In Sunday school we learned to sing: "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white; they are precious in His sight." If only we humans could learn to love and embrace one another as Jesus loves and embraces us! Unfortunately, we have a tendency to see the differences in others, and then to regard them as faults, which far too often leads to persecution and exclusion. Such attitudes and actions, born of hatred rather than love, are not innate; they must be learned; they must be taught. The innocence of infancy is easily tarnished by the prejudices and enmities of those who are older. Oscar Hammerstein (1895-1960), in his classic musical "South Pacific," has a song titled "You've Got to be Carefully Taught." Notice two of the stanzas: "You've got to be taught to be afraid of people whose eyes are oddly made, of people whose skin is a different shade. You've got to be carefully taught. You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate. You've got to be carefully taught." Jesus is color blind: we are ALL precious in His sight. He is also blind to caste and status: rich or poor, slave or free, male or female, educated or uneducated, and all the other ways in which we too often categorize and castigate others, are of no significance to Him, for each of us are "precious in His sight."

Andrea R. Canaan (born 1950), who is a Black feminist writer, speaker, and activist, made the following astute observation, "The enemy is brownness and whiteness, maleness and femaleness. The enemy is our urgent need to stereotype and close off people, places, and events into isolated categories. Hatred, distrust, irresponsibility, unloving classism, sexism, and racism, in their myriad forms, cloud our vision and isolate us. We close off avenues of communication and vision so that individual and communal trust, responsibility, loving, and knowing are impossible" [from her work titled "Brownness"]. The American journalist and political commentator Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) offered much the same insight on the dangers of such prejudicial and exclusionist thinking: "Religion, patriotism, race, and sex are the favorite red herrings of foul political method; they are the most successful because they explode so easily and flood the mind with those unconscious prejudices which make critical thinking difficult" [from his work titled "A Preface to Politics"]. It is impossible to think critically and rationally, or to be loving and accepting, when our hearts and minds are polluted by prejudice.

The Scriptures clearly teach us that we are not to elevate ourselves above others, nor are we to mistreat them or shun them simply because they may look and act differently than we do. In Christ Jesus, we are all ONE BODY, thus we must refrain from seeking to negatively categorize one another. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Jesus commanded us to "Stop judging by mere appearances" (John 7:24), for when people do so, "have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" (James 2:4). "The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7). I think we can all agree that we humans judge too quickly based on outward appearances, and I think we would also agree that this is a quality unbecoming to our God. God is love, and bigotry, racism, sexism, and any form of exclusion of others based on physical appearance, or nationality, or social status is contrary to how God would have us behave toward one another. Which is why the following passage is so shocking and troubling to so many people, and has been for centuries, for it certainly appears that God commanded the people of Israel to do just the opposite of what is described above. Notice this passage: Deuteronomy 23:1-3, 6 [from the God's Word translation, which was completed in 1995 by a group of scholars who translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into clear, everyday language]:

So, what are we to make of this? Is this not exclusion based on a physical condition, perhaps through no fault of their own? A man's "privates" are damaged and he is cut off from the assembly of the Lord? What about the baby born from an "illicit union"? What did that baby do that was wrong? And why are the descendants of that baby excluded also? Why are God's people commanded to never show friendship to the people of certain nations "as long as you live"? Aren't we to love our enemies? Aren't we to show kindness to those who are unkind to us? This all seems so out of character with a God of LOVE. As you can imagine, this passage (and there are others just like it) has led to much confusion and speculation among those simply seeking to live lives pleasing to their God and in keeping with His divine nature. Something is "off" here, or so it seems. "In such passages as this, very much more is intended than is expressed. We have to read between the lines, for only they who lived in those days of Jewish life could comprehend the shadowy hints, the pregnant suggestions, which are here reduced to words" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 3, p. 376]. In other words, there was some underlying purpose to these harsh exclusions, a divine purpose that perplexes us. "Certain principles underlie these exclusions which it is worth our while to note. It will be seen that there was a fitness, under the theocracy, in the exclusion of the classes specified from full participation in covenant privilege" [ibid, p. 371]. Therefore, we must make an effort to understand those principles and that purpose for each of these three categories of exclusion.

