text:
Tonight we're coming to the last in our three-part study of divorce from the text in Matthew 5:31 and 32. And I just want to say this by way of a preface, tonight I'm not really going to preach. This is going to be more like a tightly knit Bible study because we must stay very close to the text and to a logical presentation so that we can clearly understand what God is saying.
Few subjects have had as much confusion about them as this one. So many different things are being taught about divorce. And I'm not here to offer you my opinion, I'm not even, frankly, interested In my opinion but what I am here to do is to try to show you from the word of God what is the clear, lucid word of Scripture regarding this subject of divorce and remarriage. And so I will stick very closely to the notes that I've prepared so that we can move directly through this and that your comprehension, hopefully, will be very clear as we go. Because it's very easy to get lost in dealing with such a very complex theme.
Now may I hasten to add, the complexity of the study of divorce and remarriage is not due to the fact that God isn't clear it's due to the fact that sin has muddled up the world so badly, that we tend to be unable to think in terms of the clarity and the simplicity of the mind of God.
Now let me briefly review what we have been learning already. We first focused on a major point which I entitled "The Teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees". As you know, in Matthew chapter 5 our Lord is confronting the scribes and the Pharisees to show them that their supposed standards of righteousness were inadequate. Now in verse 27 of our text, Matthew chapter 5, the Lord says, "That you have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery". And what He's alluding to there is the fact that they had pretty well kept the legalistic features of adultery, they had not done that. You have been taught you're not to commit adultery, that's been your system of religion and you think that because you don't do the act you're alright. "But I say unto you", in verse 28, "if you ever look on a woman to lust after her you've committed adultery with her already in your heart." And what the Lord is saying to them is - Look, it's not enough to maintain some kind of external; you cannot be righteous before God if you've ever had the thought. You have, maybe, avoided adultery in terms of the external act, technically but you've committed it again and again in your heart.
Now to further illustrate this very same point about adultery He indicates verse 31; "It hath been said," and that He means by that in your religious system, according to your teachers, according to the things you believe, "whosoever shall put away his wife let him give her a writing of divorcement". Now as I told you, they taught that divorce was valid for any and every reason based on the rabbinic tradition. It was only necessary to be sure you did the paper work. In other words, who ever wants to put away his wife just be sure he gives her a writing of divorcement, make sure you do the paper work, keep the technicalities, abide by the external law and then you'll be righteous before God. Now this was the dominant view in the time of our Lord. That no matter what a woman did, her husband could divorce her if in his eyes it was for good reason to get rid of her. Now they based this on a wrong interpretation of Deuteronomy chapter 24. In Deuteronomy chapter 4 it tells about a man who had a wife and he found in his own eyes some uncleanness in her, the Talmud translates the word - obnoxious. Something that she did he didn't like. So he decided to divorce her. But the way the rabbis interpreted the verse they turned it into a command. And they said there was a man who found in his wife an uncleanness - let him divorce her. And they turned around the meaning of the Scripture to force that there be a divorce. So according to the Jewish tradition of interpreting Deuteronomy 24 if you find something about your wife that's obnoxious you're commanded to divorce her. And as I told you, that could be anything at all from finding somebody prettier than her to having her put too much salt on your dinner. And that's why in Matthew 19:7 when the Jewish people - the scribes and the Pharisees - came to Jesus they said to Him, "Why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement?" Because, you see, in their minds it was a command because they had misinterpreted Deuteronomy chapter 24. They saw it as a permission to divorce.
For example the Targum of Palestine was written in the first century A.D. It gives us some insight in to how the Jewish people interpreted the Old Testament. And in the Targum of Palestine written in the first century A.D. we find the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 given by the rabbis was exactly this, they had turned verse 1 into a command. Arid what is amazing about it is that is exactly the way it is translated in the King James; they've made the same mistake. So that in the King James it says the same thing, - "If you find an uncleanness in your wife give her a bill of divorcement", but that is not what the Hebrew text is saying. But they misinterpreted it and therefore they came up with the fact that divorce is commanded if you find something obnoxious about your wife.
Well, of course, by the time Jesus came around they were shedding their wives rather whimsically. And Jesus knew this was their interpretation and that's why He confronts them with verse 31. The Jews were shedding their wives at random and all the while they're supposing that they were righteous because, after all, Moses said if you find something obnoxious about your wife, get rid of her, give her a paper and send her off on her way just be sure you do the paper work.
Now I believe this is the key to their concept in verse 27. I believe that the whole context here is about adultery. And I want you to get this. Jesus confronts them on this fact, Your standard and your tradition says - Thou shalt not commit adultery, not that's okay it just doesn't go far enough. You pride yourselves that you don't commit adultery I'm telling you, verse 28, you've committed it in your heart when you look on a woman to lust after her. Further He says in verse 31, "When you get a divorce you're committing adultery," in effect as He'll go on to explain in verse 32. But the point is this, it was so easy for them to get a divorce they didn't need to commit adultery, all they had to do was divorce their wife for any reason whatever, do a little paper work and they could have any kind of relationship they wanted with somebody else. They could shed their wife so fast and marry the one they wanted that they didn't need to do divorcing. So that's what our Lord is after. They're saying, - We don't commit adultery - and He's saying - Yes you do, in your heart and by your divorces on other than divine reasons, other than God-allowed reasons. You whimsically put away your wives and then you say your righteous because you don't commit adultery. So Jesus confronts them with a proper interpretation to show them that they were really adulterous sinners, they had misinterpreted completely Deuteronomy 24 and the fact that they were not committing adultery was belied by the very fact that they were divorcing their wives without biblical grounds which constitutes adultery. And that's why in verse 32 He said, "But I say unto you that whosoever shall put away or divorce his wife except for the cause of fornication causes her to commit adultery and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery." They were saying, -Well, we don't commit adultery. He says, - Number-one, you commit it in your heart and number-two; you're proliferating adultery all over the place by unloading your wives indiscriminately. Every time you turn your wife loose, every time a divorce occurs you force her into adultery which makes you guilty of adultery, whoever marries her is guilty of adultery, whoever marries you is guilty of adultery, you've got adultery all over the place.
Now that's the thrust of the passage. The whole section is to reveal that they are adulterers in spite of what they claim. And Jesus is ripping off the mask of their self-righteousness to reveal their real hearts. And the whole point here is that divorce leads to adultery. It is just sequential; divorce leads to adultery. That's what He is saying. You may claim that you're not adulterers but you're adulterers in your heart and in your divorces which you are doing by misinterpreting the Word of God to fit your own whims.
Now that blatant misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 24 led us to our next point in our study which we got into last week and that is the teaching of the Old Testament. What is the proper teaching of the Old Testament? If the passage in view, Deuteronomy 24, does not teach divorce for any old reason that you want, what does the Old Testament teach? Well, let me remind you very briefly that in the Old Testament God recognized the reality of divorce, there's no question about that, He did. He recognized divorce as a reality. He also recognized a writing of divorcement or a bill of divorcement as a reality. But God never condoned it. God refers to it in Deuteronomy 22 verses 19 and 29 rather indirectly. It is referred to in Leviticus 21 verse 7 and 14. It is referred to in Isaiah chapter 50 verse 1. It is referred to in Jeremiah chapter 3 verse 1. But in all of the references to divorce whether directly or indirectly, God never sanctions it, God never commends it, God never approves of it, God never puts His stamp on it. He only acknowledges that it exists as a concession to sinful people. In fact, as we saw last time in an adulterous situation, God sets forth the example of Hosea and Gomer and God's own heart in the issue would be that if you have an adulterous situation even that far into your marriage, it's even that severe in your marriage rather than seek a bill of divorcement, seek to do what Hosea did and that is to forgive and redeem the guilty partner. So divorce, God knows, is a socio, political feature of human life designed to regulate the inevitable results of sin. But the point of Deuteronomy is not divorce for anything obnoxious the point of Deuteronomy is divorce for anything less than adultery causes adultery. What He's saying in Deuteronomy 24 is that if somebody divorces his wife for something like uncleanness or being obnoxious, something short of adultery he forces her to commit adultery, he forces the man who marries her to commit adultery, he forces himself to be guilty of making her an adulterous and anybody that he marries becomes an adulterer. So Deuteronomy, beloved, is saying exactly what Jesus is saying here in verse 32. When you divorce for something other than adultery you simply compound the sin of divorce with sins of adultery all over the place.
And so we saw last time, then, at the conclusion of our discussion that in Gods eyes only adultery granted the technical right to dissolve a marriage, only adultery. And Deuteronomy 24 is saying if you divorce for less than that you're going to defile everybody involved.
Now think with me for a minute. Originally adultery was punishable by what? By death. Now that would certainly dissolve a marriage. Right? Death does away with a marriage. Romans 7 is clear on that so is 1 Cor. 7. Now in cases where death did not take place, somebody committed adultery but death didn't take place such as in the Jews situation at the time of Jesus where they had no power to take life, the Romans had removed that power from them so they couldn't take the life of an adulteress or an adulterer in their time. So it has an alternative, then, and at other points in their history if death didn't take place divorce was an alternative. And we find that, don't we, in Matthew 1:19 in the case of Joseph and Mary. In a time when death would not be the consequence of adultery, Joseph had a choice to put her away privately and essentially that means to divorce her. Now, clearly, the only, only possible biblical grounds for divorce, seen in the Old Testament, is adultery. And the point of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is not to advocate divorce for uncleanness but to show how a man divorced his wife for less than adultery and all he did was defile everybody, when she remarried and by the way the Bible assumes remarriage, it is inevitable.
Now, in a sense, the woman in Deuteronomy 24 is innocent, I mean, what could she do about it? The guy simply divorced her. And he caused her to commit adultery. He really bears the guilt of her adultery. Now here is the way Deuteronomy 24:1-4 should read. Let me read it to you and you just listen. "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something obnoxious about her and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her away from his house and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house or if he dies then her first husband who divorced her is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land, the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance." Now the point is simple, then, if you divorce your wife for anything less than adultery you defile her. The reason you could never take her back again Is because she is defiled as an adulteress and you're not to marry an adulteress, even though you've made her one, in that sense. So what is the Old Testament saying? It's trying to stop divorce by showing that divorce leads to adultery. Adultery in a marriage, at that point, led to death and when there were times in Israel's history when death didn't occur divorce became an alternative but only at that point. So really the hard line of Deuteronomy 24 is no divorce at all. Since adultery is dealt with by death and anything less is not grounds at all but only leads to further sin and defilement. So the Old Testament, then, recognized that it would happen. Recognized that divorce would occur but it tolerated it only as an alternative to execution, that's all. And, by the way, a better option than divorce would be to forgive and redeem the guilty partner as Hosea indicates.
Now let's look at it this way, this will help you. Are you ready? The permission for divorce, then, became a law. Alright? It was a civil law. The permission for divorce was a law. A law on Israel's statute book designed to meet the practical means of an imperfect, sinful people but the teaching of the book of Genesis, "They two become one flesh permanent" that was not a law that was an ideal, you see. The indissolubility of marriage as originally designed by God was an ideal. Divorce even for adultery was simply a law and the ideal is far higher than the law. For example, earlier in the same passage, you go back to chapter 5, verse 21; the law said you can't kill. In verse 22 the ideal is you don't even hate anybody. The law says you will not commit adultery the ideal is you don't ever lust after anybody. And the same thing is true, the law might allow you to divorce but the ideal is what God laid down way back in Genesis and thus does Jesus say in Matthew 19, "From the beginning it was not so". And when they wanted to ask Him about what should be the case regarding a divorce He simply said, God never intended divorce for what God has joined together let not man what? Put asunder. And by the way, every marriage is a marriage where God joins two people together because God has invented marriage. And so what we have here, then, is there is a law that regulates the external behavior regarding divorce but the ideal is far higher. There was a law in the Old Testament permitting divorce for adultery when execution was not done but the ideal never changed; it was "no divorce."
Now, that's what the Old Testament taught. Now let's come to the third point for tonight, the teaching of Jesus. And I've already told you essentially what it is I just want to expand on it. Jesus teaches the very same thing. Look at verse 32. "But I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife", and that's the word for divorce, "except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery, whoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery." Jesus is saying the same thing. You divorce for anything less than fornication or adultery and you create adulterers. And so He's saying to the Pharisees, - Don't come along and say, We're righteous, we never commit adultery, you divorce all over the place and make adultery a trail behind you. Jesus holds them to the ideal. Because, you see, they have decided on the basis of the law, the legal element which they have designed for their own society, they're okay. And so Jesus just sets the legal stuff aside and says, Listen to the ideal and match yourself against that and see how you come out. So Jesus took marriage back to Gods ideal. Marriage is totally binding, totally binding.
Now let's look at specifically what Jesus says, verse 32. "But I say unto you whosoever shall divorce his wife", now this is talking about whosoever, anybody it doesn't matter who they are, anybody and everybody who divorces his wife. The word put away is the word apoluo. Now I believe it means divorce. I think that's very clear. It's used repeatedly in this way. Now let me tell you this so you'll understand it. Some people say that the word only refers to a separation. Some people don't want to a -- they don't want to see divorce here at all. Ah, they want to see only a separation. Other people want to see a broken engagement, there's a lot of talk about this referring to the betrothal period and not the real marriage. But the term apoluo means to divorce. It is used that way all throughout the gospel. It is used that way in other places apart from Scripture. That is the most common meaning of the word when it is used in a man - wife context. It means divorce. It isn't just a separation and it isn't just a broken betrothal or a broken engagement. The term in the context, I believe, clearly show that this is the dissolution of a marriage, that divorce is in view. That you have a real marriage here. As I said, the word apoluo is used in all the gospel passages as the specific term for divorce, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19: verses 3. 7, 8 and 9, Mark chapter 10 verses 2. 4, 11 and 12 and Luke 16:18. In all of the passages in all those three gospels where divorce is the subject apoluo is the term. And what is interesting to me is that the Jews use it, sometimes it comes out of their lips, and sometimes it comes out of the Lords lips and there was never a discussion about what it meant, they knew what it meant. They didn't have to discuss whether it meant a separation or a broken engagement or a legitimate divorce or anything, its common meaning was divorce. By the way, twelve different Hebrew, Greek lexicons agree that it means divorce. Now you can't make this refer to a broken engagement for several reasons. Number-one, when the Jews used the word they didn't have the engagement period in mind. That wasn't what they had in mind. That wasn't their normal use of the word. Further, the background of this passage is what Old Testament passage? Deuteronomy 24. Deuteronomy 24 is the background of this whole text and Deuteronomy 24 is not dealing with broken engagements, it's dealing with divorce. And so to take that engagement concept and impose it upon a passage that's dealing strictly with marriage and divorce on the basis of its Old Testament roots is really to add something that doesn't belong there. Deuteronomy 24 is not concerned with engagement periods. Further, if Christ had in mind the engagement period then He would be adding something to the Old Testament standard rather than commenting on it and reaffirming it. And if that's what He's doing it's the only time He does it throughout this whole section of the Sermon on the Mount, which makes it inconsistent with everything He has in mind. All He's doing in this part of the Sermon on the Mount, He's reiterating to them what the Old Testament has taught all the while. He is reaffirming Gods standard which hasn't changed. He's not adding to. But if this were a section on engagements since Deuteronomy 24 doesn't deal with it we would have to say He was adding something new which wasn't His purpose at all but rather affirming what Gods law has always been. Perhaps the finest resource material on this is available in a series of books known as Kittel. And they show in there that the term is a strong term for divorce and refers definitely to the dissolution of a marriage bond. Introducing the concept of a break up of an engagement is totally foreign to the text, it is totally foreign to the context of Matthew and the debate with the Jews, it is totally foreign to Deuteronomy chapter 24 and it has no relationship to the consequences either. If a person broke an engagement and went on and got married why would they be an adulterer? Why would it be adultery to break an engagement? And go on and marry someone else. No. It's talking about a consummated marriage. No, the idea is clear. Those who say it means only a separation or it means only some kind of broken engagement are people who don't want to allow for any divorce in the Bible at all. Who don't want to allow for any conditions for any divorce at any time so they just remove divorce from the passage but they do injustice to the text. Further, the gospel used the word korizo which means to put asunder and that's what Jesus used when He said, "What God has joined together let no man korizo, put asunder". It means to separate. And clearly whenever it's used in man - woman relationships it means to divorce. So in similar contexts such as in Matthew 19 and in Mark where you have the statement to put asunder in the same context and we know that the word when used of men and women means divorce why would it all of a sudden take on the meaning of an engagement period which is foreign to the context, the Old Testament background and the use of the word which was most normal? No. We're talking about divorce and by the way korizo is used again in I Cor. 7 and it's used at least three times again it means in I Cor. 7 - divorce. There it cannot mean anything to do with some engagement period. It means divorce.
There's another word and that's the word aphleemi which is used in I Cor. 7 three times. it's a very rare word it's translated there leave, 1-e-a-v-e. and what it means when used in the context of man and wife it is a technical term for divorce. So we have these terms; apoluo, korizo, aphieemi, they are technical terms for divorce. I'm just trying to make a point here because so many people are confused. You cannot see this as a broken engagement and really do justice to those terms or to the context. All three of these verbs and the context of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 and I Cor. 7 as we shall see later, indicate that desertion is not the issue, separation is not the issue, broken engagement is not the issue but divorce of a marriage is the issue. Now that's basic.
Let's go back to verse 32. "Now I say unto you whoever divorces his wife causes her", look at that phrase, "to commit adultery." Now that is what the Lord is teaching in this passage. You say you're not adulterers, I'm telling you - you are not only adulterers but you're making other people adulterers. That's what He's saying. By divorcing her. Why? Because remarriage is inevitable and when people have no right for a divorce and they enter into another union they consummate an adulterous relationship. And really, in a sense, He's saying it isn't even their sin it's yours - you make them commit adultery. You see, He assumes the remarriage, it's inevitable. It's inevitable. And that is the basic teaching.
You find, for example, in Mark chapter 10 and verse 11, the comparative text and let me just show you what it says. Mark 10 verse 11, "And He said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another commits adultery against her." Now you see what this is? You not only make your wife an adulterer but when you remarry which again is inevitable you become an adulterer. And if a woman puts away her husband and she's married to another she commits adultery. Oh boy, all over the place.
And so it's the same thing. The Lord is saying - Divorce leads to adultery, just in sequence. In Luke 16:18, "Whosoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and whosoever marries her that is put away or divorced from her husband commits adultery." Now those passages don't even have any exception clauses, they don't even have any, any 'except for the cause of' in there. They just lay it out flat, point-blank that when you get a divorce or you divorce somebody you cause adultery all over the place. Divorce, then, leads everybody into sin. It's precisely what Deuteronomy was saying. Divorce leads to adultery because remarriage is inevitable.
So the sin of adultery has become added to the sin of divorce. And that's what really is the whole sum of the passage. Now look at the end of verse 32, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery". And that's just adding another dimension, no matter how you cut it, it all comes out the same. Now look with me for a minute at chapter 19 of Matthew and verse 3. 1 just want to go through this passage, you'll see what it means and it will just fall open to you and then we'll come back and draw it to a conclusion. In Matthew 19 and verse 3, "The Pharisees came unto Him and testing Him and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Now you see that's how they interpreted Deuteronomy 24, that's the way they handled it. They were going to trap Him, see. Oh boy, they thought they had Him cornered. They wanted Him to get on His little soap-box and start blasting away at divorce. You know why? That's how John the Baptist lost his head. And they figured, We'll get Him in the same corner, John the Baptist was thrown into prison, you'll remember, for speaking against the adulterous relationship between Herodias and Herod Antipas and they thought, Boy, let's get Jesus in there to talk about adultery and divorce and then they'll really go after Him when He starts talking against these people who have done that and we'll get Him just like we got John the Baptist. And so they said, "Tell us, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause", figuring on the basis of what they knew from Matthew 5 He had spoken earlier, He'd condemn it. "He answered and said unto them by asking them a question, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female?" He asked them a question, Don't you know what the Bible teaches? "And He said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall be one flesh, wherefore they are no more two but one flesh; What therefore, God hath joined together let not man put asunder." All He did was quote Genesis 2. He said, Didn't you ever read Genesis 2? And they said to Him, "Well, why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to divorce her?" You see, they were still hung up on the fact that they thought Deuteronomy was a command, and "He said unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives but at the beginning it wasn't so." Now even though the Mark passage varies a little in the terms here the thrust is the same. "But I'm saying unto you whosoever shall put away his wife", literally the Greek says, "not on the grounds of fornication and shall marry another commits adultery and whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery." Now what the Lord is saying here Is that divorce leads to adultery.
Well the disciples got the message, look at verse 10, "His disciples say unto Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry. I mean, if you're stuck and it's that bad, forget it. If it's that indissoluble - one flesh, never put asunder. If divorce is only a concession to an evil, sinful society, if divorce is only something as a last ditch technicality for fornication and other than that marriage is permanent it's better not to get in it because you might have made a mistake and then you are stuck. "And He said unto them, well all the men cannot receive this saying except they to whom it's given." That's fine, you can say - it's better not to marry but not everybody can handle being single. There are some eunuchs who were so born from their mothers' wombs and there are some eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake, "He who is able to receive it, let him receive it". In other words, there are some people for varying reasons who can handle singleness. But not everybody can handle it. And the point that the Lord is making is just know when you go in you're going in on the right terms with a commitment to stay there. Because divorce proliferates adultery.
And, believe me, people, I'm telling you not only from the Bible but I've seen this in experience, I can't unscramble some of the stuff that comes to me. It's like trying to put the egg back together after it's been in the frying pan. You can't do it. People say, - Well, you know, this happened and then that happened and of course this was in the middle and then over here and that - there's no way. The best thing for you is to die, frankly, just die. Go immediately to heaven do not pass go, do not collect $200. There is no other answer. I mean, you have strangled yourself so far now there's no way out. I tell you - people want to ask questions about - just like the people who came to Jesus and said, - all these people keep marrying and marrying and the seventh husband finally dies and whose wife - it gets to be that way. You know, whenever there's a divorce Jesus says there's going to be adultery. All over the place on the part of everybody involved because remarriage will be inevitable and with no legitimate grounds for divorce to start with a remarriage is adultery - except, and now we go back to Matthew 5.
This is the clause, "except for the cause of fornication". Now listen, that same clause is in Matthew 19:9. And, you know, you hear people - Oh yes, but it's not in Mark and it's not in Luke. That's true. How many times does God have to say something to make it true? People want to argue, - Well it didn't say it in Mark and He didn't say it in Luke. Yeah, but He did say it in Matthew - twice. Listen, every time God talks about divorce He doesn't have to say everything there is to say on the subject. You know what He says in Luke is some things He didn't say in Mark. And what He says in Mark is some of the things He didn't say in Matthew. That's right. Do you know that whether you have the passages on divorce in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 and every one of them deal with features of divorce and remarriage that the others do not all deal with? In each of those there are some specifies that aren't in the others. Why? Because each writer has a specific plan. The Spirit of God is accomplishing a specific purpose in the context of the passage. Do not force God to say everything on every subject every time He brings it up. You see, the exception clause isn't the major issue. God is not making a great announcement - You can get a divorce for fornication. His announcement is divorce creates adultery except, of course, for the cause of fornication. That's just a sort of concession. It's unreasonable for people to assume that because the Lord didn't say it everywhere He didn't mean it. Listen, if He said it once He meant it. Right? He meant it.
Now some people say, Oh, but look - it's the word fornication. It's the word fornication and you know that's a word that must mean it must mean that they weren't married, so it's got to be a broken engagement because of the word fornication or He would have used the word adultery. But that's not right. The one exception the Lord makes for no divorce is for where there is fornication. And, then, where there's fornication there's technically a cause for divorce. And what He's saying is - Divorce, now get this, leads to adultery unless the divorce was as a result of fornication. Now fornication is a Greek word pornia from which we get pornography. Pornia means according to the finest of Greek scholarship in seeing what the word means, it means simply this - I'll give you the sum of what it means in just a few words, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. That's what it means. Every kind. Now some say it refers to the engagement period only or they would have used the word for adultery which is moikia not pornia.But that's not so. If the word means every kind of shameful, sinful, sexual intercourse then it will encompass also adultery won't it because that's one kind. And in this context it clearly has in mind adultery because the whole passage is about marriage. This is about marriage. Deuteronomy 24 is about marriage. And the issue is adultery as He talks to these Jewish people. People say to me - Well then why do they use pornia? Simply because pornia is a bigger word, adultery means a sexual relationship with a person outside your marriage. Pornia means a sexual relationship with anybody, a woman, a man or an animal. It has to do even with bestiality, it has to do with incest, it has to do with sodomy or homosexuality, it has to do with prostitution, harlotry all of these things before, during after marriage. It is a broad term that encompasses everything. And I believe the reason He uses it is this, because a divorce is not only technically allowable when your partner has a relationship with somebody else but a divorce is technically allowable when your husband has any kind of unlawful sexual relationship or when your wife has any kind of unlawful sexual relationship with a man, a woman, a child or an animal. Because all of those things in the Old Testament brought about the death penalty. They all constitute the sum of a violation. And by the way, the term fornication is commonly used to encompass the word adultery - you can't split hairs on that word. For example, the Hebrew word for fornication is zanah. It is used according to one lexicon, Davies and Mitchell, of a married woman in committing adultery, in Jeremiah 3:1. In Amos 7:17 zanah is used of a married woman in an adulterous relationship. According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia fornication, zanah, is to commit adultery or every form of unchastity that could be included. All of the leading sources agree that the Hebrew word zanah which we translate fornication includes adultery. The Greek word pornia is the same. In Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 says W. E. Vine it includes adultery. According to Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon it includes prostitution, unchastity, every kind of unlawful, sexual activity and adultery is included, the unfaithfulness of a married woman. According to Alfred's Greek Testament fornication must be taken to mean sin not only before marriage but after it or during it. Pornia according to Thayer includes adultery. I can just go on and on and on. All of these Greek scholars see it this way. By the way, Jews in Israel were put to death for acts of fornication both before and after marriage. The death penalty was opposed upon marriage used for incest, sodomy, bestiality, every forbidden sex act, all you have to do is read the 20th chapter of Leviticus, it's all in there. They were all those things that brought the death penalty and it is that divorce is allowable when death could have ensued. And so you can't just say this means pre-marital sin, it's too broad. For example, in Numbers 25:1 and 2, the 23,000 of Israel including the chiefs who committed sexual sin with the daughters of Moab were not all unmarried and yet their sin is called fornication. Paul, for example, in I Cor. 10:8 says, "Neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed and in one day fell 3 and 20,000". Now is he only referring to unmarried Israelites? Of course not. And then when he said, "Neither let us commit fornication", is he only referring to unmarried Corinthians? Christ in Revelation 2:14 refers to the same event of the married Jews committing sexual sin with the daughters of Moab and in Revelation 2:14 it's called fornication. In Hosea 2:5 when it talks about Hosea's wife it says she committed -zanah-, fornication. In I Corinthians 5:1 Paul says, "Fornication is common among the Corinthians," and then he gives an illustration within a marriage. So you cannot make the word mean something other than within a marriage it includes that.
Then what does fornication mean? It is the broad word for any kind of unlawful, shameful, sexual activity. That technically should result in death. If death is not incumbent in the situation then divorce is the technical option. Why? Well, certainly because God does not want someone to have to endure the terrible pain of being the victim of an unfaithful mate. And so God allows the technicality of divorce as a concession to the evil of men. But from the beginning it was not so and it never was His original plan and a better plan would be to forgive and redeem the partner. But there are times when that partner is even forgiven but will not be redeemed. Right? And if you can't do anything about it then that option is there. Jesus never advocates divorce. He only admits there are times when it doesn't lead to adultery, that's all. He hates it all the time. But there are times when it doesn't lead to adultery. There are times when you're the innocent party in a divorce and you've tried every way you can to reconcile, every way you can to redeem and forgive and put it together and it just doesn't happen. And then you're free and if you remarry again it won't be adultery. So the Bible recognizes it will happen. And when it does, those who remarry, which is inevitable, will commit adultery unless sex sin was the cause.
So Jesus sets the record straight. God still hates divorce. His ideal is still monogamous, life-long marriage and divorce only brings adultery apart from the cause of fornication.
A final word, the teaching of Paul, I Corinthians chapter 7 and I'm just going to mention this because we've done a whole study on it in our study of the book of I Corinthians and if any of you would like to get the fullness of it you can get the tapes on I Corinthians 7 and the whole thing is there.
But Paul in the manner of progressive revelation due to the need of the birth of the church in the society in which it lives adds for us a dimension which we must consider, verse 10 1 Corinthians 7. "Unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband." Now Paul is saying, I'm telling you people that are married, ha stay together and this isn't mine this is the Lord. In other words, I'm giving you a direct command from the Lord, I got this right from the Lord. This is Matthew 19, this is Luke 16 this is Mark 10, this is Matthew 5. The Lord has told us this, I'm quoting the Lord here. That's what he is saying. I'm quoting the Lord. No divorce. No korizo. Now that fits what we learned in the gospels doesn't it? He doesn't even bother with any exception clause here. Verse 11, "But if she depart", in other words, if she decides to leave, she has two options, "let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband and let not the husband divorce his wife." If something happens in a marriage and you leave there's no adultery, no adultery, no fornication - you have two options, you can stay single the rest of your life or you can be reunited with your husband. That's the only two options you have. You say, "You mean, if I had a divorce lest than biblical grounds, not on the basis of adultery I either have to go back to him or stay single the rest of my life?" Well, that's what I Corinthians 7:11 says. Now you say, "Well, some of these things happened before I was a Christian." Yeah, I realize that and some of these things we would expect to happen before you're a Christian. Paul's writing to believers. And now that you're a Christian you have to live in the light of 1 Corinthians 7, just like you do in light of the gospel. Verse 12, "To the rest speak I, not the Lord". In other words, now I've gone as far as the Lord went. The Lord simply said, there is no divorce for less than adulterous grounds, that's what He meant. If you just decided to depart - you either go back or stay single the rest of your life. You can't remarry at all. That would constitute adultery. And he's just reiterating Matthew 5:32, reiterating Deuteronomy 24. There is no divorce apart from fornication which doesn't lead to adultery if you remarry. So he says, You can't do it. But I want to add something to this, he says, the Lord didn't cover this. It doesn't mean that it's not inspired he means the Lord didn't talk about it. "What if a brother has a wife that doesn't believe?" You become a Christian and your wife hasn't but she wants to dwell with you. Well, then, don't divorce her. If somebody might have said, "You know, I'm a Christian now and I've got an unsaved wife and we're unequally yoked - Bye, honey. I've seen this Christian gal, boy, terrific!" No. No. You stay with her. Verse 13, "And the woman which has a husband that believes not, if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him." If you've got an unsaved partner - stay married. Why? "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children unclean but now they are holy." In other words, you in that family are going to be a sanctifying influence. The best thing you can do for an unsaved husband and the best thing you can do for the children that are going to come through that marriage is to stay there and be Gods representative in the family. Cause I know what would happen if it didn't say that in the Bible people would be married to the unsaved spouse, they come to Christ, they've got an unsaved partner, the first thing they want to do is shed them and get a Christian mate. No. No. That partner is sanctified by your presence. It doesn't mean redeemed it just means the pervasiveness of Gods presence is going to be a benefit in their life. You say, "Well, what if my unbelieving partner wants out?" That's verse 15, "If the unbelieving depart let him depart". Again, the same word korizo, a technical name for divorce, if the unbelieving divorces let him divorce. "A brother or a sister is not under bondage," and the word bondage here is the same word used in Romans 7 in speaking of a marriage so it's talking about the breaking of a marriage bond. That means the bond is broken you are no longer bonded to that individual, Just as if he died as in Romans 7, you are free for remarriage. That's how I interpret this. So if an unbeliever departs, seeking a divorce, the unbeliever divorces you are not in bondage in such cases. Why? Because God has called us to peace. God doesn't want you to try to hang on to somebody that hates everything you believe in. That would not be peaceful.
Now Paul knows the perversity of human sin, he does not condone divorce. He simply says in addition to what our Lord says, I who am inspired by the Spirit of God add this dimension, in the newness of the church in the wonder of this new age where people are being called out of all peoples and tribes and nations of the world to form my church I am very aware that there will be times when unbelievers will not want to stay with a believer. They will despise that believer for the faith In Christ and if that is the case, they seek a divorce - let it be the believer is not in bondage. And I believe there is liberty there then for remarriage. Why? Because the unbelieving spouse is gone, in a sense he's as good as dead, no longer sanctified. And I believe at that point there is liberty for remarriage. And so Paul adds this one dimension to what our Lord said. Now remember, Paul is not presenting conditions under which divorce Is possible because a believer's not to divorce at all. That's the ideal. He's just saying that it may happen that some unbeliever dumps you because he can't stand what you believe in. He's not saying if you've got an unbelieving husband and you see somebody you like better - get everything you can do to get rid of him. Oh no. Now what you've done is you've kept the letter of the law like a Pharisee maybe, you've forced him to divorce you but you've broken the law which is the ideal that God wants in your heart and in Gods sight you've sinned. See? You can't get around it. You start playing with the technicalities you're going to come out a Pharisee. And Pharisees are losers because God looks at the heart. God knows if that unbeliever departed after you'd done everything you could to sanctify them, everything you could to win them, everything that you could possibly do to gain an openness in his heart or her heart to Jesus Christ. God knows if it was on those terms or if you just turned your back on him and drove him out. God knows.
So the Scripture is wonderfully consistent, isn't it? The believer is not to divorce at all. He says that. But if a believer is divorced and he is a victim of adultery or a divorce by somebody that doesn't want anything to do with Christ then and only then is he or she free to remarry.
Now listen in closing, we live in the age of grace, beloved, If you're a Christian I want to tell you some good news, everything you've ever done in the past is forgiven. Is that good news? Everything. You may have blown a marriage; you may have blown three marriages. I've met people in our church who have had four in the past. You may have muffed up the whole shooting match time after time after time. I don't know how to unscramble the eggs. I don't know how to put it all together. But I'll tell you one thing I do know and that is that whatever you've done in the past is under the blood of Jesus Christ. Amen? And you start from here. "And if any man be in Christ he is", what? "A new creation, old things have passed away and all things have become new.!' Forget the past, will you? And will you take a hold of the moment and live it according to Gods ideal? Let's pray together.
Father, I pray tonight that if there are some in our midst who need to confess some things and repent of some things and get some things straightened out that that would be the case. Father, there may be some right on the crisis point of divorce in their life or contemplating a remarriage - help them to examine clearly the truth that You've given us in Your Word. Lord, for others, that's in the past. Give them a great sense of Your forgiveness. Give them a great sense of how you washed them and make them as white as snows, pure as the driven snow, clean as it were as wool as Isaiah put it. Father, help us to know that all of that is under the blood and yet that doesn't cause us to tread upon Your grace but rather in gratitude to live according to Your ideals. We don't want to be like the Pharisees who just kept the externals, who said - Oh, I wouldn't commit adultery and yet in their hearts they committed it all the time. And in their divorces they continued to commit it and make other people commit it too. Father, if anyone here has been brought down to the point of deep conviction as the Pharisees must have been if they listened to Jesus, I pray that that conviction will turn to confession and that You'll make it right. Father, I know there are people in this church who are in a situation they probably shouldn't have gotten in to start with but Father, help them to be in that situation content and to make the most of it. We hear the apostle Paul in I Cor. 7 two times saying, whatever state you're in - just stay there, don't try to go backwards and straighten out all the past. Father, help us to make the most of the marriage we have whatever have been the circumstances of the past. And if we're not married but planning, Father, to help us to make the future decisions based upon what we know to be Your Word and Your truth. We know, Father, we can't expect the people who didn't know You, we can't expect that before we knew You we would live by Your standards but we can now. Help us to be faithful. And, then, Father, beyond all of that I thank You for the marriages in this congregation that have been those exemplary ones where that one man and one woman have been committed to each other since first they said 'I will' and shall be till they see You face to face. I thank You for my own marriage, my own wife, for the wonderful relationship we share. And, Father, I pray that You'll bless the marriages of Grace Church that we might so set an example to the world around us that doesn't know the meaning of a right relationship, of what a marriage can be. That people will be drawn to Jesus Christ and to eternal life simply through the testimony of our union in Him. We thank You for our time together in Christ's name. Amen
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
The wind and chill was over the top this day. Surprised that I survived walking all around the city in these wedge platforms without freezing to death. Despite the cold, it was a beautiful, crystal clear morning. The city was definitely not fully awake just yet, so the streets were still quite still. It's amazing to see the city slow down just a bit, even if it doesn't last that long. I'm really into stripes right now. I own way too many striped tops and sweaters I can't even count them all. Always good for a day when you are not feeling the urge to put too much thought into your look. They always look so good against a good neutral hue, it's almost kind of ridiculous.
I have a busy work week ahead of me. Enjoy your Monday!
Somebody That I Used to Know by Gotye ft. Kimbra

