seems to be addressing a common saying about a common practice that was going on at the time.

Jesus Talks To Men About Divorce

Jesus is talking appears to imply or suggest that men were divorcing their wives for petty and/or selfish (self indulgent) reasons. In fact, when you read it in context, it almost seems that men were able to divorce their wives for any reason they wanted as long as they gave her the "certificate".

Now first and foremost, there is a spiritual component to the marriage relationship. The bible has plenty of references to marriage representing God's relationship with His people. But, I also believe that Jesus also addressed the real life practical problems that people were living with day by day.

And from a practical standpoint, the way that I read it, Jesus, was trying to get men to be a little more responsible about their commitment to their families and to society in general.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that women are more responsible than men. I am only pointing out what is actually being said about divorce in these particular verses. And, how I interpret them.

So, why is The Lord only talking to men in this passage? Lets consider several things that might give us more clues.

1. At that time, in that culture, society was male dominated and patriarchal. Basically, whatever a man said about his wife and family was the "law". The man made all the decisions and women had few rights as we know them today.

2. Women basically had no "rights" as we understand rights today. They couldn't file for divorce. And, for the most part, they wouldn't even want to because they were dependent on their families and husbands to provide a roof over their heads, food to eat, children to love.

And if they did get divorced they would become a drain on society. They and sometimes their children would become beggars and street people because they didn't have access to the "privileges" of society that men did (there are several passages that speak of the God's people looking out for the widows-women without husbands and orphans).

3. Since that society was set up to be male dominated, it was the man in the relationship who would initiate a divorce and not the other way around. Think about it... It was a more common practice for a man to have more than one wife than the other way around.

For us today, one of the main reasons (not the only reason) that people get divorced is that they "want to move on". Back then, the guys didn't have that problem. If they wanted to move on, they did. And their wife really had no say in the matter.

Divorce, in this setting, seemed more of an "arbitrary" thing. Not something that is necessary as in someone being unfaithful, abused, or, for any other good to those involved.

4. I suspect that The Lord was primarily talking to men in this passage because men were making it a practice to divorce their wives "willy nilly". Either when they got tired of them or when they couldn't afford them and the family, or, when the women in the home just didn't get along.

And then justifying their actions by saying "God says I can do this!" And Jesus hates it when God's people misrepresents what His Father is like, has said, or is doing.

Now, to sum up... when talking about divorce, at least in this passage (and it's context) , Jesus is pretty clear. Men cannot divorce their wives just because they have see someone sexier or more appealing. Divorce, in these verses, is only lawful in the case of infidelity.

As I read it, He doesn't really address the women in this passage. Maybe that's because of the culture of the time. I don't know. But, I would assume that the same would hold to them also.