During my almost half a century of fulltime ministry, I have taught a number of adult classes on some rather challenging topics. I have tried never to shy away from difficult and controversial subjects in my teaching, preaching, and writing, and, as one might expect, some over the years have differed with my understandings. I welcome such opposing views, for it encourages me to study the matter even more to clarify my own understandings. I have tackled the topic of divorce and remarriage (challenging the "traditional" view held by many within my religious heritage) and have written a book presenting my findings ("Down, But Not Out" - which is increasingly being used as a resource in churches and colleges by pastors and professors seeking to present a more rational and biblical view). I have also taken on the traditional, sacramental view of baptism in water, and have shared that understanding in quite some depth in my Reflections and also in my book "Immersed by One Spirit." I have done the same with the Lord's Supper ("One Bread, One Body") and with the nature of man and the fate of the wicked ("From Ruin to Resurrection"). These studies have opened my own eyes to the marvelous love and grace of God, and many have told me it has done the same for them. It has also created a committed cadre of caustic critics of both my work and of me personally. When one dares to challenge people to think, one must expect to make some enemies. This is just one of the sad side-effects experienced by those who seek to expose and eradicate ignorance among those both inside and outside of the Body of Christ. You will make friends and you will lose friends. Even God's Son was not exempt from this painful experience, so we should not be startled or frightened if it comes upon us as well.

Perhaps one of the most unusual Sunday morning adult classes I have taught, however, began two years ago this month at the Desert Hills Church of Christ in Alamogordo, New Mexico (where I have now been the pulpit minister for almost 26 years, and one of the elders for 23 of those years). On Sunday, January 23, 2022, I taught the first of 19 classes on "Bizarre Stories of the OT Scriptures" (these classes were recorded, and they are available, along with the handouts, on a special thumb drive). Each week we looked at a different story that is so strange, unusual, and even abhorrent to many Christians, that they are rarely if ever taught or even mentioned by preachers and teachers, and these 19 are only a sampling of the possible stories that I could have selected. Five of the stories I dealt with are: Who flung a severed foreskin at Moses? Who made five golden hemorrhoids, and why? What led to King David sleeping with a preteen girl? What king's bloody chariot was washed in the pool where harlots bathed? Who made an oath by placing his hand on his master's "privates"? These are just a few of the weird, strange, and even "creepy" stories one may find in the OT writings. Yet each one presents a powerful lesson from our God that His people need to hear! One story I did not deal with, however, and which a reader from Miami, Florida has recently asked me to, is "The Curious Case of the Spilled Seed," which I will be examining more closely in this present issue of my Reflections. This will be a frank discussion of a biblical text that addresses a sexual situation that may make some readers uncomfortable. If you are one of those, you may want to set this article aside and wait for my next one.

The unusual verse that will be our focus in this study is found in an equally unusual and disturbing chapter -- Genesis 38. This chapter will provide the immediate context for verses 8-10. Genesis 38 is the story of Judah, one of the sons of Jacob/Israel, and the specific son through whom the promised Messiah was to come (for Jesus was of the tribe of Judah), and Judah's rather bizarre dealings with Tamar, his own daughter-in-law. The story of Judah and Tamar is disturbing in itself, and it is quite possible some of you may never even have heard a sermon or class on it, other than perhaps a passing comment or two from the pulpit. Rather than going into a lot of detail on the Judah/Tamar narrative, and how that whole episode managed to perpetuate the lineage of Judah, thus thwarting Satan's effort to cut off the line through whom Jesus would be born, I would ask that the reader take a moment, before reading the rest of this article, and go read very carefully Genesis 38. This chapter appears in the middle of "the Joseph story," and the events in chapter 38 occur between the time Joseph was sold into slavery and his subsequent rise to power in Pharaoh's empire. A number of scholars have questioned the purpose and placement of this story about Judah and Tamar, and some, like Martin Luther, questioned why God would even want us to consider it at all. To some it is little more than a tawdry, sordid affair that would have been better left out of the Bible. Yet it is there for a purpose, and thus it needs to be carefully and prayerfully considered.