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Stocks close slightly higher; Dow, S&P up 0.1%
Wall Street kicked off the new week with very modest gains as investors brace for a slew of economic reports, including a key jobs report Friday, that could shed fresh light on the health of the economy and provide clues as to the timing of the next Federal Reserve interest rate hike. Last week, the Dow saw its five-week winning streak snapped as stocks were weighed down from the terror attacks in Brussels and comments from a Fed official that hinted at a rate hike possible as early as April.
The Dow Jones industrial average rose about 20 points points, or 0.1%. The Standard & Poor's 500 index was 0.1% higher and the Nasdaq composite index fell 0.1%. Heading into the week the Dow was sporting a gain of 0.5%, thanks to a big rally following the worst start to a year ever for stocks earlier in 2016. The S&P 500 was trading near the flatline for the year, down just 0.4%.
More volatile stock indexes, such as the technology-dominated Nasdaq, which is off 4.7% for the year, and the small-company Russell 2000, which is down 5% in 2016. For Wall Street, this week is all about incoming economic data. Today, investors got a fresh reading on February personal income, which came in a tad higher at 0.2%. However, while consumer spending last month came in inline with expectations with a gain of 0.1%, January spending was downgraded to flat after a earlier reading of +0.4%. Pending home sales for February rose 3.5%, topping expectations and signaling that the real estate recovery is ongoing.
On Tuesday, the Conference Board will release its March consumer confidence survey. Wednesday, investors will learn how many jobs were created by private employers in March, as well as manufacturing data in the Chicago area. But the key data point comes Friday, when the government issues its March jobs report. Analysts forecast that 200,000 jobs were created in March, after a 242,000 new job count last month. If the jobs report comes in strong again, it could prompt speculation that the Fed could consider hiking rates at its next meeting in April. Wall Street is not expecting another rate hike until June at the earliest.


