What Can We Learn From Ferguson?

What can we learn from the riots? No, I did not say what can we learn from the grand jury’s verdict. The verdict is not the issue, it’s the response to the grand jury verdict that’s the issue.

Those with a sinister agenda keep telling us that there is a racial divide in this country. What they fail to proclaim is that this so-called racial divide is the result of a larger and more profound issue of a moral divide.

For example, let’s begin here. If you say there is a racial divide, then you are making a moral judgment – regarding racism, hatred, injustice, etc. You cannot escape the moral implications. You cannot try to remain neutral and not make a moral determination.  Therefore, your moral judgment can either be right or wrong, not neutral. 

When listening to the news or anything for that matter, one begins with a “personal perception.”  One’s personal perception is always subjective. No two people will have the same exact personal perception of a news story they hear or read about. All information becomes filtered through our hearts and minds. Our education, world-view, belief system, upbringing, etc., all play a role in our personal perception.

Here’s the deal.  So often our personal perception of things is wrong. We do not have all the facts, so we perceive truth based on what we can and believe to be true.  This would be called subjective truth. Truth that is perceived by people personally based on their perception.

But, if we are truly interested in the truth and getting reality right, we need to be concerned above and beyond our personal perception.  We need to look at the evidence or better yet, objective truth. This is truth that is outside of us. This is truth that has the power to change our personal perception. We often allow our personal perception to try to change the objective truth outside of us, but it never does. When we try this, we only reinforce our personal perception to begin with.

This is how personal perception with regards to racism works:  Many blacks see racism almost everywhere -- especially in arrest, conviction and incarceration rates, and in white police interactions with blacks. On the other hand, whites (specifically, whites who are not on the left) think that white racism has largely been conquered, and therefore blacks' disproportionately high arrest and conviction rates are the result of black behavior, particularly the high out-of-wedlock birth rate that has deprived the great majority of black children of fathers, not white racism. According to the "black-white divide" way of thinking, these are simply two conflicting perceptions.

These two perceptions are damaging for the following reason: It denies the very existence of the two pillars that every healthy society needs -- objective truth and moral truth.

For every black and every white unwilling to condemn the protests over Michael Brown's killing that took place before any relevant facts came out -- their half-hearted condemnation of the riots is saying -- truth doesn't matter. The protests, riots and liberal condemnations of the white officer began when no one knew anything substantial about the killing, except what was revealed in the news.

There is, then, some validity to this notion of blacks and whites having different perceptions. But when the truth is knowable, one of the "perceptions" has to be wrong.   You cannot have two “perceptions” that are right. 

Blacks and Whites may have different perceptions of musical beauty or of what foods they like. But this is not the case regarding truth, which is based on facts.  Once the facts come out, we are no longer speaking of "perceptions." We are speaking of truth and falsehood.

What we learn from Ferguson is that objective truth does not exist in the minds of the rioters and looters. What does exist are only “perceptions” of the truth.

Why is this alarming? Just take a look at the results:  Riots, destruction, hatred, injuries, intimidation, killing, basically lawlessness.

You see, without there being an objective truth for people to test their perceptions on, the results will be civil chaos. This is exactly what liberals are teaching in the news and what liberal universities are giving degrees in.

The left is philosophically deconstructionist. Shakespeare doesn't say what he wrote, Shakespeare says what the reader perceives. The notion of "original intent" as applied to the Constitution is, to the left, absurd. We cannot know the original intent. It's all a matter of individual perception -- or, more precisely, the perception of different socioeconomic classes, different genders and different races. 

By the way, this satanic mindset has found its way in the church.  It is not uncommon for a small group leader say to his or her students: “What are your thoughts about this passage?” From there the group shares several different renderings and meanings. The small group leader then says, “Good!  Let’s move on to the next passage.”  To this small group leader, what’s important is not trying to discover the intent of the bible passage, but the sharing of the member’s perceptions.  This is worldly and demonic and it teaches members in the church that objective truth is not important only people’s perceptions.  "Good" and "evil" are individual or societal preferences. No more, no less.

Like truth, morality is just a perception, one determined by an individual's race, gender, and/or class. That is why, for the left, no man can judge any abortion, no matter how late in pregnancy and no matter the reason -- because men do not possess a uterus.