After his brother Joseph was sold into bondage, Judah departed from his other brothers and ended up finding a wife among the Canaanites. Her name was Shua (Genesis 38:2). She bore him three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah (vss. 3-5). In time, "Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar" (vs. 6). But things did not go well for that couple. The relationship had problems, although the nature of those problems are not specified. Er was not the godly man he should have been, and it ended badly for him. "But Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the sight of the Lord, so the Lord took his life" (vs. 7). Tamar is left a widow, and even worse: she has no children. This was a situation, in that day and time and culture, that could prove to be devastating for such a woman, for they would have neither husband nor son to care for them. Thus, many ancient peoples sought to make provision for such childless widows who found themselves facing a life of destitution and possibly even death. It was customary among some nations (and the Israelites were one such group of people) for the dead husband's brother (if he had one), or another close relative, to impregnate the widow and give her a son, who could then care for this woman and continue the name, and thus the lineage, of the deceased. Yes, technically the child would be the brother's child, but according to custom that connection would be relinquished and the child would be regarded legally as the deceased brother's son, and thus all the property and possessions of the dead man, as well as the care of his widow, would fall to this son. Among the Jews this was known as the Law of Levirate Marriage (Lex Leviratus). At this point, let's pause our study of the narrative in Genesis 38 and note a bit more about this custom/law, for it will be important to our understanding of what Judah would request of his second son, Onan.

A Challenge Posed to Jesus

"That same day (note: several scholars feel this may have been Tuesday of the passion week) the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him with a question" (Matthew 22:23; cf. Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27). It is important to note that the primary focus of the encounter that is about to occur between this sect and the Savior is the doctrine of a future bodily resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees accepted this doctrine, but the Sadducees did not, and the two groups were often found in heated debate and conflict over this teaching (a dramatic example of this can be found in Acts 23:6-10, where Paul took great advantage of this theological divide). "The Pharisees leaned toward a belief in resurrection that owed more to Greek ideas than to the OT" writings [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 1016], which included the paganistic notions of the inherent immortality of the soul, with the physical body being the "soul's temporary prison" (a concept derived from Plato, not Scripture). The Sadducees, on the other hand, felt that all such teaching was sheer nonsense, even rejecting the reality of angels.

The challenge they posed to Jesus was of a woman who had the unfortunate experience of outliving seven husbands, all of whom happened to be brothers. "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him" (Matthew 22:24). This was known among the people of Israel as the Law of Levirate Marriage. This was not unique to the Israelites, but was truly "a cross-cultural phenomenon whereby the nearest kinsman of a man who dies without sons marries his widow" [Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 803]. This rather unusual law is described in Deuteronomy 25:5-6 -- "If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel." The strange account of Judah, Tamar, and Onan clearly demonstrates that this law predated the time of Moses. Thus, Jesus, and the crowds surrounding Him that day, would have been quite familiar with the theology behind the question of the Sadducees. They would have understood that the primary purpose of this law was "to provide the deceased man with a son to inherit his property and thereby establish his 'name' (i.e., his lineage, his memory). A secondary purpose of the levirate law may have been to provide the deceased's wife with the economic security and social status of marriage and children" [ibid]. This word "levirate," by the way, is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law" or "husband's brother." Also, "within the Mishnah, the first tractate (Yabamot, 'sisters-in-law') of the third order (Nashim, 'women') covers the subject of levirate marriage with considerable detail" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 3, p. 150].