The first thing that must be determined, if we are to understand this passage, is the meaning and scope of the phrase "the assembly of the Lord," which appears six time in Deuteronomy 23 (verses 1-3, 8). In the Septuagint, this phrase is "eis ekklesian Kuriou." We're all familiar with the term "ekklesia," for this is the Greek word that many of our NT versions render "church." It literally refers to an "assembly," or to those who are "called out" for some purpose (the called out or assembled/congregated ones). The text further states that this assembly is "of the Lord." This is His assembly; these are His called out ones. But the question is: who are they in this particular context? This is an important question, for there are three categories of persons in the passage before us (Deuteronomy 23:1-6) who are to be excluded from this assembly of the Lord. In the broadest sense, this would refer to the people of Israel as they assembled before their Lord God. When the Israelites, led by Moses, came to Mt. Sinai, and after God had given to them the "ten commandments," Moses told them, "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire" (Deuteronomy 5:22). Thus, through Moses, the Lord addressed His assembly. This gathering of the people at Mt. Sinai was later referred to as "the day of the assembly" (Deuteronomy 9:10; 10:4; 18:16). Some scholars, therefore, believe our passage is excluding certain individuals and groups from ever being a part of the people/nation of Israel.

However, this phrase ("the assembly of the Lord") doesn't always have that meaning in the OT writings. Thus, Matthew Henry, in his commentary, correctly notes, "Interpreters are not agreed what is here meant by 'the congregation of the Lord'" [Commentary on the Whole Bible, e-Sword]. Indeed, the above interpretation (i.e., the "assembly" is the people of Israel) seems to be called into question in the context of the chapter we are examining. Although "the assembly of the Lord" appears six times in the first eight verses, the phrase "your camp" or "the camp" appears six times in the remainder of the chapter when referring to the people of Israel. Some suggest both terms refer to the same group (all the Israelites), while others insist there must be some distinction being made between the two, with the former group being a more restricted assembly. If that is the case, then who or what would this "assembly of the Lord" be, and why would the three categories mentioned be excluded?

A clue may be found in the Lord's instruction to Moses in Deuteronomy 31:28, "Assemble to Me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing." The word "assemble" is "ekkaleo" (the verbal form of "ekklesia"), and it means "to call or summon forth into an assembly." In this case, the Lord God called for only certain ones to constitute His assembly: in this case, it was the leaders of the people (the elders and officers). A great many biblical scholars, therefore, believe that those persons excluded in the passage we are examining are not excluded from association with the people, but rather excluded from inclusion among the leadership of the people. The English theologian and evangelist John Wesley (1703-1791), a leader of the movement known as Methodism, observed, "The congregation of the Lord doth not here signify the body of the people, but the society of the elders or rulers of the people." The Welsh theologian Matthew Henry (1662-1714) concurred, saying that those in the three categories of our text "are hereby excluded from bearing office in the congregation: none of these must be elders or judges." The British scholar and Baptist pastor John Gill (1697-1771) wrote, "By the congregation of the Lord is to be understood the elders, judges, and representatives of the people, who met together in some place to execute judgment, into which such persons were not to be admitted."

Although there are some scholars who insist that those excluded in Deuteronomy 23:1-6 are to be forever excluded from citizenship among the people of Israel, and excluded from the social and religious privileges associated with such citizenship, I agree with the majority of scholars who understand "the assembly of the Lord" in a more restrictive sense. "We are satisfied with the interpretation, received by many, that the congregation ('assembly') does not always signify the sum total of the people, but the great assembly of elders. The prohibitions in this passage would, therefore, mean prohibitions from holding office in the theocracy; in fact, these prohibitions show who was ineligible to the Jewish eldership" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 3, p. 373]. One finds a somewhat similar situation within the Church of our Lord, where various qualities are specified as being necessary to appointing individuals to serve the larger community as elders and deacons. Even those called to be the spiritual teachers of the people of God were cautioned: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1, English Standard Version). Those called of God into His assembly of leaders and spokesmen, under both covenants, were called to a higher standard of character and behavior. I think most people accept the wisdom of this practice, and even grasp the purpose of it, but when we look at the three groups excluded in Deuteronomy 23:1-6, we find ourselves somewhat puzzled, for these seem to us to be strange and unfair exclusions, not in keeping with our concept of a loving, caring, accepting God. Thus, we should look at each category more closely.