text:
Massapequa's Professional Siding and Replacement Windows Services
Nassau Suffolk Exteriors is different from other Long Island home improvement companies because we have seasoned, veteran contractors in every department. When you hire our Massapequa Exterior Services for your renovation project, you're getting individuals with years of experience in their services area. Not only that, but each of our home improvement departments are run by an expert contractor that has worked extensively in their specialized field for at least ten years.
If you need vinyl siding or replacements windows, contact the Exterior Services experts at Nassau Suffolk Exteriors today!
Nassau Suffolk Exteriors - Massapequa Vinyl Siding
Adding siding to your Massapequa home is a good way to make it look new again. Just like a fresh coat of paint renews a room, vinyl siding can make a home look a lot newer than it actually is. The vinyl siding experts at Nassau Suffolk Exteriors can help you pick the right Massapequa siding for your home. You can rely on our experience in installing vinyl siding to Massapequa houses to make sure job turns out right.
Massapequa Replacement Windows
Windows are a part of your home that must be chosen very carefully. You can save lots of money on your energy bills with the right Massapequa replacement windows. Trust your next home improvement project to the expert Massapequa replacement window contractors at Nassau Suffolk Exteriors! Contact us for a FREE consultation today!
Recent Articles
What You Should Know About Picture Windows
Windows are important features of Long Island homes, and choosing a window type that suits your home from both the inside and outside should be done mindfully. If you're hiring an exterior contractor to replace your windows […]
Comparing Types of Shingle Roofing for Your New Roof
When the time comes to replace your roof, you may become overwhelmed by the number of roofing options available to you. Shingle roofing is popular in Commack, […]