So who are you, white man, to condemn black protests? You have your perceptions and they have theirs. What you have to do is what the Los Angeles Times did during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, during which 53 people died as a result of black rioting -- including 41 by shooting, four in fires, three by beating and two in stabbings. The Times titled its special section each day with these words: "Understanding the Riots."

So, since there were riots following the Ferguson's Grand Jury decision, we'll know how to behave: no judgment, just understanding. After all, there is no truth; there are only perceptions. 

So what do we learn from all this? Personal perception minus objective truth leads to civil unrest. This will only get worse. 

A Fresh Look at Divorce and Remarriage, Part 7

As we try to ascertain the Bible’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, another interesting observation worth noting is what happens to the “innocent party” after a divorce occurs.

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matt. 5:32).

Here Jesus is not teaching that remarriage is lawful in some instances, but only that marriage after divorce is adultery, now watch this – even for those who are the innocent party of a divorce.

Let’s break it down:

“Everyone who divorces his wife” – Can only mean the husband.  He chooses to divorce his wife.

Now, let’s pause and ask a question:  “Why is the husband divorcing his wife?”  Well, we may wrongly conclude that since the wife is the one not choosing to divorce, but the husband is, then it’s the husband who is the guilty party and the wife who is innocent.

But that may not be the case here.  In such situations, you have two possibilities:  First, the husband chooses to divorce his wife because he has found someone else.  In this case, it would be the husband who is the guilty party for choosing to divorce his wife so he could marry someone else whom he has found.

Or second, perhaps, it is the wife who has broken the marriage vows and slept with another man, and now her husband, having found out about it, chooses to divorce his wife. In this case, the wife is the one guilty and the husband (though the one initiating the divorce) is the innocent party.

Here’s my point:  Jesus does not specify who is the guilty or innocent one in this text.  The husband may be inferred as the guilty one, but we really cannot conclude this dogmatically.

All Jesus is saying here in Matthew 5:32, is the husband who divorces his wife for reasons other than “immorality” will make her commit adultery if she remarries and will also make the man who marries her commit adultery as well.

Interestingly, Jesus makes no mention of what happens to the husband who initiates the divorce.  If he remarries, is he likewise guilty of adultery?  We may say “yes he is,” but we do so out of inference only from this text.

Now keep this in mind.  According to Jesus, if a man stops loving his wife for personal reasons and simply wants out of the marriage, if he then chooses to divorce her, the wife who is the innocent party, CANNOT remarry without adultery taking place in the marriage. Why? Because the divorce itself falls short of adultery or immorality.

Jesus assumes that in most situations in that culture a wife who has been put away by a husband will be drawn into a second marriage. Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage adultery.

The remarkable thing about the first half of this verse is that it plainly says that the remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away is nevertheless adultery: "Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of immorality, makes her (the innocent wife who has not been immoral) an adulteress."   This is a clear statement that remarriage is wrong not merely when a person is guilty in the process of divorce, but also when a person is innocent. In other words, Jesus' opposition to remarriage seems to be based on the unbreakableness of the marriage bond by either death or perhaps the unfaithfulness of a spouse.

Now without getting into a whole bunch of hypothetical situations, let me ask a few more questions:

First, if a husband who has committed adultery and has fallen in love with another woman, then decides to end his marriage to his wife, does he have the right to remarry since he is divorcing his wife on the grounds of his own adultery?  When Jesus says, “except for the cause of immorality,” whose immorality is Jesus referring to – the husband or wife? 

Second, does the wife have to be the one who initiates the divorce on the grounds of her husband committing adultery in order for her to remarry?

Third, what if the husband is busy committing adultery and wants out of his marriage, but the wife won’t let him?  Would God want her to end her marriage on the grounds of her husband’s adultery and support the divorce her husband is initiating, or stay married to her adulterous husband knowing that if she does get a divorce, her remarriage to another man would constitute adultery?

Fourth, if the wife’s husband is guilty of committing adultery and the grounds for divorce is adultery, then would it be adultery on the wife’s part to still continue to sleep with her husband since he has broken the marriage bond through his adulterous affair? Does adultery actually break the marriage covenant between husband and wife?