Those Who Are Emasculated - Deuteronomy 23:1

The Darby Translation (translated from the Hebrew and Greek by John Nelson Darby; published in 1867, and revised in 1871) reads, "He that is a eunuch, whether he have been crushed or cut, shall not come into the congregation of Jehovah." The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition of the Bible says, "A eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord." Most English versions do not use the word "eunuch," but describe this person in differing terms, some of which can be rather graphic. Notice a few:

1. King James Version - "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
2. Amplified Bible - "He who has been castrated by having his testicles crushed or his male organ cut off shall not enter the congregation of the Lord."
3. English Standard Version - "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
4. New American Standard Bible - "No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off may enter the assembly of the Lord."
5. New International Version - "No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord."
6. New Living Translation - "If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord."
7. Young's Literal Translation - "One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah."
8. Wycliffe Bible - "A gelding when his stones be broken, either cut away, and his rod cut off, he shall not enter into the church of the Lord. (When a man is made a gelding, or a eunuch, that is, if his stones, or his ballocks, be broken, or cut off, or if his rod is cut off, he shall no longer be part of the Lord’s congregation.)"

When the Lord instructed His people regarding what may or may not be offered up to Him in a sacrifice, He made it clear that no animal that was damaged in any way could be offered. The animal offerings were to be flawless in every way. Leviticus 22:24 reads, "Anything with its testicles squashed, crushed, torn off, or cut off, you shall not offer to the Lord" (NASB). God expected the same lack of defect from those who served the congregation as priests (Leviticus 21:16-24). "No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the Lord's offerings by fire" (vs. 21). The list of those excluded is somewhat shocking: "No one who has a defect may approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles" (vs. 18-20). Such a man could "not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect" (vs. 23). This sounds strange to our Western ears, and, frankly, it seems unkind and unfair, and even contrary to the God of Love that we read about in Scripture (especially in the NT writings). Why would God exclude such people?!

Here is where we today need to place these restrictions in their cultural context. A number of the nations around Israel practiced forms of genital mutilation. Some were done to make eunuchs to serve in the royal court, while other such mutilations were done for religious reasons in service to the pagan gods. The people of Israel were forbidden by God to practice such genital mutilations. "It was a very ancient practice for parents in the East by various arts to mutilate their children, with a view to training them for service in the houses of the great" [Drs. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, p. 158]. Eunuchs were highly valued as servants among pagan nobility, which led to many families inflicting such mutilation for personal gain. Very probably "this rule was also directed particularly to men who had been emasculated in dedication to foreign gods" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 3, p. 140]. God is holy, in Him is no flaw whatsoever, and He desired for His people to be holy and flawless as well. The reality, of course, is that none of us are; we are a fallen people, even when we strive to be as He is. Our God, however, has always sought to set before us, as examples and guides, those who are less flawed than the majority of mankind, who will inspire us to imitate them as they imitate the Lord. In the early infancy stage of His interaction with His called out people, much stress was placed on the outward visible aspects of flawlessness. In the new covenant those outward characteristics have become less important (and in most cases no longer relevant at all), while the maturity and flawlessness of our inner man is what characterizes us as His people and as leaders among them.

For example, although a eunuch was excluded from certain privileges in the early days, that ban is lifted in the dispensation of grace! "Let not the eunuch say, 'Behold, I am a dry tree.' For thus says the Lord, 'To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, to them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off" (Isaiah 56:3b-5). Although at one time they were cut off for being cut off, the day would come when their exclusion would turn to inclusion, one from which they would never be cut off. In the days of the early church, as this new covenant was being witnessed in all its beauty, one of the earliest converts was an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26ff). What makes us unholy has far more to do with our hearts and minds, than our pigmentation and genitalia. God sought to make His point to the people, who were in their spiritual infancy, about how important holiness was to Him through visible, physical methods: tangible visuals that they could see and feel. In time, as they matured, these would give way to the less tangible characteristics that truly defined and exemplified holiness in our daily lives. It wouldn't be about how we looked, but how we loved; it wouldn't be about what was or wasn't between our legs, but what was within our hearts! In the new covenant the various shadows and figures and types would give way to the substance. Referring to the above passage in Isaiah, Dr. Albert Barnes, in his classic Notes on the Bible, wrote, "The Old Testament itself foretells of the removal of this ban when under the kingdom of the Messiah the outward and emblematic perfection and sanctity of Israel should be fulfilled in their inner meaning by the covenanted presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the Church."