text:
- Publish date:
- Updated on
- Year
- 1864
General Gracie killed at Petersburg
On this day in 1864, Confederate General Archibald Gracie Jr. is killed in the trenches at Petersburg, Virginia, when an artillery shell explodes near him.
Gracie was born in New York City in 1832 (his grandfather built Gracie Mansion, the official residence of the mayor of New York) and graduated from West Point in 1854. Although his family lived in the North, his father owned a business in Mobile, Alabama, and Gracie moved there upon his resignation from the army in 1856. Gracie soon became an ardent supporter of the Southern cause, andwas active in the Alabama state militia. In early 1861, before Alabama seceded from the Union, Gracie was ordered by the governor to seize the federal arsenal at Mount Vernon.
Gracie joined the 3rd Alabama when hostilities erupted between North and South, and he served in Tennessee and Kentucky during the first part of the Civil War. He was part of General Edmund Kirby Smith's invasion of Kentucky in 1862, and his service earned him a promotion to brigadier general. He fought at Chickamauga and Chattanooga in 1863, and his brigade joined General James Longstreet for the campaign against Knoxville in November. Gracie was wounded at the Battle of Bean's Station on December 15, but he continued with Longstreet back to Virginia when Longstreet rejoined Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.
Gracie's command protected Richmond, Virginia,in the summer of 1864, and his leadership at Drewry's Bluff was instrumental in holding Union General Benjamin Butler's force at bay near the Confederate capital. Gracie fought during the siege of Petersburgfor the rest of the year, andwas recommended for promotion to major general. However, he was killed before the rank was confirmed. Most of Gracie's family remained in the North, and his relatives arranged for transfer of his body to Union lines. He was buried in New York City.