Fifth, if the husband is guilty of committing adultery and chooses to divorce his wife, but on the divorce papers it states, “irreconcilable differences” as the cause, would the wife still be eligible to remarry, if though her husband was clearly an adulterer, but nevertheless, the reason for the divorce was not over adultery, but something lesser?

Sixth, let’s say that the husband commits adultery and his wife finds out. She retaliates by doing the same. Now both parties have committed adultery.  After a few months goes by, the wife wants a divorce.  On what grounds?  Her husband’s adultery?  Her adultery?

Seventh, this one is similar to the first one, but stated differently.  If a wife has been guilty of sleeping with another man, and her husband finding out about it divorces her on the grounds of adultery, are they both eligible for remarriage according to Jesus “exception clause?” In other words, in the case of immorality on the part of a spouse, is only the innocent party free to remarry?

Eighth, if immorality breaks the “one flesh” union of a marriage, then it seems it wouldn’t matter who the guilty party is since the marriage has been broken between husband and wife. According to Jesus’ statement using the exception clause – “except for the cause of immorality,” God would legitimize remarriage for both parties – the guilty and not guilty.

It seems to me that since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, then a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman's adultery has broken the "one flesh" relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an innocent divorced woman, "If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for you to remarry."

LOL!  Hopefully, now you have a better understanding why Jesus said concerning Moses:  “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning, it was not God’s intention to be this way” (Matt. 19:8).

There are all sorts of tricky imaginable and unimaginable possibilities regarding divorce and remarriage even on so-called biblical grounds.  The eight scenarios mentioned above are actual ones I am familiar with and in some cases had to personally counsel others regarding.

End of Part 7

Double Predestination, Part 3

The Bible teaches that God actively and positively intervenes in the lives of the elect to ensure their salvation.  The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. God does not create unbelief in their hearts. Unbelief already exists.  Neither does God positively coerce the non-elect to sin. They merely sin by their own choice.

Calvin saw the choosing of the elect as a positive election and the decree not to elect others as a negative election.  Hyper-Calvinists differ in their take on double predestination in this way. They see the decree of God to choose the elect and to create unbelief in the non-elect as “positive-positive.” Calvinists see double predestination as “positive-negative.”

Here is a chart to compare the two schools of thoughts:

Calvinism                    

Positive-negative

Asymmetrical view

Unequal ultimacy

God passes over the

Reprobate

Hyper-Calvinism

Positive-Positive

Symmetrical view

Equal Ultimacy

God works unbelief in the hearts

Of the reprobate

The unsettling thought with hyper-calvinism is that God is directly involved in coercing sin in the lives of the reprobate so as to ensure they will never come to Jesus for salvation.  I believe this view does extreme injustice to the integrity of God’s character.

The primary example used to support the view of the Hyper-Calvinists is in the case of Pharaoh.  We read repeatedly that God harden Pharaoh’s heart.

God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and tell him to let My people go. Moses did and the Bible says: 

“The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Exod.  9:12; 10:20, 27; 14:8).

In Exodus 10:1, God not only hardens Pharaoh’s heart, but also the hearts of his servants.

Furthermore, at the beginning, God informed Moses that when he would stand before Pharaoh delivering God’s message “to let My people go,” God said, “but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go” (Exod. 4:21). 

So here we see that God was actively involved in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart so that in the end, God’s purposes and redemptive plan for Israel would stand.

But then again, we are still left with a serious issue.  God indeed hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but then judged him for it.  How can God hold Pharaoh and the non-elect responsible and accountable for sins that come from the heart that God Himself hardens?

End of Part 3

Double Predestination, Part 2

When speaking about double predestination, there are different views to consider.  One view in my estimation is frightening.  It is called the “Equal Ultimacy View.” 

This view bases predestination on the concept of “symmetry.” It tries to see a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key teaching behind this view is this:  Just as God personally intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith within their hearts so as to enable them to trust in Christ for salvation, so also does God equally intervene in the lives of the non-elect to create unbelief in their hearts so they are forcibly not able to trust in Jesus for salvation.

This view frightens me! You may recognize this view if you’re up on your theology as “Hyper-Calvinism.”  Perhaps, a better rendering would be “Anti-Calvinism.”  Though Calvinism has its own view of Double Predestination, it is not the Equal Ultimacy View, which actually was condemned at the Second Council of Orange in 529 B.C.  

