David Cloud

[...]

8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

According to scripture, if a unbeliving dpeart, let them depart, the believer is not under bondage to them. Also, both spouses committed fornication against us. That tells me, if I am not bound to an unbeliever who has willingly abandoned me, I am free to marry.

With genuine and humble respect to you, brother, I disagree. I am familiar with such arguments and they seem like "loophole" arguments to me.  To my ears, it sounds like when a brother is pestering his sister by poking her and their father says, "Jimmy, stop touching your sister."  Then Jimmy sticks his finger in his sister's face, about a half an inch away from her skin, and chants, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you." What were their father's words?  "Don't touch your sister."  Was Jimmy obeying the words of his father?  In a court of law, yes.  What did their father mean?  Stop bothering your sister. Did Jimmy know that this is really what his father meant?  Yes.  Was Jimmy obeying his father's intent?  No; rather he was, in a sense, mocking the instruction of his father.

What I notice, throughout Christendom, is that there seems to be a general attitude of, "How close to sin can I get and still be obedient?" instead of, "How close to sin must I get in order to be obedient?"  

The default seems to be that we will live as much like the world as possible until someone can show us, indisputably from Scripture, that we must abstain from certain worldly behaviors.  

(1 Thessalonians 5:21-22) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. {22} Abstain from all appearance of evil." 

When Paul was talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:7-13), he said that they could if they wanted to, but if they didn't want to, that was fine too; but neither decision was better than the other.  However, if eating the food would be a stumblingblock to others, then they must not eat it.  He said, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

I believe that the Scriptures are clear enough about the subject, but the attitude that Paul says that we must have toward each other, seems to close up any loopholes that might be ferreted out.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Brother Stafford

[swathdiver]

On 9/8/2016 at 1:18 AM, Particular Baptist said:

Very simply, if you have not seen his Calvinism Debate so bloated with hackneyed circular logic and assumption, such as all monergists believe in the double predestination error (see marchtozion.com, searching for "absoluters excommunicated"), do so. Also, on Christmas Cloud has no problem with the Pagan tree (Jer. 10), but yet condemns the pagan and papist roots thereof. Here is one such example exposing that bitter Marian persecutor Francis Assissi, http://www.wayoflife.org/reports/francis_o_assisi.html. Yet, knowing the Roman roots of the Xmas, Cloud justified them, but has removed his Have a Blessed Christmas article from the Way of Life website. It is possible he changed his beliefs, but in as far as I understand celebrates Christmas. 

Yea, verily, we could beat a fool a hundred strokes and he will be yet a fool. 

Well, I still don't get what you're saying at all.  Neither do I see any connection between Jeremiah 10 and a Christmas tree.

[Ukulelemike]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 4:45 PM, Brother Stafford said:

With genuine and humble respect to you, brother, I disagree. I am familiar with such arguments and they seem like "loophole" arguments to me.  To my ears, it sounds like when a brother is pestering his sister by poking her and their father says, "Jimmy, stop touching your sister."  Then Jimmy sticks his finger in his sister's face, about a half an inch away from her skin, and chants, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you." What were their father's words?  "Don't touch your sister."  Was Jimmy obeying the words of his father?  In a court of law, yes.  What did their father mean?  Stop bothering your sister. Did Jimmy know that this is really what his father meant?  Yes.  Was Jimmy obeying his father's intent?  No; rather he was, in a sense, mocking the instruction of his father.

What I notice, throughout Christendom, is that there seems to be a general attitude of, "How close to sin can I get and still be obedient?" instead of, "How close to sin must I get in order to be obedient?"  

The default seems to be that we will live as much like the world as possible until someone can show us, indisputably from Scripture, that we must abstain from certain worldly behaviors.  

(1 Thessalonians 5:21-22) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. {22} Abstain from all appearance of evil." 

When Paul was talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:7-13), he said that they could if they wanted to, but if they didn't want to, that was fine too; but neither decision was better than the other.  However, if eating the food would be a stumblingblock to others, then they must not eat it.  He said, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

I believe that the Scriptures are clear enough about the subject, but the attitude that Paul says that we must have toward each other, seems to close up any loopholes that might be ferreted out.