Those Born of Illicit Unions - Deuteronomy 23:2

"A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Jehovah" (Deuteronomy 23:2, American Standard Version). There are a few other translations that also use the word "bastard" in this verse, among them are the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, the Living Bible, and even The Message. Most English translations, however, tend to avoid that word. Notice the following examples:

1. Christian Standard Bible - "No one of illegitimate birth may enter the Lord’s assembly; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, may enter the Lord’s assembly."
2. Contemporary English Version - "No one born outside of a legal marriage, or any of their descendants for ten generations, can fully belong to the Lord's people."
3. Easy-to-Read Version - "If a man’s parents were not legally married, that man may not join with the men of Israel to worship the Lord. And none of his descendants to the tenth generation may join in that group."
4. Evangelical Heritage Version - "A child born of an incestuous relationship is not to come within the assembly of the Lord. Even in the tenth generation his descendant is not to come within the assembly of the Lord."
5. English Standard Version - "No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord."
6. New American Standard Version - "No one of illegitimate birth may enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, may enter the assembly of the Lord."
7. New International Version - "No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation."
8. Wycliffe Bible - "A child born of whoredom shall not enter into the church of the Lord, unto the tenth generation."

The word in question, and which is variously translated, is the Hebrew word "mamzer," which appears only twice in the OT writings (the other place being Zechariah 9:6, in which the word is translated by many versions as "mongrel"). "The etymology of the word is obscure" [Drs. Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the OT, vol. 3, p. 413-414]. The Septuagint renders the word as referring to one who is born "ek pornes," which means "from out of a harlot, or an unchaste female, or an ungodly idolatress" [The Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 337]. The Hebrew word "mamzer" was believed by the Jewish rabbis "to refer to children born of incest or adultery" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 3, p. 371]. Some scholars see this as unusually harsh, for such children had done nothing wrong. It was their parents who had transgressed God's law, so why were the offspring (and their offspring to the tenth generation) being punished? A number of attempts have been made to explain this, especially in light of the teaching we find in Ezekiel 18:20 - "The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity." In the very next verse we read that "the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself" (vs. 21). Yet, in our text we find the punishment resting on the offspring "even to the tenth generation." The phrase "unto to the tenth generation" is a Hebraism meaning "forever." Drs. Keil and Delitzsch note that this clause "precludes all possibility of their ever being received, for ten is the number of complete exclusion" [vol. 3, p. 414].

A footnote to this verse in the "Archaeological Study Bible" states, "The ambiguous language 'born of a forbidden marriage' (NIV) probably refers to a child of incest, not to an illegitimate child." The reasoning here, then, is that such incestuous relationships are known to sometimes bring forth offspring that are physically and mentally abnormal, and, as previously noted, those with such flaws or imperfections were to be excluded from the assembly of the Lord. Some see this as an effort to "preserve the purity of family life" [Dr. Charles Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 2, p. 63], by "branding with perpetual shame the issue (offspring) of incestuous intercourse" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 3, p. 376]. Leviticus 18 goes into quite some detail on how God abhors all such incestuous relationships. "And, though it was not the fault of the offspring, yet, to deter people from those unlawful marriages and unlawful lusts, it was very convenient that their posterity should thus be made infamous" [Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, e-Sword]. It should also be added that some scholars see this exclusion as being for those "born of a cult or religious prostitute," a profession that was rather common among the pagan nations around Israel, and a profession which the Jews were forbidden to engage in (Deuteronomy 23:17-18). There was a concern that if the offspring of idolatrous cult prostitutes were given either citizenship or allowed to become elders and officials of Israel, that their presence and influence could perhaps turn the people's hearts away from the true God. Thus, they were excluded, as were their offspring as well.

The Ammonites and Moabites - Deuteronomy 23:3-6

These two nations were the descendants of Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus they were kinsmen of the Israelites. They were also groups of people who originated from an incestuous sexual encounter between Lot and his two daughters (Genesis 19:30ff). "Both of the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. The firstborn daughter bore a son, and she called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. As for the younger daughter, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day" (vs. 36-38). In our passage, we read: "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Jehovah forever" (Deuteronomy 23:3, American Standard Version). Like those who are born of an illicit union, these two peoples are also excluded from the assembly of the Lord "even to the tenth generation." However, with them something more is said. They are excluded "forever," which, in the Septuagint is the phrase "eis ton aiona" (which literally means "unto the age" - for a more in-depth examination of this term, I suggest a reading of my study titled "A Reflective Analysis of 'Forever': Analyzing the Attributes of 'Aionios'" - Reflections #74). Notice a few other translations of this verse:

1. English Standard Version - "No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the Lord forever."
2. Holman Christian Standard Bible - "No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the Lord’s assembly; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, may ever enter the Lord’s assembly."
3. The Message - "No Ammonite or Moabite is to enter the congregation of God, even to the tenth generation, nor any of his children, ever."
4. New International Reader's Version - "The people of Ammon and Moab can’t join in worship with the Lord’s people. That also applies to their children after them for all time to come."
5. Wycliffe Bible - "Ammonites and Moabites, yea after the tenth generation, shall not enter into the church of the Lord, without end; (The Ammonites and the Moabites, even after the tenth generation, shall not be part of the Lord’s congregation, yea, forevermore;)."
6. Young's Literal Translation - "An Ammonite and a Moabite doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even a tenth generation of them doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah -- to the age."