The Equal Ultimacy View or Hyper-Calvinism is what causes many people to see predestination as a horrible concept. This may well be what causes many pastors to not even want to address its teachings to their people.  Although I am a strong believer in predestination and yes, “double predestination,” the Equal Ultimacy View is not what I have come to understand from the Word of God.

However, to be fair to those who hold to this view, they arrive at their teaching from the statements concerning God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. More to come regarding this later.

God’s decrees may be classified into two categories:  Positive and Negative. Positive has to do with God’s active intervention in the hearts of the elect to create faith to trust in Christ.  Negative has to do with God passing over or leaving the non-elect alone.   Notice the words, “passing over,” or “leaving alone,” the non-elect.  These are key words purposefully chosen to explain how God in a Biblical manner deals with the non-elect.

End of Part 2 

Double Predestination, Part 1

What do you think of when you read the words, “double predestination?”  The words sound strange to those who are not taught in theology. Even those who are educated in theology, the thought of “double predestination” is something to stay clear from.

It is one thing to believe that God chooses some to salvation.  It is another to believe that the rest have been chosen for damnation.  It is one thing to say that God has His people whom He elects unto eternal life, but what about those who are not elected?  Are they predestined to eternal hell?

Most all Christians believe in “single predestination,” that is, some are predestined by God to eternal life.  However, others say there is no need to go so far as to believe that the non-elect are predestined to damnation.

Here, let me say it this way:  Many hold to the belief that some are predestined to salvation, but nevertheless everyone has an opportunity to be saved.  God, in His sovereign choosing, makes sure that some (His elect) receive extra help, while the rest of mankind, do not receive God’s extra help, but nonetheless, still have a chance to be saved.   This is what many believe. I am going to show that this is not completely correct.

I have to admit, there is a strong point to believe in single predestination only and to avoid any discussion of double predestination.  However, unless we choose to conclude that every human being is predestined to salvation, we must talk about the flip side of election.

You see, if predestination does not include all people, then we must not shrink from the necessary inference that there are two sides to predestination.

God said, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:13).  While we have no problem talking about God’s love for Jacob, we still cannot avoid the fact that Esau was hated by God.  And if we do not choose to talk about the flip side, then it may be a choice that’s rooted in cowardice.

It is true that the Bible does not use the word “predestination” or “election” for the damned. But again, the inference is there. If God does sovereignly choose “some” to eternal life, then the “rest” are also chosen to be by-passed.  God’s choice of some is just as strong and determinative as His choice of not choosing others. 

The Bible does not mention the “Trinity” or “Rapture,” but any Bible student will tell you that there are overwhelmingly strong inferences.

I believe this is also true with regards to double predestination. While we know for a fact that God does choose some for His own personal reasons to be given eternal life and to be with Him forever, we have to conclude that for reasons known only to God, He chooses not to elect others unto eternal life.

Double predestination is a teaching that few want to talk about. But if something is taught in the Word of God or strongly suggested, then it needs to be addressed.   While we gravitate personally to those passages in the Bible that talk about God’s love for others, we also want to address such passages that do teach of God’s hatred for others we well.

End of Part 1

Will God Impeach America? Part 11

The writer of Psalm 80, asked this question concerning the nation, Israel:  “Why have you broken down its hedges” (v. 12)?

God had set a hedge of protection around the nation, Israel and then He removed it.  The nation became vulnerable to two types of destructive forces:  Destructive forces on the outside and destructive forces on the inside. What God had done to the nation of His choosing, He will do no less to a nation that is not His choosing?

America has been blessed and protected by God for many years. It appears that the hedge or protection that God has had over this wonderful nation is being taken down and now more than any other time in our history, we are more vulnerable to destructive forces than ever before.

Like Israel, we have two destructive forces to contend with:

First, Destructive Forces from Without – v. 12: “Why have you broken down its hedges,” now watch this, “So that all who pass that way pick its fruit?”

America's natural resources are being stripped away. We are at the same time losing our resources and losing our friends.   Even though we claim to be a Christian nation, some call us the “Great Satan.”  

Nations have been picking the fruit of America for a very long time. Look at how indebted we are to China. All China has to do is to call for its debts to be paid and we as a nation would be in big trouble economically.