text:
Posted 7 years ago
(114 items)
Love this Art Deco beauty. She looks to have never been used and is in very good to excellent condition for her age. Made out of bisque for her head and upper body. Came in the original box as well. A great find for my collection.


text:
Experience an even dispersion of light with cutting edge LED technology. White LED's (light emitting diodes) are positioned around the rim of the panel to give a more even spread of light. This results in even lower power consumption, less heat to dissipate, and a true, uniform color range.
This display has a resolution that is referred to as Full HD. The state-of-the-art LCD screen technology has the full high-definition widescreen resolution of 1080 progressive lines, each with 1920 pixels. This allows the best possible picture quality for HD input signals with up to 1080 lines. It produces brilliant flicker-free progressive scan pictures with optimum brightness and superb colors. This vibrant and sharp image will provide you with an enhanced viewing experience.
Philips designs and produces display products in compliance with strict Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standards that restrict lead and other toxic substances that can harm the environment.
Enjoy your own media playback via the USB port. Simply plug in a USB drive, and create your own signage content to convey the marketing messages you want, when you want them. With a wide range of media formats supported, this powerful media player offers an excellent picture and true flexibility.
Control and manage all of the signage displays on your network with this powerful software tool which allows you to change the settings of your display centrally via an RJ45 or RS232 connection. Smart Control allows you to set the video input, modify the color settings, set the display's ID when creating video walls and even diagnose each display's status, giving you all the power you need to manage your displays from one central location.
Enjoy peace of mind with our comprehensive 3 year warranty. With service centres around the globe, and our quick turnaround, you can be sure that in the most unlikely event of a display malfunctioning, we will find and fix the problem to your full satisfaction within the shortest period of time.
Reduction of the electrical power required to operate a device.


text:
U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
EEOC Charges Large Drug Store Chain with Failing to Accommodate Employee's Disability and Discharging Her
ATLANTA – Eckerd Corporation, doing business as Rite Aid, a nationwide drug store chain, subjected an employee to unlawful discrimination when it failed to accommodate the employee's disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Eckerd Corporation d/b/a Rite Aid, Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-2816-JEC, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia), Fern Strickland worked as a cashier for Eckerd Corporation, d/b/a Rite Aid, for 18 years. Due to severe arthritic symptoms in her knees, which limited her ability to walk and stand for long periods, Strickland periodically used a stool while stationed behind the counter. She had been allowed to use the stool by the employer since 2001. However, in January 2009, after a new district manager was assigned to Strickland's store, the district manager decided to no longer accommodate Strickland's disability because he "did not like the idea" that she used a stool. Strickland was terminated several weeks later because the manager refused to accommodate her disability "indefinitely."
Such alleged conduct violates Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for Strickland, as well as injunctive relief designed to prevent such violations in the future.
"The ADA protects the employment rights of disabled individuals who can perform their jobs with a reasonable accommodation," said EEOC Regional Attorney Robert K. Dawkins. "This situation was especially egregious since Ms. Strickland had been successfully accommodated for over seven years before the new manager terminated her. The EEOC is here to vindicate the rights of people victimized by this sort of misconduct."
This case is one of three ADA suits announced by the agency today, all of which were brought under the broader and simplified definition of disability set forth in the ADA Amendments Act. The other two are EEOC v. Fisher, Collins & Carter (Case No. 10-cv-2453, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland), filed in Baltimore, involving the layoff of two employees who had diabetes and hypertension; and EEOC v. IPC Print Services (Case No. 10-cv-886 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan), which involved the discharge of an employee with cancer who requested a temporary part-time schedule as an accommodation of his disability.
"These cases, among the first filed by the EEOC under the ADA Amendments Act, illustrate the continuing need for rigorous enforcement of the law, as well as further education about the ADA's requirements," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "Congress has made the scope of the ADA clear and broad: Individuals with disabilities — including serious medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and severe arthritis — must be evaluated according to their qualifications, and not based on unfounded fears or stereotypes."
According to company information, Eckerd Corporation, d/b/a Rite Aid, operates more than 4,900 stores in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Eckerd Corporation, d/b/a Rite Aid, is the largest drug store chain on the East Coast and the third largest drug store chain in the U.S.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.