Other than being the products of an incestuous encounter between Lot and his daughters, what else did these two peoples do to incur such a harsh penalty? It must have been enormous, right? After all, in verse 6 of this chapter in Deuteronomy, the Israelites are commanded, "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days forever" (KJV). Notice how several other versions render this prohibition:

1. Common English Bible - "Don’t be concerned with their health and well-being as long as you live."
2. Contemporary English Version - "Don't even think of signing a peace treaty with Moab or Ammon."
3. Easy-to-Read Version - "You must never try to make peace with the Ammonites or Moabites. As long as you live, don’t be friendly to them."
4. Easy English Bible - "You must never do anything to help these two nations. Do not let them live in peace."
5. The Expanded Bible - "Don’t wish for their peace or success as long as you live."
6. Good News Translation - "As long as you are a nation, never do anything to help these nations or to make them prosperous."
7. The Message - "Don’t even try to get along with them or do anything for them, ever."
8. New International Version - "Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."
9. New Living Translation - "As long as you live, you must never promote the welfare and prosperity of the Ammonites or Moabites."
10. Young's Literal Translation - "Thou dost not seek their peace and their good all thy days -- to the age."

A very brief, encapsulated statement of the nature of their sin is found in verses 4-5 of our text: "For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you" (NIV). The refusal of these nations to show kindness to the Israelites as they fled from their Egyptian bondage is recorded in Deuteronomy 2, and the account of their hiring Balaam to pronounce a curse against the Israelites can be found in Numbers 22-24. Their sin was in showing no love or mercy toward their kinsmen in their time of need, and such a sin would not go unpunished by God, for much earlier He had made this promise to Abraham, "I will make you a great nation, ... and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse" (Genesis 12:2-3). By cursing God's people, God pronounced a curse upon the Ammonites and Moabites. This curse, by the way, is believed by most scholars to "refer to the nations rather than to individuals" within those two nations [Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible, e-Sword]. This view seems to be validated by the story of Ruth, a Moabitess who was embraced by the people of Israel, and who, in fact, became one of the individuals through whom would come the Messiah (Matthew 1:5).

The principle behind this exclusion of these two nations, however, is that when people or nations fail to show love and mercy, that failing will be visited upon them as well. James writes, "Judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy" (James 2:13). The Contemporary English Version reads, "On the day of judgment there will be no pity for those who have not had pity on others." In Matthew 25:31ff, in which we find the separating of the sheep from the goats, judgment is based on how we treated those around us. The Ammonite and Moabite nations failed this test when they were confronted by the need of their kinsmen the Israelites, and that failing would cost them dearly. The same was true of the people of Sodom. They had "arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but did not help the poor and needy. Thus, they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore, I removed them when I saw it" (Ezekiel 16:49-50). The Moabite and Ammonite nations had shown no kindness toward the Israelites, and as a result God instructed His people: "Don’t be concerned with their health and well-being as long as you live." This is "The Principle of Reciprocity: Reaping Exactly What You Sow" (Reflections #172). "While it behooves us to cherish a spirit of true benevolence towards all, yet it may be necessary for us at times to adopt stern measures towards others, even that of banishment" or exclusion [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 3, p. 369]. Paul ordered such a person in the church at Corinth to be "removed from your midst" (1 Corinthians 5:2). They were not to associate with such people; they were not even to eat with them (vs. 9-13). The hope of inclusion once again for such a one, however, should they repent, is recommended (as seen in 2 Corinthians 2:5f).