China has also stolen much of our nuclear secrets. I heard the other day that they have the capability to sending a nuke to every major city in the U.S. 

America is being plucked!  We are facing dangers from the outside like never before.  Russia does not respect us.  North Korea laughs at us. ISIS and other Islamic radicals are hell bent in taking us down. We are spending so much money and losing plenty of lives just trying to patch up the holes in our armor and protecting our way of life. 

Because God has removed His hedge of protection from us, there are destructive forces from without seeking to bring this once great and world respected nation down to rubble and a mere memory.  But there is another kind of destructive force that we must contend with –

Second, Destructive Forces from Within – v. 13:  “A boar from the forest eats it away, and whatever moves in the field feeds on it.”

Now a hog is not only content to eat the fruit, the hog also eats at the root. Something is happening in America that is very un-American. America has become so amoral and immoral, so corrupt, so vile. For further information, consult the front page of any newspaper. A tidal wave of filth is sweeping across America. Crookedness, lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, divorce, murder, lust, dope, vice—

We say America is number one. She is number one in many types of fleshly sins -- homosexuality, radical feminism, divorce, destruction of family values, abortion, political correctness, and occult humanistic new age religion. That's America!  We’re number one all right.  Not only are we faced with the challenges of outside forces trying to take us down, but we’re doing a wonderful job taking ourselves down.

Think of what is happening in the schools of America. Prayer is out; policemen are in. Bibles are out; values clarification is in. The Ten Commandments are out, rape and armed robbery and murder and bombs are in. Creation is out; evolution is in. Corporal punishment is out; disrespect and rebellion is in. Traditional values are out; unwed motherhood is in. Abstinence is out; condoms and abortion are in. Learning is out; social engineering is in. Happy days are out; Gothic fashion, Charles Manson, gangster rap, heavy rock, heavy metal is in. Blasphemy is in; praise is out. In a public school you can tell someone to go to hell. Perhaps, it's time we told them to go to heaven!

Verse 12 mentions external dangers; verse 13 mentions internal dangers. Has America been impeached by God? How much longer can this nation last under these extreme conditions?

We’re on life support? Can we pull through? Is there still hope for America?

End of Part 11

Man’s Moral and Natural Ability, Part 12

Over in Acts 17, we come across an interesting verse. 

“Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man (Jesus) whom He has appointed” (vv. 30-31). 

Salvation is a command!  If it wasn’t, then God could not hold people responsible for rejecting the gospel in the day of judgment (cf. Luke 24:47; Acts 26:20).  Furthermore, if salvation is not a command by God, but left to each person to choose their own destiny without consequences, then those who respond to God’s command and believe in Jesus (Acts 16:30-31), would not be held accountable to live righteously afterwards (cf. Titus 2:11-13).

My point is this:  Since God commands people to believe in Christ, how is it possible to do so when one is “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1)?  We’re told that those who are “in the flesh” (in their natural state) “cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7-8).  Who are those in the flesh?  They are the ones who have not the Holy Spirit living with them (Rom. 8:9). 

Such people in their natural state cannot respond to God’s command unless they are first “born again” by the Spirit of God.  If an unsaved person could choose Christ in his fallen state apart from the assistance of God, then they could be subject to at least one of God’s commands and they could at least do something that is pleasing to God.  But the Bible says that “those in the flesh CANNOT please God” (Rom. 8:8).  It is impossible for anyone apart from being born again to keep any of God’s commands with respect of pleasing Him.

Therefore, the Bible concludes with this thought for all eternity: Man is free to choose what he desires, but because he desires are only wicked he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ for salvation which is the highest possible good.  He lacks this desire unless God Himself puts the desire within His heart to respond.  As long as man remains in the flesh or in his unregenerate state, he will never choose to come to Christ for forgiveness of sins.  Man needs divine help.  He needs to be born again in order to believe in Jesus.

No one is going to act against his will. Man’s fall is great. It is so great that only the effectual grace of God working in his heart can bring him to faith.

In my next series of studies on predestination, I will tackle the issue of “double predestination.”

End of Part 12

Understanding Reality, Part 1

How do we explain reality?  Is this world merely an illusion?  Or maybe the world we’re living in is self-created, that is, it was created by chance. 