So simply, you just accept the Baptist tradition of 'All divorce and remarriage is wrong' and willingly reject what the word of God says. I get it.  

How exactly is it a loophole? Consider, in our case, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with, since it is what you quoted:

1: both of us were believers, (my current wife and I), while our spouses were unbelievers.

2: we were both happy to remain with them, but they, the unbelievers, both chose to leave us. Not our choice, not an issue of seeing how close we can get to sin-they left us, willingly, and in the case of my first wife, into the house and bed of another man.

3: We both sought resolution and reuniting, but both were rejected (like Hovind)

4: According to clear scripture, NOT a lophole, (are there loopholes in scripture?), neither of us are under bondage, ie, bound, to that unbelieving spouse, which would clearly indicate we are free to remarry. What part of "Not under bondage" do you not understand?

This so aggravates me, I have to admit: the Bible is so abundantly clear in this, yet we MUST tow the line on "Divorce is ALWAYS a sin and remarriage is just continual sin forever." I have visited churches where it was made clear that if one was divorced, they were not fit for any service in the church, they were to sit down, shut up and, oh, by the way, pay your tithe. This is the fruit of this tradition of men-from one unbiblical position to another.

[Jordan Kurecki]

2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

So simply, you just accept the Baptist tradition of 'All divorce and remarriage is wrong' and willingly reject what the word of God says. I get it.  

How exactly is it a loophole? Consider, in our case, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with, since it is what you quoted:

1: both of us were believers, (my current wife and I), while our spouses were unbelievers.

2: we were both happy to remain with them, but they, the unbelievers, both chose to leave us. Not our choice, not an issue of seeing how close we can get to sin-they left us, willingly, and in the case of my first wife, into the house and bed of another man.

3: We both sought resolution and reuniting, but both were rejected (like Hovind)

4: According to clear scripture, NOT a lophole, (are there loopholes in scripture?), neither of us are under bondage, ie, bound, to that unbelieving spouse, which would clearly indicate we are free to remarry. What part of "Not under bondage" do you not understand?

This so aggravates me, I have to admit: the Bible is so abundantly clear in this, yet we MUST tow the line on "Divorce is ALWAYS a sin and remarriage is just continual sin forever." I have visited churches where it was made clear that if one was divorced, they were not fit for any service in the church, they were to sit down, shut up and, oh, by the way, pay your tithe. This is the fruit of this tradition of men-from one unbiblical position to another.

Your taking one phrase "is not under bondage" and redefining it to mean free to remarry...that interpretation contradicts the rest of scripture. 

[Ukulelemike]

12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Your taking one phrase "is not under bondage" and redefining it to mean free to remarry...that interpretation contradicts the rest of scripture. 

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. (1Cor 7:27-28)  Now, we can declare this is for ''virgins', except that it speaks to those who are 'loosed' from a wife, thus, NOT a virgin.. Would that not fall under those believers not under bondage to an unbelieving spouse who has left?  Being not 'under bondage' is the same word used in Galatians 4:3, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:", speaking of our bondage to sin and to the law, but Christ freed us from that bondage-something we are completely and totally free from, now able to pursue another life. Clearly, then, if we are not under bondage, ie, the bond of marriage, then we are similarly free to pursue a new life. And while we had been in bondage to sin, so we are freed to live eternally with Christ, so if we are not under bondage to a spouse, then we are free to dwell with another. To assume that being NOT in bondage would not allow one to remarry, is really to keep that person in bondage. I cannot agree with you, my brother, and believe that this idea does violence to the word of God. it doesn't contradict the rest of scripture, by the way. Nowhere does Jesus say (speaking under the law, by the way, not to us) that one cannot remarry if their spouse has comitted adultery against them. Nowhere does Paul say we cannot remarry, save for the woman who has unbiblically departed from her husband. And thus far, I can't speak to Mary Tocco's divorce as I cannot find anything about it.

Somplease, show me all the scripture that declares someone divorced cannot remarry.

[Jordan Kurecki]

39 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. (1Cor 7:27-28)  Now, we can declare this is for ''virgins', except that it speaks to those who are 'loosed' from a wife, thus, NOT a virgin.. Would that not fall under those believers not under bondage to an unbelieving spouse who has left?  Being not 'under bondage' is the same word used in Galatians 4:3, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:", speaking of our bondage to sin and to the law, but Christ freed us from that bondage-something we are completely and totally free from, now able to pursue another life. Clearly, then, if we are not under bondage, ie, the bond of marriage, then we are similarly free to pursue a new life. And while we had been in bondage to sin, so we are freed to live eternally with Christ, so if we are not under bondage to a spouse, then we are free to dwell with another. To assume that being NOT in bondage would not allow one to remarry, is really to keep that person in bondage. I cannot agree with you, my brother, and believe that this idea does violence to the word of God. it doesn't contradict the rest of scripture, by the way. Nowhere does Jesus say (speaking under the law, by the way, not to us) that one cannot remarry if their spouse has comitted adultery against them. Nowhere does Paul say we cannot remarry, save for the woman who has unbiblically departed from her husband. And thus far, I can't speak to Mary Tocco's divorce as I cannot find anything about it.

Somplease, show me all the scripture that declares someone divorced cannot remarry.

Romans 7:2-3 KJV
[2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

 

 

[swathdiver]

5 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Somplease, show me all the scripture that declares someone divorced cannot remarry.

Over the years I've done this with you Mike but you continue to confuse/confound what the Lord said in Matthew and 1st Corinthians.  For church age believers, the doctrine of marriage is given in 1st Corinthians only, as it was in the beginning (before the Law).  They way you've defined "not under bondage" or "bondage" is unscriptural because it then causes other verses to be seem contradictory.

In the book of Matthew, all Christ was doing was pointing back to the Law, he gave no new commandment.  It was the Apostle Paul that gave the doctrine of marriage in 1st Corinthians for the church age, one man, one woman till death do them part.  To say they both apply today is confusion because they are contradictory.

As I've admonished you before, you need to read all of that chapter in the Corinthians on marriage, not just the first verses.  Paul keeps providing examples on why it is one man, one woman for life.  And if they do depart, remain parted or be reconciled, that's it.  An unbelieving spouse is all the more reason to stay married as Paul says, not the excuse to separate/remarry as you've claimed.  Verse 27 again admonishes the couple to remain single or be reconciled and not to part to begin with.

And again, that's not to say that if a man or woman sins by engaging in a second marriage that God cannot forgive, for he will forgive.  And that's not to say that such a man or woman is not fit for service in the local church, for they can serve but the man is now disqualified from being a deacon or pastor. 

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:27

 

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:" - 1st Corinthians 7;10

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:11

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." - 1st Corinthians 7:12

"And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." - 1st Corinthians 7:13

[Invicta]

14 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

Over the years I've done this with you Mike but you continue to confuse/confound what the Lord said in Matthew and 1st Corinthians.  For church age believers, the doctrine of marriage is given in 1st Corinthians only, as it was in the beginning (before the Law).  They way you've defined "not under bondage" or "bondage" is unscriptural because it then causes other verses to be seem contradictory.

In the book of Matthew, all Christ was doing was pointing back to the Law, he gave no new commandment.  It was the Apostle Paul that gave the doctrine of marriage in 1st Corinthians for the church age, one man, one woman till death do them part.  To say they both apply today is confusion because they are contradictory.

As I've admonished you before, you need to read all of that chapter in the Corinthians on marriage, not just the first verses.  Paul keeps providing examples on why it is one man, one woman for life.  And if they do depart, remain parted or be reconciled, that's it.  An unbelieving spouse is all the more reason to stay married as Paul says, not the excuse to separate/remarry as you've claimed.  Verse 27 again admonishes the couple to remain single or be reconciled and not to part to begin with.

And again, that's not to say that if a man or woman sins by engaging in a second marriage that God cannot forgive, for he will forgive.  And that's not to say that such a man or woman is not fit for service in the local church, for they can serve but the man is now disqualified from being a deacon or pastor. 

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:27

 

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:" - 1st Corinthians 7;10

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:11

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." - 1st Corinthians 7:12

"And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." - 1st Corinthians 7:13

 

[Ukulelemike]

1 hour ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Romans 7:2-3 KJV
[2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

 

 

Bound by the law-we are not under that law. If this was the case, it directly contradicts what Paul said that we are not bound to the unbelieving spouse. So, you are incorrect.

[Ukulelemike]

1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

Over the years I've done this with you Mike but you continue to confuse/confound what the Lord said in Matthew and 1st Corinthians.  For church age believers, the doctrine of marriage is given in 1st Corinthians only, as it was in the beginning (before the Law).  They way you've defined "not under bondage" or "bondage" is unscriptural because it then causes other verses to be seem contradictory.

In the book of Matthew, all Christ was doing was pointing back to the Law, he gave no new commandment.  It was the Apostle Paul that gave the doctrine of marriage in 1st Corinthians for the church age, one man, one woman till death do them part.  To say they both apply today is confusion because they are contradictory.

As I've admonished you before, you need to read all of that chapter in the Corinthians on marriage, not just the first verses.  Paul keeps providing examples on why it is one man, one woman for life.  And if they do depart, remain parted or be reconciled, that's it.  An unbelieving spouse is all the more reason to stay married as Paul says, not the excuse to separate/remarry as you've claimed.  Verse 27 again admonishes the couple to remain single or be reconciled and not to part to begin with.

And again, that's not to say that if a man or woman sins by engaging in a second marriage that God cannot forgive, for he will forgive.  And that's not to say that such a man or woman is not fit for service in the local church, for they can serve but the man is now disqualified from being a deacon or pastor. 

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:27

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. -1Cor 7:28 But you insist it IS a sin? Even though Paul says is ISN'T a sin? Who's running this show, anyways? 

 

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:" - 1st Corinthians 7;10

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:11

If her husband put her away in an unbiblical manner, then she should be free to marry. The Bible actually doesn't address that specific aspect of it, but if the husband did her wrong, and the Bible doesn't say in that case, that she must remain unmarried, (that only applies, in context, to a woman that left her husband), then we should assume and allow liberty.

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." - 1st Corinthians 7:12

"And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." - 1st Corinthians 7:13

And neither Kent Hovind, nor Mary Tocco left/put away their spouses, so far as we know, so they are not in bondage, and thus, are free to marry.

I agree that Jesus was pointing to the law, something we are no longer under, so what He said was for the jews under the law. We can disregard the specifics, though of course we must consider that, yes, from the beginning it was to be one man and one woman. But consider, even though God declared that kings were to have one wife, not only did He bless David in all his wives, he told David that He would have given him more, had he asked. What are we to take from that? Consider that Ezra the scribe demanded that the Jews returning from Babylon eject their wives and children and send them away, so as to please God?

All the verses above I have dealt with, but it seems we only want to consider part of them. It is as dangerous to take away from God's word as it is to add to it. I am not adding, but you are taking from. be very careful in removing scripture to make oit suit your views.  We so badly want to believe that it is always a sin to divorce and remarry, that we are willing to alter God's word to suit that view but it is just plain wrong, as wrong as the Pharisees who asked Jesus if it was alright for a man to put away his wife for any reason. There are boundaries, certainly, but there are acceptable reasons for divorce and remarriage, and when there is not something specified, we must allow for liberty.

[wretched]

I Cor 7: 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

 

It is simple English. As with every other seemingly contradictory issue, this one only seems contradictory when timing, audience and context are ignored.

 

 

[John Young]

We certainly are not bound to the law as that was what the Pharisees pointed to in order to validate divorce. However, Christ did not point to the law but to the heart of God in His creative acts. 

Mark 10:4-8 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to puther away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Paul did not say the believing were free from their spouse but rather the unbelieving. Kent's wife is a believer and so he is not free to marry another and be guiltless. "She left me first" is not a justifiable excuse to remarry. Obviously there is forgiveness from God in this but their will also be repercussions from God as well.

1 Corinthians 6:15-17 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Kent's wife did not divorce him for another man and is still single. Rather Kent chose his new ministry over her and has decided to go his own way without considering her needs. She stayed faithful all the while he was in prison and the thought was that when he got out that their son would continue to run the ministry and he would be retired for a while. That is why his son, Eric, salvaged what he could of the ministry property and transferred it all to the new company, God Quest, Inc., and kept the ministry running all these years.

The time leading up to the divorce (and even now) there was a very real possibility that the government would bring a new case against Mr. and Mrs. Hovind to imprison them and then seize the company's assets but Kent started/continued a separate ministry in their company owned home (created a link for the government back to Mrs. Hovind, their son, and the company). They repeatedly tried to get him to understand the need not to start this separate ministry but he would not listen. The legal divorce and eviction were to create a division between them in order to keep the government from building a case against them again. I doubt Kent understands this and took it as them betraying him (he was never good with legal regulations and financial accountability). So he decided to move on with his separate ministry rather then leaving it to work on their marriage.

Now he is trying to use God and His Word to justify a new marriage to a divorced woman. He has somewhat acknowledged (not directly) that what he is about to do is a sin but then he tries to justify that God will forgive him anyway because "we are all sinners" and shouldn't judge him in this area "because we all lust" and "its better to marry [by implication adding "again"] then to burn". I still like Kent  and pray for him and his future usefulness with God but I do think this is all very tragic.

Edited September 13, 2016 by John Young

[swathdiver]

On 9/12/2016 at 11:53 AM, Ukulelemike said:

All the verses above I have dealt with, but it seems we only want to consider part of them. It is as dangerous to take away from God's word as it is to add to it. I am not adding, but you are taking from. be very careful in removing scripture to make oit suit your views.  We so badly want to believe that it is always a sin to divorce and remarry, that we are willing to alter God's word to suit that view but it is just plain wrong, as wrong as the Pharisees who asked Jesus if it was alright for a man to put away his wife for any reason. There are boundaries, certainly, but there are acceptable reasons for divorce and remarriage, and when there is not something specified, we must allow for liberty.

   I will counter and say you're projecting, accusing me of what you yourself are doing.  The meanings you've attached to those verses in green to justify remarriage cause confusion, cause other words of the Lord to contradict yours.  God is not the author of confusion.  

   Have you ever wondered why your ministry struggles so?   “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:” - Psalm 66:18

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

 Have you ever wondered why your ministry struggles so?   “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:” - Psalm 66:18

I think you should remove this.

There is no way that you can attribute the position of that church to this issue.

There are too many other factors.

Noah's ministry was small but it was not due to his sin.

Job faced many struggles but it was because he was upright.

I don't think you can speak for God in this way.

The verse is a true statement, but to link it in such a definitive way...........

[John Young]

1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

   I will counter and say you're projecting, accusing me of what you yourself are doing.  The meanings you've attached to those verses in green to justify remarriage cause confusion, cause other words of the Lord to contradict yours.  God is not the author of confusion.  

   Have you ever wondered why your ministry struggles so?   “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:” - Psalm 66:18

 

36 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I think you should remove this.

There is no way that you can attribute the position of that church to this issue.

There are too many other factors.

Noah's ministry was small but it was not due to his sin.

Job faced many struggles but it was because he was upright.

I don't think you can speak for God in this way.

The verse is a true statement, but to link it in such a definitive way...........

The principle in Psalm 66:18 is in fact linked to the remarriage issue hindering a man's ministry. In Malachi 2 were he said God would not hear them because they despised the covenant of their youth and God took it personally as a reflection on them despising His own covenant with them:

Malachi 2

And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it. 4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. 7 For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts. 13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.

14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

17 Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

Edited September 14, 2016 by John Young