• It should probably be noted at this juncture that this law was not rigidly enforced among the Israelites. In fact, even in God's Law there was a provision for its circumvention. This can be found in Deuteronomy 25:7-10. If a deceased man's brother did not want to marry his sister-in-law and have a child by her for his dead brother, he had the option of refusing. However, the widow was not without recourse. She could file a complaint against him at the city gate with the elders of the people. The man would be brought before the elders and encouraged to fulfill his duty. If he persisted in his refusal, however, the widow "shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, 'This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line.' That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled" (vs. 9-10). Therefore, this man and his family would be shamed, and even potentially shunned, because of his unwillingness to fulfill his obligation to his deceased brother. "The OT gives no actual case of levirate marriage, although levirate law stands behind the account in Ruth 1:11-13; 4:1-22." It's very probable that "in Jesus' day the law was little observed: the younger brother's right to decline taking precedence over his obligation" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 461]. There are hints of the principle of this law perceived in Numbers 27:1-11.

"Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" (Matthew 22:25-28; cf. Mark 12:20-23; Luke 20:29-33). "There's a levity and a coarseness in the question which is simply revolting" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 15, pt. 2, p. 362-363]. The Sadducees weren't really interested at all in trying to determine whose wife this woman would be. In fact, "some of the rabbis had already decided the question -- a woman who had been married more than once would, they thought, be the wife of the first husband in the world to come" [ibid, p. 372]. These querists, however, did not believe in a world to come, thus whose wife she would be was irrelevant to them. In their mind, she, as well as her many husbands, would all remain dead in the dust. The Sadducees merely sought to use this question to malign the Lord and to further mock the Pharisees, who were undoubtedly looking on. Or, phrasing it in the words of Dr. Craig Keener, "The Sadducees are interested neither in moral nor in legal questions here, but endeavor to illustrate the impossible dilemmas they believe the doctrine of resurrection creates" [A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 527].

• It would also be well to inform the reader here that such a scenario as these religionists posed to Jesus was not uncommon to Jewish literature. In the Book of Tobit, by way of example, one finds a fairly similar story (Tobit 3:7-10). This book, which is part of Jewish apocryphal literature, tells the story of a very righteous man named Tobit, from the tribe of Naphtali, who is living in Nineveh after the fall of the northern kingdom to the Assyrians in 722 B.C. This book is regarded as uninspired by most Protestants, but is accepted by the Catholics. It was pronounced as part of the biblical canon by the Council of Carthage of 397 A.D., and then later confirmed as inspired by the Council of Trent in 1546. In the passage referenced above, a young woman by the name of Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, had been given to seven husbands, but an evil demon named Asmodeus killed each of them before she could bear them sons. Again, this would have been a story with which Jesus, as well as the people with Him that day, would have been quite familiar.

Returning to Genesis 38

Judah, aware of the custom, approached his second son, Onan, and said, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother" (Genesis 38:8). Such a "duty" was not only customary at that time, but it was a charge given by a father to his son: something not to be taken lightly in that culture. A son was to obey his father; indeed, the consequences of not doing so could be severe. The King James Version has Judah saying to Onan, "Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her." The regular Hebrew word for marriage, however, is not used in this verse. Rather, Onan is instructed to "perform the duty of a brother-in-law" to Tamar: i.e., have sex with her so that she might bear children. Obviously, while Er was still alive, Onan would have been forbidden from having such relations with his brother's wife (Leviticus 18:16; 20:21), but with Tamar now being a widow, Onan was no longer restricted from doing so. In fact, it was now expected of him, both by local custom and command of his father Judah. This seems strange to us today, but that was the world in which they lived, and we further find the Lord validating this custom. "These verses assume that the Lord originated or at least wholly sanctioned the law of levirate marriage, even though its origin is not specified in the Scriptures" [Dr. John T. Willis, The Living Word Commentary on the OT: Genesis, p. 394]. We later discover a form of this custom/law playing a major role in the story of Ruth, with the outcome once again impacting the lineage of the Messiah.

Onan, therefore, had now been commissioned to perform his duty as a brother-in-law to his deceased brother's wife. He had a decision to make. Would he do so, or would he refuse? That latter, at that particular time, did not seem to be an option, although later, under the Mosaic Law, a brother could refuse to perform this duty, although great shame would be upon him for doing so. But, as far as we know, that choice was not given to Onan. Thus, Onan chose to obey his father and to follow the custom. Genesis 38:9 reads: "He slept with his brother's wife" (New International Version) ... "He had intercourse with his brother's wife" (Complete Jewish Bible) ... "He had sex with Tamar" (Contemporary English Version). Not only that, but the wording in the original indicates that he did so repeatedly; it was not just a onetime event. "The Hebrew implies that he did this not once, but several times" [Dr. H. P. Mansfield, The Christadelphian Expositor - Genesis, p. 430]. "The Hebrew tenses are frequentative" [The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 602]. Thus, Onan made it appear that he was fulfilling his duty to Tamar: by all outward appearances, he was following his father's command and local custom. He left the impression that he was the dutiful brother-in-law. But there was a dark side to his actions, and this was not hidden from the sight of God. "Onan gave every appearance of fulfilling the will of God, but, hidden from the eyes of others, he did not fulfil his obligations" [Mansfield, p. 431].

"Onan knew the child would not be his, and when he had sex with Tamar, he made sure that she would not get pregnant" (Genesis 38:9, Contemporary English Version). If Onan got Tamar pregnant, the son born to her would not legally be his, but his brother's, and that son, therefore, would have the right of inheritance to all that his brother Er possessed. If there were no children born to Tamar, however, the custom was that the possessions would most likely go to Onan, and there was a process by which he could claim them. Thus, Onan was motivated to some extent by greed, as the passage implies. Since Onan "knew that the first-born son would perpetuate the family of the deceased brother and receive his inheritance, Onan prevented conception" [Drs. Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 340]. "Onan seems to have been prompted to commit his crime by the low motive of turning the whole inheritance to his own house" [Dr. Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible, e-Sword]. There was also the consideration that Onan may have been looking even more specifically at the inheritance that would now fall to him when his father Judah died, for with Er dead, Onan was now the oldest son. However, if Tamar bore a son by him, then that son could perhaps claim the inheritance when Judah died. "Onan, by refusing to take (impregnate) Tamar, may have been actuated by the selfish motive of obtaining for himself the rights of primogeniture" [Dr. Charles Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 1, p. 139].

At this point we need to ask: How did Onan prevent Tamar from conceiving? How did he make sure that she would not get pregnant? The answer given in Genesis 38:9 is this: "Whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother" (English Standard Version). Notice a number of other translations of this particular phrase:

• "he spilled it on the ground" - American Standard Version
• "he released his semen on the ground" - Christian Standard Bible
• "he did not allow himself to stay inside her" - Easy-to-Read Version
• "he did not complete the sex act" - New Century Version
• "he spilled the sperm on the bed" - The Living Bible
• "he wasted his seed on the ground" - New American Standard Bible
• "he wasted his emission on the ground" - New English Translation
• "he would destroy it on the ground" - Tree of Life Version
• "he shedded his seed into the earth" - Wycliffe Bible
• "he would interrupt intercourse and spill his semen onto the ground" - The Voice

Onan was "practicing coitus interruptus - whence the term 'onanism'" [Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1250]. The Hebrew literally says he "destroyed his seed to the ground." Over the centuries, some have used this action by Onan as a basis for condemning everything from masturbation to family planning. In fact, the word "onanism," according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is defined as "masturbation, self-gratification, coitus interruptus." Onanism simply refers to the thwarting of the sexual process in one of several ways. Imagine your name being remembered for this!! Yet, Onan has become the "poster child" throughout the ages for all those who have some sexual agenda to champion. "Many Christians have used this passage as a proof-text against masturbation. Indeed, masturbation has been called 'onanism.' However, this does not seem to be the case here. Whatever Onan did, he was not masturbating. This was not a sin of masturbation, but a sin of refusing to care for his brother's widow by giving her offspring, and of a selfish use of sex. ... He was more than happy to use Tamar for his sexual gratification, but he did not want to give Tamar a son. ... Onan pursued sex as only a pleasurable experience" [Dr. David Guzik, The Enduring Word Bible Commentary, e-Sword]. Not only was he greedy, but Onan also cared more for his own sexual needs than the various, and far more important, needs of Tamar, his sister-in-law. In his sight, she was an object to be used and abused. Because of these motives, and this perversity of heart, which was displeasing in the sight of God, the Lord killed him (Genesis 38:10). The Archaeological Study Bible has this observation about the text: "Onan's action and resulting punishment had nothing to do with contraception or masturbation, but everything to do with rightful inheritance" [p. 65].