We have to agree that there is something. We see, feel, taste, touch and hear.  Whatever there is, we have to conclude that there is something tangible for us to call reality.

Let’s consider the belief that the world in which we are living is self-existent and eternal.  If this is true, then on the other hand, it would be logically impossible for the world to be self-created, because for something to create itself, it would have to exist before it was, and it would therefore have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.  This would be totally absurd.  Is it therefore, rationally possible and reasonable for something to be self-existent and eternal than for something to be self-created. 

When we put side by side “self-creation” and “self-existence,” they seem similar. However, there is a big difference.  There is no logical contradiction with something that is self-existent and eternal – that is a being not caused by something else.

Herein is where some become confused – it is over the law of cause and effect. Some reason that everything must have a cause.  But the law of cause and effect simply is saying that only every “effect” must have a cause, because an effect by definition is that which is produced by something outside of itself. Therefore, the idea of an “uncaused” being is perfectly rational as a starting point to accept as a way to explain reality.

We can conceive of an uncaused being – someone who is self-existent and eternal without violating rationality. Reason allows for us to believe in such a being.  What we cannot with our human minds conceive is a self-created being. There is no way we can get our minds wrapped around the idea of there being a being who at the same time and relationship is both a cause and effect.

If we accept the fact that we are not living in a world of illusion, but in a world in which something eternal does exist, then the idea of a self-existent and eternal being becomes not only possible, but necessary.

End of Part 1

A Fresh Look at Divorce and Remarriage, Part 7

Before diving into the passages on divorce and remarriage, let’s pause again and see the seriousness of marriage as it is taught in the Bible.   Remember, if we are going understand the seriousness of divorce and remarriage, then we need to come to see the sanctity of marriage and how God views it.

Over in the last book of the Old Testament (Malachi), God tells the people how He has rejected their worship (sacrifices and offerings).  God “no longer regards their offering or accepts it with favor from their hands” (2:13). 

So the people respond sarcastically, “For what reason?  What did we do?” (v. 14).

God responds:  “I have been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (v. 15). 

Again, the same response by God is repeated in the next verse:  “Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth” (v. 15). 

Why does God say this? Why is God rejecting the peoples’ worship? Verse 16: God says, “I hate divorce. . .and him who covers his garments with wrong.”

God is not saying here, “I hate some divorce and some I like.” This verse is teaching that God hates ALL divorce!  To divorce oneself from a spouse or to break apart a marriage was never God’s intention in the beginning (cf. Matt. 19:8). 

So while the people and priests in Malachi days were busy divorcing their spouses, especially the men, they were still carrying on in worship as if nothing bad had just taken place. It’s all good!  Divorce the spouse, but continue right on performing acts of worship.

And notice what else God says He hates: “I hate . . .him who covers his garments with wrong” (v. 16). Those who justify their choice to divorce and go right on pretending nothing serious before the eyes of God has occurred, are “covering their garments with wrong.”  In other words, they are merely trying to justify their actions.

So God, through the prophet, Malachi, says, “I have no regard for your worship or your offerings to Me.”  The people respond:  “Why, what did we do?”  And God tells them: “You are doing the very thing I hate – you are dealing with your wives treacherously, which amounts to having a divorce.”

And so again, the third time, God says to the people: How “treacherously” they had had dealt with their spouses (see vv. 14, 15, 16).

From God perspective, can you see how serious a marriage is? How important it is to live and stay married? And when divorce does occur, it is not to be viewed or taken lightly. God “hates divorce” and calls it dealing “treacherously” with your spouse. 

Divorce is so serious, that it has the capability of cutting off the flow of worship to God. It's like God saying, “You have rejected Me and my Word, by dealing treacherously with your spouse, I, therefore, reject your worship.  I find no favor in your so-called worship of Me.”

Even though there may be grounds for divorce (which will be examine shortly), divorce was never God’s plan from the beginning. When it is performed, God hates it!

Thank God there is plenty of forgiveness from the heart of God to the sinner.  But in order to receive God’s forgiveness, this much is true: One cannot merely justify his choice of divorce and move on as if nothing wrong happened. God hates all divorce, even those He has allowed to be permitted.

End of Part 7