text:
Uptake of PrEP in the United States
Pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is an exciting new HIV prevention strategy that involves the ongoing use of anti-HIV drugs by an HIV-negative person in order to reduce their risk of becoming infected with HIV. Many types of PrEP are currently being researched, but to date only one type has been found effective in multiple placebo-controlled clinical trials and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States. This form of PrEP involves taking a daily oral pill called Truvada, starting before a potential exposure to HIV and continuing afterwards. Truvada is a single pill that contains two anti-HIV drugs (tenofovir and emtricitabine). Research suggests that PrEP can reduce the risk of HIV infection by over 90% if taken every day.
Moving PrEP Into Practice
In addition to regulatory approval by the FDA, several other actions have been taken to move PrEP into practice in the United States. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have released comprehensive clinical guidelines recommending that healthcare providers offer PrEP as a potential prevention option to sexually active men who have sex with men (MSM), heterosexually active men and women, and injection drug users at "substantial" risk of HIV infection. Along with the guidelines, the CDC released a providers' supplement with additional tools for clinicians to use when prescribing PrEP.
In Canada, Truvada has not been approved for use as PrEP by Canada's regulatory agency (Health Canada) and only Quebec has developed guidelines for healthcare providers. Although Truvada is currently approved for only the treatment of HIV in Canada, some healthcare providers are choosing to prescribe Truvada for use as PrEP. The prescription of an approved drug for an unapproved use is known as an "off-label" prescription, and it is not prohibited.
Exploring the Uptake of PrEP
In general, prescriptions for PrEP can be obtained by people at risk of HIV infection in Canada and the United States from one of the following two sources:
- a healthcare provider (such as a family physician or infectious disease doctor)
- a PrEP demonstration project
PrEP demonstration projects involve the coordinated provision of Truvada to a small number of eligible candidates. The main purpose of these projects is to answer questions about how to implement this new strategy in a safe and effective way outside of the setting of a placebo-controlled clinical trial. There are several PrEP demonstration projects ongoing in different parts of the world, most of which are in the United States. In Canada, one project is ongoing in Montreal and another is planned for Toronto.
Recently, two studies were published describing the uptake of PrEP in the United States, both within and outside demonstration projects. Their results have provided interesting and important insight into the use and delivery of PrEP and are described below.
Early Experiences From Demonstration Projects in San Francisco
There are three demonstration projects ongoing in San Francisco, a city heavily impacted by HIV. Each project has integrated the delivery of PrEP into a different clinical setting: a municipal sexually transmitted infection clinic (San Francisco City Clinic), a private health maintenance organization (Kaiser Permanente Health Plan) and an HIV-specific reproductive health program (Bay Area Perinatal AIDS Center).
San Francisco City Clinic
San Francisco's municipal sexually transmitted infections (STIs) clinic serves approximately 12,000 people annually (38% are MSM and 1% are trans people). The clinic offers a range of services including testing and treatment for STIs and HIV, HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), family planning and emergency contraception. The rate of HIV infection among the MSM patients is high.
In October 2012, the clinic began offering PrEP to some of the MSM and transgender women attending the clinic. Between October 2012 and September 2013, 571 people were assessed for PrEP eligibility; 531 (93%) were eligible and offered PrEP and of those 261 (49%) decided to start PrEP. People with prior awareness of PrEP and higher risk behaviours were more likely to start taking PrEP once offered. The most common reasons people cited for not wanting to start PrEP included not having enough time to participate in the study (28%), being concerned about side effects (25%) and having the perception that they were not at risk for HIV (8%).
Of note, 15 of the people who started PrEP reported feeling stigmatized by others because they were taking it. This stigma originated from peers and healthcare providers.
Kaiser Permanente Health Plan
This private health organization provides medical services to over 185,000 people in San Francisco who are covered by a number of different insurance plans, including employer-based programs and a health access program for low-income individuals. The organization provides HIV-related services through its HIV Care and Prevention Program.
In May 2012, healthcare providers at the organization were encouraged to refer patients who were interested in PrEP to coordinators of the HIV Care and Prevention Program. These coordinators are nurses and pharmacists. Once referred, patients were assessed for eligibility and offered PrEP if eligible.
Between May 2012 and September 2013, 123 men and women were referred to the HIV program for PrEP; 118 (96%) were offered PrEP; and of those 70 (59%) started PrEP. The most common reasons that people cited for not starting PrEP once offered included deciding to take PEP instead of PrEP (47%) and having an underlying medical condition (11%). Of those who started, 24% discontinued PrEP for a variety of reasons.
Bay Area Perinatal AIDS Center
The Perinatal AIDS Center provides preconception management and prenatal care to HIV-positive women and HIV-negative women with HIV-positive male partners. Each year, approximately 10 to 15 HIV-positive pregnant women attend the center and eight to 10 women are provided preconception counselling.
In 2010, the center began offering PrEP to HIV-negative pregnant women who were having condomless sex with their HIV-positive partners. In 2012, the center also began offering PrEP to HIV-negative women who were trying to become pregnant.
Between January 2010 and September 2013, 15 women were assessed for PrEP eligibility; 11 (73%) were offered PrEP and of those seven (64%) initiated PrEP. The main reasons that women cited for not starting PrEP were lack of insurance coverage, perception of low risk, and concerns about side effects and toxicities (for themselves and their babies).
Use of PrEP Outside of Demonstration Projects
Gilead Sciences, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Truvada, recently conducted a national study in the United States exploring the uptake of PrEP outside of demonstration projects. This study looked at prescriptions from about half (55%) of the retail pharmacies in the United States. The purpose of the study was to understand how many people are using PrEP and describe the characteristics of PrEP users and prescribers.
A total of 2,319 different individuals were found to have started PrEP between January 2012 and September 2013. Below are some characteristics of the PrEP users:
- 49% were women.
- The average age was 38 years, and male users tended to be a bit older than female users (average age 40 years vs. 37 years).
- 12% were under 25 years, and this percentage was higher for females than males (17% vs. 8%).
PrEP was prescribed by a variety of healthcare providers, such as these:
- family doctors or internal medicine specialists (34%)
- infectious disease specialists (11%)
- non-physician prescribers, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants (18%)
Among women who started PrEP, 49% were prescribed Truvada by a nurse practitioner and 43% received it from an infectious disease specialist.
Compared with people living with HIV in the United States, PrEP users were more likely to be women, younger, and treated by a physician who was not an infectious disease specialist.
Moving Forward With PrEP
These American studies demonstrate that people are interested in using PrEP and some healthcare providers are willing to prescribe it. Indeed, those leading the demonstration projects concluded that "interest in PrEP is high in San Francisco, particularly among men who have sex with men attending the [STI] clinic, and it is feasible to incorporate PrEP into busy clinical settings."
Despite this interest in PrEP and the demonstrated feasibility of this new strategy, PrEP use is generally low. The CDC estimates that approximately 500,000 people in the United States may benefit from PrEP but fewer than 10,000 are currently using it. A more pronounced disparity likely exists in Canada, particularly as Health Canada has not approved Truvada for use as PrEP, only one province has developed guidelines, and only two provinces have a planned or ongoing demonstration project. A recent survey of over 400 MSM at a busy sexual health clinic in downtown Toronto found that only 27% of men were aware of PrEP and none had used it.
Moving forward, addressing barriers to PrEP use will be important to ensure that those who may benefit from this strategy -- and who want to use it -- are able to access it. Priority next steps for implementation were identified by those leading the demonstration projects in San Francisco. These included "increasing PrEP knowledge; expanding PrEP access; combatting PrEP stigma; and optimizing interventions to promote PrEP uptake and adherence while reinforcing risk reduction strategies." Hopefully these next steps will be considered in Canada.
Clinical practice guidelines for providing PrEP -- CDC
Clinical providers' supplement for providing PrEP -- CDC
Interim guidance on providing HIV PrEP -- Quebec Ministry of Health (French only)
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) -- CATIE Fact Sheet
Moving PrEP into practice: an update on research and implementation -- Prevention in Focus
Two North American surveys engage doctors about their attitudes towards PrEP -- CATIE News
- Liu A, Cohen S, Follansbee S, et al. Early experiences implementing pre exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention in San Francisco. PLoS Medicine. 2014 Mar;11(3):e1001613.
- Mera R, Ng L, Magnuson D, et al. Characteristics of Truvada for pre-exposure prophylaxis users in the US (January 2012 - September 2013. HIV Drug Therapy in the Americas, Rio de Janiero, Brazil, May 8-10, 2014. Poster P28.
- Kain T, Fowler S, Grennan T, et al. Low perceptions of HIV risk among Toronto MSM seeking anonymous HIV testing: objective and subjective assessments of PrEP eligibility. In Poster Abstracts of Controlling the Epidemic with Antiretrovirals, London, UK, September 22-24, 2013. Abstract 22.


text:
share:Remind Me
powered by AFI
Brief Synopsis
Small-town gossips rage over the arrival of a mysterious stranger.
On Halloween night, Robert "Bud" Fontaine, Jr. and his friends break a window at an abandoned house, then run in fright after a stern-looking man glares at them from another window. Bud rushes home to tell his father Bob, an orange farmer, what has happened. The kind-hearted Bob tries to calm Bud down, assuring him that the long-absent owner, Dr. Paul Mahler, has returned. Bob apologizes to the man, who gruffly introduces himself as Matlock and says he bought the house from Mahler, whom Bob has never met. One day, Bud, who is saving money from his paper route for a dog, is followed home by a friendly stray. Bud immediately loves the dog, whom he calls "Boy," and takes him home. His mother Marge, who is having a difficult pregnancy, lets him keep the dog, and Bud is completely happy. Some time later, when Bud takes Boy with him to sell a newspaper subscription to Matlock, the dog charges into the house and breaks a vase. Matlock angrily orders them to leave, further alienating Bud. One day, Marge tells Bud that he has been invited to the birthday party of Camille Wardlaw, the granddaughter of the newspaper publisher. Bud leaves Boy at home and reluctantly walks into town to buy a gift, but instead buys a license for Boy when Camille taunts that Boy will be taken to the pound without it. When Bud gets home, he finds that Boy has disappeared. Bud searches for his dog and is shattered when he finds Boy dead, apparently poisoned, on the road in front of Matlock's house. When the disconsolate Bud tells his father, Bob confronts Matlock, who says he knows nothing and slams the door. Although Bob warns Bud that there is no proof Matlock poisoned Boy, Bud is convinced and goes to Wardlaw to see if he will put an item in the paper about it. When Wardlaw explains that he needs proof, Bud angrily runs off and starts to destroy the spout on the oil tank on Matlock's property. Wardlaw stops him and suggests that he find proof of his accusations by investigating. Malicious town gossip about the reclusive Matlock fuel Bud's obsession, and after learning that Matlock had recently bought both hamburger meat and rat poison, he sneaks into Matlock's garage. Bud finds the opened box of rat poison and also notices that his car's registration lists the owner as Mahler. Bud rushes to Wardlaw with the registration, and Wardlaw tries to contact Mahler at the registration's San Sala address, but finds that the number has been disconnected. Although Wardlaw tells Bud to return the car registration, he himself has become concerned and decides to investigate, not knowing that Bud is hitchhiking to San Sala. When Bud arrives at San Sala, he finds that the address listed on the registration is for a large, now-abandoned beach house. A boy playing nearby tells him the house is haunted and helps Bud to sneak inside. There the boy frightens Bud by saying that the man who owned the house disappeared several months before and was probably murdered. Bud then hitches a motorcycle ride home with a friendly sailor, and when he arrives, Bob angrily orders Bud to his room. Later, Bob tries to talk with Bud, who will not reveal what has happened but insists that he must see Wardlaw. Bud then sneaks out to return the car registration but is caught by Matlock, who yells at him to leave him alone. Now hysterical with anger and fear, Bud runs toward the oil tank and destroys the spout, causing gallons of oil to spill out. A few minutes later, an annoyed Bob finds Bud on the road, and tells him that they must keep the orchard smudge pots burning as the January frost is threatening the orchard. It is the coldest night of the year and heating oil is running out in the valley. While many of the local farmers wait at the Fontaine house, hoping that an expected fuel truck will arrive, Marge suggests that they ask Matlock for oil. As the men drive off, Bud tries to stop them, but no one hears him. He then rushes to the tank and, seeing the faces of the men, including Bob and Matlock, hysterically screams that he did it because he hates Matlock. Shocked by Bud's rage, Matlock runs after the fleeing boy and saves him when he falls into a stream and almost drowns. Matlock carries Bud to his house and makes him warm soup, then gently tells him that he had nothing to do with Boy's death. Bud softens after Matlock drinks some of the soup to prove that it is not poisoned, and lets Matlock walk him home. On the road, they see the tanker truck arriving just in time to save the crops. At the Fontaine home, Wardlaw greets Matlock as "Dr. Mahler," then, with Dr. Dorothy Langley, Mahler's wife, explains that their gravely ill son needed an operation several months ago and Mahler was the only one who might have saved him. When their son died during surgery, Mahler blamed himself and ran away. Mahler then tells Bud that he reminded him of his son. The next day, in Wardlaw's office, Wetzell, a local farmer, sadly admits that he was responsible for Boy's death, an accident caused by leaving out poisoned meat to kill a coyote. Bud forgives Wetzell and rides home on his bike, followed by Camille. Nearing the farm, they encounter Mahler and his wife, who are leaving for San Sala. Mahler thanks Bud and gives him a gift of a new puppy. Bud happily thanks the Mahlers and rides home.
Cast & Crew
Additional Details
|MPAA Ratings:
|Premiere Info:
|not available
|Release Date:
|Production Date:
|Distributions Co:
|Loew's Inc.
|Production Co:
|Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp.
|United States
Leonard Maltin Ratings & Review
User Ratings & Review
This title has not been reviewed. Be the FIRST to write a review by CLICKING HERE >
User Ratings & Review
User Reviews:
Cinema History:
Lead Performers:
Supporting Cast:
Screen Play:
Music Score:
Title Sequence:
User Ratings:
talk about a stranger
kevin sellers 2018-12-24
Sorry Eddie M but if this movie is a noir then I'm the fourth McGuire sister. Bestowing that status upon it 'cause of John Alton's... MORE>
Not Noir
Patrick Keenan 2018-12-16
Note to Eddie Muller- Because John Alton was the cinematographer does not make a film a film noir nor a ' near noir' not ven a 'noir or... MORE>
not worthy of Noir Alley
Lorna 2018-12-16
This movie is so uneven. Characters are inconsistent. Gaps in plot to drive a convoy of oil tank trucks through. Billy Gray's character is ultimately... MORE>


text:
It's no wonder we have government shutdowns and international turmoil when we're confronted with making major decisions.
It's no wonder we have government shutdowns and international turmoil when we're confronted with making major decisions. We're all forced to make so many minor decisions during a day that we're probably just tired of making choices.
A guy starts out his day faced with picking between a razor and electric shaver, bar soap or body wash, aftershave or cologne, white shirt or some kind of color, wide tie or thin, cold cereal or a hot breakfast, coffee with cream in it or black, and then AM or FM radio for the car on the way to work.
And the women have that whole lipstick shade thing to think about.
By the time our lawmakers get on the job, they probably are in no frame of mind to make any decisions about the national budget.
"Yeah, yeah, right, if the government shuts down, it shuts down. I really can't think about it right now. My brain is fried. Do you know how many open parking places there were to pick from out in that lot this morning?"
With the multitude of choices we have to make every day, it's a wonder our minds don't melt more often.
Try going to the store to buy personal products without getting stressed.
Need some mouthwash? Green, blue, orange or purple? Mint, cool mint, blue mint, spring mint or fresh mint? You could buy citrus, but I'm guessing there are a lot of different kinds of fruit.
Want some toothpaste? Do you want it for white teeth, tartar control, cavity protection, deep cleaning or fresh breath? If you get weary and just go with the first one on the list, do you want just whitening, or would you be better off going for extra white, sparkling white or something called "extreme whitening"?
Which brings us to the matter of shampoo. Should your hair-cleaning product be for beauty, volume, moisture, hold, shine, fragrance, frizziness, allergy protection or styling? Or, how about just cleanliness? Are there a lot of different kinds of that?
Once you've got all that decided, you've got the remainder of your day to worry about.
When do you eat lunch? Where do you eat lunch? What do you eat for lunch? How much do you eat? With whom do you eat lunch? How long do you eat before you should leave? It seems easier just to go hungry and fret later about dinner.
But, which program do you watch on TV after that supper? What stories should you read in the newspaper? Which unfinished book — and how many pages — should you get through that night before bed?
What time should be bedtime?
But, first there is that midnight snack. Leftover chicken, just a cookie, or that last piece of pie?
Finally, sleep. Should the television be left on or turned off? If left on, should it be tuned to a news program, talk show or old movie? Sound up or down? Watch the screen or close the eyes and just listen?
Decisions. Don't dream about them.
Reach Gary at 330-580-8303 or firstname.lastname@example.com.
On Twitter: @gbrownREP


text:
Readers have really enjoyed the paintings and editorial cartoons that were entered in the Power Line Prize competition and that we have posted on this site. Here are two more.
The first is a collage done in the form of a full-sized movie poster, evoking horror movies of the past. This image is great, but it doesn't fully do the poster justice, as it is a photo taken by me. The original poster is in my family room:
This one is a powerful oil painting. It shows the Statue of Liberty crying, as the American flag is painted over with a Chinese flag. It, too, is my photo of the original painting:


text:
I'm posting this early because I'm going to end it early in preparation for our special October layout challenge.
Your challenge this week is to use a big photo. And by "big" I mean it must touch 2 opposite sides (either top/bottom or left/right).
Important Details
Due Date: Oct 1, 2013, 9am (USA Pacific time)
Tag: challenge big sept 2013
Make sure you use this tag exactly, so we can browse easily through the gallery and see all the submissions, and so you can get your points. Please only tag one layout.
See basic challenge rules here.
Check out finished and entered layouts here.


text:
Judge Mary A. McLaughlin
September 2012: Average Prison Sentence
District Court - Pennsylvania East
Referring Agency: Department of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
Lead Charge: 18 USC 922 - Firearms; Unlawful acts
Program Area: Weapons
For all cases disposed of in the current fiscal year (2012) that were credited to Judge Mary A. McLaughlin in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the average prison sentence was 180.0 months, when looking only at cases referred by the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms with a lead charge of "18 USC 922 - Firearms; Unlawful acts" falling under the broad category of "Weapons". During the current fiscal year, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin has sentenced 2 defendants compared with one defendant during the twelve months of the previous fiscal year.
Over the last five years, the average prison sentence imposed on defendants that were credited to Judge McLaughlin was 61.2 months. This was 29.8% lower than the 87.1 months typical in Pennsylvania East and 11.8% lower than the 69.3 months average prison sentence for the nation. Judge Mary A. McLaughlin sentenced 11 defendants during the past five years.
(CAUTION: The kinds of cases handled by individual judges influences statistical information about their sentences. It therefore is important to consider the breakdown of cases that each has handled, available below, when making judge-by-judge comparisons.)
Figure 1 compares Judge McLaughlin's numbers to those for judges in this district and in the United States as a whole for cases of this type over the last five years.
During the last five years there were 26 other judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with information on convictions during that period. Average prison sentence numbers passed down for those judges ranged from 8.5 months to 163.2 months, putting Judge McLaughlin's average prison sentence of 61.2 months at the lower end of the range. The average prison sentence for the whole Eastern District of Pennsylvania during that time was 87.1 months.
Professional Biography
Born 1946 in Philadelphia, PA
Federal Judicial Service
Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 13, 2000, to a seat vacated by Marvin Katz; Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2000, and received commission on May 31, 2000.
Gwynedd-Mercy College, B.A., 1968
Bryn Mawr College, M.A., 1969
University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D., 1976
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Stanley Brotman, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 1976-1977
Private practice, 1977-1980
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Columbia, 1980-1984
Assistant professor, Vanderbilt University School of Law, 1984-1986
Private practice, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1986-2000
Adjunct professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1988
Adjunct professor, Rutgers University School of Law, 1989
Chief counsel, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 1995
Number of Defendants in Judge Mary A. McLaughlin's Cases


text:
Elinor Carucci
This vegetarian entrée would also be delicious served with lamb or shrimp.
- Yield
- Makes 4 servings
- Active Time
- 1 hour
- Total Time
- 2 hours
- Curry sauce:
- 3 tablespoons vegetable oil, divided
- 1 small onion, chopped (about 1 cup)
- 1 small carrot, peeled, chopped
- 1 stalk lemongrass, coarsely chopped and pounded with meat mallet to flatten slightly
- 1 1-inch piece unpeeled fresh ginger, thinly sliced
- 1 small Granny Smith apple, peeled, finely chopped (about 1 cup)
- 2 tablespoons curry powder (preferably Madras)
- 2 1/2 tablespoons all purpose flour
- 2 cups fresh carrot juice
- Vegetables:
- 1 1/2 pounds eggplants (about 2 medium), peeled, cut into 1-inch cubes
- 5 tablespoons vegetable oil, divided
- 1 pound assorted summer squash (such as zucchini, yellow crookneck, and pattypan), cut into 1-inch pieces
- 1 pound green beans, haricots verts, and/or yellow wax beans, trimmed, cut into 2-inch lengths
- 4 ears of corn, husked
- 1 15- to 16-ounce can garbanzo beans (chickpeas), drained
- 2 cups (packed) arugula
- 1/4 cup torn fresh basil
- Test-Kitchen Tip: To release the most flavor from the lemongrass stalk, it's important to coarsely chop and flatten it.
- For curry sauce:
- Heat 1 tablespoon oil in large saucepan over medium heat. Add onion, carrot, lemongrass, and ginger; sauté until slightly softened but not brown, about 5 minutes. Add apple and curry powder; sauté until vegetables are tender, about 8 minutes. Add remaining 2 tablespoons oil, then flour and stir 1 to 2 minutes. Gradually pour in carrot juice; bring to boil, whisking constantly. Reduce heat to medium-low; simmer uncovered until sauce is slightly thickened and reduced to generous 2 1/2 cups, about 20 minutes. Strain sauce through fine strainer set over bowl, pressing on solids to extract as much liquid as possible; discard solids in strainer. Season to taste with salt and freshly ground pepper. DO AHEAD: Curry sauce can be made 1 day ahead. Cool slightly. Cover; chill. Rewarm before using.
- For vegetables:
- Preheat oven to 400&def;F. Place eggplant cubes in large bowl. Add 3 tablespoons oil and toss to coat; sprinkle with salt. Spread eggplant cubes in even layer on large rimmed baking sheet. Toss squash and remaining 2 tablespoons oil in same bowl. Sprinkle with salt and pepper. Spread squash in even layer on another large rimmed baking sheet. Roast until squash and eggplant are light golden and tender, turning occasionally, about 25 minutes for squash and 40 minutes for eggplant. Remove baking sheets with vegetables from oven and set aside. Fill large bowl with water and ice. Cook beans in large pot of boiling salted water until just crisp-tender, 2 to 4 minutes, depending on size of beans. Using tongs, transfer beans to bowl of ice water to cool. Drain. Maintain boiling water in same pot; add corn. Cook until corn is just tender, about 5 minutes. Drain corn. Cool slightly. Cut kernels off corn cobs; discard cobs. DO AHEAD: Vegetables can be made 4 hours ahead. Combine all vegetables on large rimmed baking sheet. Let stand at room temperature.
- Preheat oven to 400°F. Mix garbanzo beans into vegetables; bake until heated through, about 15 minutes.
- Combine hot vegetables and hot curry sauce in large bowl. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Stir in arugula and basil.
What to drink:
Pour a light red, like the Franz Gojer 2007 "Glögglhof" St. Magdalener Rondell (Italy, $28).
Related Video
Nutritional Info
- Calories730
- Carbohydrates101 g(34%)
- Fat33 g(51%)
- Protein20 g(40%)
- Saturated Fat2 g(12%)
- Sodium345 mg(14%)
- Polyunsaturated Fat7 g
- Fiber25 g(100%)
- Monounsaturated Fat21 g


text:
If some Pittsburgh Pirates fans are holding back from getting excited about this year, you can't blame them.
A year ago today, the Buccos were 44-41. Things did not go well from there, as Pittsburgh finished the year with 90 losses for the seventh-straight season. The Pirates haven't had a winning season since 1992, the same year Washington Nationals rookie Bryce Harper was born.
Who knows if Clint Hurdle's club will break the longest streak of futility in all of sports, but they're certainly looking the part of contenders in 2012. With a 2-0 win over the Houston Astros Thursday night, the Pirates improved to 46-36 and sit atop the National League Central standings.
Yes, it's probably too early to be scoreboard watching, but you'll have to excuse any giddy Pirates fans staying up late tonight to see if the San Diego Padres can beat the Cincinnati Reds and give Pittsburgh a two-game lead. The Pirates faithful who have allowed themselves to get excited deserve to have a little fun.
The victory marked the team's first four-game series sweep since 2006 and was their eighth win in their past 10 games. Pittsburgh is on an extended hot streak, as they've gone on a 20-11 run since the start of June.
Jeff Karstens pitched eight shutout innings, striking out eight while giving up four hits and just one walk. He threw just 89 pitches, 62 for strikes. Joel Hanrahan picked up his 22 save of the season.
It was another great pitching performance for the Pirates, who have the fifth-best team ERA in all of baseball at 3.50. The bullpen has been sterling, as Pittsburgh is 37-0 when leading after seven innings.
The Pirates have been particularly good at PNC Park, posting a 27-13 record to give them the best home mark in baseball. Pittsburgh hosts the San Francisco Giants this weekend before taking four games off for the All-Star Break.
For more baseball coverage from RantSports.com, check out the Bringing Heat blog, MLB Rumors page and Tom Froemming's writer profile.


text:
Blog Archive
- 2011 (5)
- 2010 (77)
- 2009 (240)
- 2008 (99)
- 2000 (7)
Blog Archive
- ▼ September (7)
- ► 2009 (240)
- ► 2008 (99)
About Me
- artbykarieann
- I am a part-time pet portrait and wildlife artist living in the deep dark forest between the Royal Forest of Dean, Herefordshire and the Welsh border. A beautiful and inspiring place to live and create pet portraits and wildlife art.
My Blog List
Espresso2 years ago
2015 6"Squared show3 years ago
New Blog5 years ago
Corel painter 12 work7 years ago
Singing for me supper7 years ago
Red Tail Hawk8 years ago
Calendar8 years ago
November Storm in Virginia9 years ago
- amur leopard (18)
- animal portraits (3)
- cat portraits (23)
- dog paintings (104)
- dog portraits (190)
- horse portraits (22)
- leopard (10)
- Links (6)
- people portrait (6)
- pet portrait competition (69)
- pet portraits (13)
- pets (122)
- snow leopard (2)
- snow leopards (9)
- terrier (1)
- tiger (2)
- video (11)
- website (2)
- wild boar (2)
- wildlife (3)
- wildlife art (72)
Powered by Blogger.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Dog Portraits, german shepherd
18:22 | Posted by artbykarieann | | Edit Post
I've had a lazy weekend in terms of portraits and this is as much as I have completed.
I've now got myself organised and have sorted out my commissions and have suddenly realised I need to kick myself hard to get on with them, otherwise as usual I'll be panic and manic to get them all done for the dates required.
Labels: dog paintings, dog portraits | 5 comments
Friday, 24 September 2010
Dog Portraits, german shepherd
16:45 | Posted by artbykarieann | | Edit Post
This is my latest graphite portrait of a german shepherd. As you can see my image editing has slightly improved and I am now able to remove any shadows or 'grey bits' surrounding portraits (at long last, yippee) so hopefully my progress shots and final images will be a lot more professional looking!!!
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Dog Portraits, Oakley
18:15 | Posted by artbykarieann | | Edit Post
Bit of an update on Oakley. Christmas is fast approaching and I'm now pretty booked up so will need to sort myself out with an order of play as such to ensure all are completed in time. I've already managed to sell some gift certificates as the orders are from people who cannot get hold of photographs so want the recipient to choose their own favourite images. I've also been out meeting some clients and their pets and was able to take my own photos, this are the best commissions as I get to meet the subject in the flesh and see their personalities as they run around and pose for me.
I've also started a german shepherd portrait and will also be starting the spaniel portrait mentioned in my last post.
And here is the latest deer seen in our woods, this one was a little camera shy but did manage to stand still long enough for me to take a photo, as soon as it heard the camera click though it sped off through the trees and out of sight.
Saturday, 18 September 2010
Dog Portraits, Oakley
13:14 | Posted by artbykarieann | | Edit Post
I've started work on Oakley, the huge fluffy leonberger. I've met Oakley many times and despite his size he is really very soft. Willow is a little in awe of him as he's just a tad bigger than she is and she does like to be the biggest....lots of biscuits to get that size though!
I'm also about to start another graphite portrait, this time of a springer spaniel so I may have something to post on that pretty soon.
Labels: dog paintings, dog portraits | 0 comments
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Dog Portraits, Barney
22:03 | Posted by artbykarieann | | Edit Post
Here is Barney completed, along with a couple of little drawings in the lower corners.
And here he is framed.
As per usual, the photos maybe a little shadowed in places. At some point I will learn how to edit them properly!
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
kate spade new york for GP & J Baker Whimsies Confetti Dot Wallpaper, Gold W3328.4
Product description
Product code: 69338846
Small dots resembling a flurry of confetti are sprinkled randomly on ivory or soft pink grounds.
Have you thought about wallpaper accessories? Shop here.
Product specifications
- Brand
- kate spade new york
- Care instructions
- Spongeable
- Dimensions
- L8m x W69cm
- Pattern Repeat
- 65cm
- Wallpaper Colour Palette
- Naturals
- Wallpaper Type
- Patterned
Delivery options
- Delivery within 3 days. Exceptions and longer lead times may apply to some postal areas
- Free
- Find out how we may still help you
Product will be delivered directly by the manufacturer or their courier, rather than by one of our own green van crews.
For heavier products, generally delivered by 2 people, you'll be contacted directly by the supplier with a proposed delivery date within the time frame shown at when you check out.
For smaller items, the supplier will despatch to you using their preferred carrier, and won't usually contact you in those instances
Postcode exceptions (for example remote, highland or island regions of the UK) may apply to direct deliveries - see Exceptions and restrictions
- Click & collect
- This item is not available for Click & collect
- Collect+
- This item is not available for Collect+
- How to return an item
- More about delivery & returns


text:
Find Your Perfect Home.
Manton Real Estate
Manton is located in Michigan. Manton, Michigan has a population of 1,371. Manton is less family-centric than the surrounding county with 22.66% of the households containing married families with children. The county average for households married with children is 26.52%.
The median household income in Manton, Michigan is $34,650. The median household income for the surrounding county is $40,368 compared to the national median of $53,482. The median age of people living in Manton is 32.4 years.
Manton Weather
The average high temperature in July is 81 degrees, with an average low temperature in January of 11.9 degrees. The average rainfall is approximately 34.3 inches per year, with inches of snow per year.
Manton Map
Real Estate Near Manton
Nearby Cities
Nearby Cities Homes for Sale
Manton Zip Codes


text: We have smart solutions for storing and organizing your favorite media, including movies, music and digital files. Most of our products are modular, so you can add on to your solution as your collection grows. If you're pressed for space, look for overdoor or stackable solutions to maximize the vertical space.