"Onan was prepared to enjoy sexual intercourse with Tamar, but was not prepared to consummate it so as to raise up seed to his brother. He revoltingly treated her as though she were a common harlot, ... which was grossly insulting to Tamar" [Dr. H. P. Mansfield, The Christadelphian Expositor - Genesis, p. 430-431]. Was Tamar aware of what Onan was doing? The Bible doesn't say, but it is hard to imagine that she wouldn't be. Did she complain about it, or make accusations against him for his actions? Again, we don't know. GOD knew what was happening, however, and HE took action! "Onan's continuing refusal to impregnate Tamar was displeasing" to the Lord, "and thus he too," like his brother Er, "was slain by the Lord" [International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 604]. "The term 'onanism' has come to be applied to masturbation; but it is clear that God's judgment was not visited on Onan either for practicing masturbation, or for so-called coitus interruptus, or for involuntary nocturnal emissions (which, physically speaking, involve the same phenomenon), but rather for his motive in thus refusing to consummate the marital act with Tamar" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, p. 550]. The only "body part" God was truly concerned with in this affair was the heart. We humans tend to judge practices and procedures; the Lord judges motives! Onan's heart was wicked; he thought only of himself, and it cost him his life. God's lesson for us today has nothing to do with the sex act itself, or even with family planning; it has to do with how we treat one another. If Onan had truly loved his brother, his God, and his sister-in-law, this story would have turned out much differently. It is when we fail to love that others suffer and our lives end badly.

From a Minister in Kentucky:

Al, the class that began this month is off to a great start, and now more people are wanting to join the study. So I need to order even more books from you. I sent you the money via PayPal this morning. Thanks! Grace and Peace to you.

• As noted in the first entry of the Readers' Reflections section of my last article, a congregation in Kentucky is doing a "deep dive" Bible study into the topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and my book "Down, But Not Out: A Study of Divorce and Remarriage in Light of God's Healing Grace" is being used as the primary reading resource (apart from the Bible, of course) for the members of this class. A good number of copies were ordered in December for this class, and then a couple of weeks later the minister ordered even more. Now, in this most recent email, he is ordering additional copies. Clearly, a great interest is present there in what the Bible teaches on this subject, and I am honored that they are using my study of the Scriptures on this topic as their primary outside reading resource. May God bless them in this study as they emphasize God's healing grace for those persons impacted by the trauma of marital breakdown and the unfortunate stigma of subsequent relationships. -- Al Maxey

From a Reader in Florida:

Good Morning, Al, and blessings to you and yours. Hope you are all well. Your Reflections are such a blessing to me, and to many others, I am sure! The Word of God is such an amazing book/teaching. I try to read the entire Bible every year, and the New Testament twice - basically, four chapters every day, and it's amazing what you see and read. Yet I wonder: How is it possible to read it over and over and over again, and still not see the whole picture? And I have been doing this since about 1984. Yet I still seem to hear Jesus saying, "Why are you so dull?!" (LOL)

From a University Professor in Nevada:

Al, your article titled "Startled Horse Christians: Paul's Charge in Philippians 1:28" (Reflections #876) is a nice one, brother! The following is the verse that always comes to mind for me on this subject: Revelation 21:8 - "But for the cowardly, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and sexually immoral persons, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." The "cowardly" or "fearful," those unwilling to take a stand, or who, on the other end of the spectrum, are unwilling and afraid to submit to grace instead of relying on their own righteousness gained through keeping commandments and performing good works -- both share the same fate as the abominable, murderers, etc. Those are serious words!

From an Elder in New Mexico:

Hi, Al. Happy New Year! I have to say, I almost didn't read this latest issue of your Reflections ("Startled Horse Christians") because I was put off by the title! But, read it I did ... and it was just what I needed to hear! And also just what the church needs to hear! Thanks for sharing this word of encouragement. By the way, I worked a lot with horses in my teenage years and thus am very familiar with their behavior. May you and Shelly have a blessed new year.

From a Reader in Barbados:

Thank you, Pastor Al, for your article "Startled Horse Christians," and may God's abundant blessings be upon you and your family throughout 2024.

From a Reader in Texas:

Dear Al, first of all, I wish you a very Happy New Year! May the bountiful blessings from God be with you daily as you continue to enlighten our minds way beyond what is expected. I always look forward to your writings, and to the way you clear my mind of misconceptions. This latest article, "Startled Horse Christians," is the perfect title for what I had not previously thought about! I totally agree with every word. We must unify with other Christians and prepare for the battle of all battles, which daily is taking hold of our world. Thank you, Al, for your persistence in telling it like it is!

From a Reader in Georgia:

Al, "Startled Horse Christians" is a great message for the New Year! I was reminded by your article of my younger days growing up in the country and having the opportunity as a young kid to ride horses. Most of the time when a horse was startled it was because it was caught off-guard when something happened unexpectedly, like a rabbit jumping out in front of it. I like that the Scriptures speak of being tenacious and steadfast in the face of opposition. We should not be surprised/startled by opposition; in fact, as we are warned, we should actually expect opposition if we are living as Christians. In our country, the "camel got his nose in the tent," and now I'm feeling like the whole dadghum animal is inside!! The leadership of our country is beyond corrupt. The godless changes were subtle at first, but now it's "in your face." Christians must take a stand against this darkness! Even after being flogged, Peter's response to the Jewish leadership was this: "And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus" (Acts 5:42, ESV). I laughed as I imagined God asking certain leaders in certain churches today, "What did you do to overcome the evil around you?", to which they responded, "Well, we debated the use of instruments in worship, women leading prayers, and the need for the tip of the nose to go all the way under the water for someone to be saved." Oh my! If I was God, I would make them repeat that response slowly, and really listen to it, just to increase their embarrassment! Brother Al, let's have a great new year, and please keep stomping out ignorance!!

From a Reader in California:

Al, Happy 2024 - May the Lord pour out many blessings on you this year as you bless others by sharing your insights. I was pondering your latest Reflections ("Startled Horse Christians") as part of my morning meditation, and the truth of what you wrote was so evident. I remember a while back a shepherd of God's people telling me, when I was going through a "faith-shaking" time, that sometimes we just need to trust and have faith in God. The sheer simplicity, and yet profound nature, of that comment years ago has become a brick in my foundation of faith. When the rest of the building is shaking, the concept of trusting that God will see me through scary and uncertain times remains firmly in place, never shaking, never cracking, never moving. It has proven itself true so many times that it can no longer be considered anything other than rock-solid truth. The more it's tested, the truer it becomes. Hopefully, your Reflections article today will cement that concept into others' foundation of faith as well. May God bless you and yours in 2024 and beyond.

From a Reader in Wyoming:

Good Morning, Al. In writing my deep appreciation for you, I find myself feeling like the apostle Paul in Romans 8 - trying to express an appreciation deeper than mere words can convey. So for this, may God's Spirit do the work needed! Al, your message titled "Startled Horse Christians" was a timely-conveyed message, and it was absolutely WELL DONE! Thank You. May we not be the scientific model in which we find the frog acclimating itself to the water as it rises to a deadly boil, while Satan looks on in pleasure. Have a blessed new year, Al, and may your pen never run dry!

********************
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