CONCLUSION

One of the most amazing aspects of the new covenant in which we now live is that the grace, mercy, and love of our God shines brighter than ever before, and the many types of exclusion evidenced in ages past, many of which were based on outward appearances, is now at an end. As the apostle Peter noted, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear Him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34). Peter struggled with the concept of inclusion, for he had been raised among a people who had long practiced exclusion. The idea of fellowship with those previously viewed as outside the favor of God was a radical concept, and Peter struggled greatly with it prior to going and speaking with Cornelius (and also later - Galatians 2:11ff). But things had changed. Such times of exclusion were past. The time of gracious inclusion in Christ Jesus into one universal Family had come, for our Creator and Sovereign "desires for NONE to perish, but for ALL to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). People, both individually and collectively, would now only be excluded from His presence by their own choice, not by some law of exclusion based on outward appearances and circumstances. We are now a part of a redemptive community; we live by the royal law of LOVE. Our calling is to embrace rather than exclude those around us, and to do so even in spite of differences we may have with regard to personal perceptions, preferences, and practices. Thank you, Jesus, for bringing about this gracious unity in diversity.

From a Reader in Georgia:

Al, I just sent to your PayPal account the money for the thumb drive containing the MP3 audio recordings of your class titled "Law to Liberty: Reflecting on our Journey away from Legalism and into Freedom in Christ." Thank you.

From a Reader in Wisconsin:

Hello, Al. Grace and peace to you! I would like to order some of your materials. I would like to obtain all four of your books in their new second edition (Books by Al Maxey), and could you also sign the books for me? Then I would like the following three thumb drives: "Law to Liberty" ... "In-Depth Study of the Epistle to the Galatians" ... "Reflections: The Complete Collection." My check is enclosed to cover the cost of these materials. Thank you so much, Al.

From a Minister/PhD in Tennessee:

Good Afternoon, brother! I just received your book "From Ruin to Resurrection" yesterday, and I was so thrilled to see your signature inside. Thank you for all you have done for the Kingdom of God. You've been doing this longer and with greater scholarship than have I. Thank you for laying down a path that others, like me, can follow. May God grant you grace and peace in abundance!

From a Minister in Kansas:

Al, your work ethic is so encouraging! I know you are several years older than me (I'm 65), but you still work like you are much younger! I really appreciate your example. In addition to being the minister here, our local high school asked me to teach freshman world history. I have a master's degree from Harding Graduate School, and I have also taught history for a local junior college, so they recruited me. I agreed and adjusted my schedule at church. I must say, it is a rigorous routine! I'm tired a lot, so I look to others, like you, for inspiration, since you put in long hours - and I know you must, with all your writing. Gracias, brother!

From a Reader in Hawaii:

Al, my mother just recently passed away, so I was only able this morning to read your article titled "Problems with Being Joyful: Apostolic Ambiguity in Colossians 1:11-12" (Reflections #889). Thank you so much for dealing with the Greek phrase "meta chara" ("with joy"). Your conclusions were the same as mine, but I just wasn't certain if I was seeing this correctly (which is why I asked you to do this special study). Your entire article works well for my research, and I am now almost ready to begin putting my book together, and I will be referring to your work in that book. Thanks so much, once again!

From a Reader in Texas:

Al, God bless you for speaking truth in a kind and gentle way in your article "Aborting the Miracle of Life: Does Mankind have that Right?" (Reflections #155). I want to thank you for addressing this difficult subject in such a clear and concise way! I am heartbroken to see so many "Christians" who support "abortion for any cause." I believe God is heartbroken at the senseless murder of millions of babies in the name of "choice." We condemn the Israelites for worshipping idols, yet "convenience" has become our idol.

From an Author in Alaska:

Al, your work and insights have blessed and benefitted me for years, and I love how deeply you dive into anything you touch! I also like that aspect of your work where you routinely cite "secular" wisdom to back up spiritual and biblical concepts. I simply wanted to say Thanks once again for your far-reaching, online ministry! By the way, while looking over your topical index to your Reflections articles, I didn't find a particular subject matter that has been on my mind for some time: should believers make use of sarcasm to encourage others or make some biblical point?

• I have done several articles over the years on the concept of sarcasm, mockery, and other such methods for making some spiritual point. Perhaps my following four articles will prove helpful: "Unity Through Division" (Reflections #18) ... "The Fine Art of Godly Mockery" (Reflections #31) ... "Figures of Speech and Thought: Creative Communicative Building Blocks" (Reflections #356) ... "That Cat Who Won't Scat: Fearless Felines Facing False Gods" (Reflections #664). -- Al Maxey

********************
If you would like to be added to or removed from this
mailing list, Contact Me and I'll immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, feel free to
send them on to others and encourage them to write for
a free subscription. These studies are also offered on a
special thumb drive. Check the link below for the
details, and for all past issues of these Reflections:
https://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm