"Sin is the transgression of a law, yea of a good law, yea of God’s law. Sin presupposes that there is a law in being, for where is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4.15). But where there is sin, there is a law, and a transgression of the law. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is a transgression of the law (1 John 3.4). That this is the sin intended in out text is apparent from Romans 7.7.
Now the law not only forbids the doing of evil, whether by thought, word or deed, but also commands the doing of good. So to omit the good commanded is sin, as well (or ill) as is the doing of the evil that is forbidden. Against the fruit of the Spirit there is no law, but against the works of the flesh (for the antithesis holds) there is law, for they are all against the law, as the Apostle tells us (Galatians 5.19-24). Whatever, then, transgresses the law of God--in whole or in part (James 2.10)--is therefore and therein a sin, whether it break an affirmative or a negative precept i.e. whether it is the omission of good or the commission of evil.1"
Sin, it can be agreed upon at the outset, is a failure to meet the requirement of God’s law. Somewhere along the lines of history, though, the term has been misconstrued to mean something that is yet still offensive to those who are labeled “sinners,” but the word does not carry with it, the same weight that it once did. The way culture “hates the sin, but not the sinner” is a redefinition on it’s part, and completely changes the mindset of people who define sin as something that can simply be taken out of a person. Sin is not like a person who is at the control panel of an army tank, who if killed, would then leave the tank free for usage by the opposing army. It would be more sound to equate sin to an incurable, highly contagious virus, in which case the only thing left to do is to kill or shun the person infected by it. The awful truth though, is that the whole human race is affected by this death. But just as if a murderer were placed into a community of like-killers, it would not benefit him to write off his neighbor as a friend just because he had the same murderous nature that was so characteristic of himself. An objection then arises, that if men cannot be separated from their sin, then the Divine Law which was given must pertain to something more than a simple list of ‘do’s and don’ts.’ This is sound reasoning, and can be satisfied along with the answer to a relative question, namely, what does the Bible mean when it speaks of ‘the Law?’
"When the word of God is set before us in the Scriptures, it were certainly most absurd to imagine that it is only a fleeting and evanescent voice, which is set out into the air, and come forth beyond God himself, as was the case with the communications made to the patriarchs, and all the prophecies. The reference rather is to the wisdom ever dwelling with God, and by which all oracles and prophesies were inspired. For as Peter testifies (1Pet 1.11), the ancient prophets spoke by the Spirit of Christ just as did the apostles, and all who after them were ministers of the heavenly doctrine. But as Christ was not yet manifested we necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before all ages. But if that Spirit, whose organs the prophets were, belonged to the Word, the inference is irresistible, that the Word was truly God [emphases added]. And this is clearly enough shown by Moses in his account of creation, where he places the Word as intermediate. For why does he distinctly narrate that God, in creating each of His works, said, Let there be this--let there be that, unless that the unsearchable glory of God might shine forth in His image? I know prattlers would easily evade this, by saying that “Word” is used for order or commands; but the apostles are better expositors, when they tell us that the world were created by the Son, and that he sustains all things by his mighty word (Heb 1.2). For we here see that “word” is used for the nod or command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father.2"
So then, one can see that from Scripture, (with the extraordinary help of Mr. Calvin), that the Divinely spoken word is no less God than the Spirit is less than the Father. God is simple, in that He is whole and one with Himself in all that He is and does.
“The Father is made of none,” says the Athanasian Creed, “neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but preceeding.” God exists in Himself and of Himself. His being He owes to no one. His substance is indivisible. He has no parts but is single in His unitary being.
"The doctrine of the divine unity means not only that there is but one God; it means also that God is simple, uncomplex, one with Himself. The harmony of His being is the result not of a perfect balance of parts but of the absence of parts. Between His attributes no contradiction can exist. He need not suspend one to exercise another, for in Him all attributes are one.3"
One can conclude from all of this, that the Law, quite literally, is God. If the Word of God is God because “‘word’ is used for the nod or command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father.”--and if the Command of God is the Law of God, then it follows that the Law is God inseparable.
The ramifications of this concept shed completely new light on the subject of sin. With the notion that the Law is God in mind, we can look at the words of the apostle Paul in a new light:
"So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.4"
Paul is saying that the law is what gave him the realization that he was a sinner by nature. He previously mentions a more specific law, namely “you shall not covet.” This is the type of law that would be better characterized as a command. Commands have correlating consequences if they are not adhered to, as does the law as a whole, for why would there be a law if not for the fact that there were a punishment for transgressing the law? The apostle acknowledges the reality of the wrath that is due for his transgression, specifically that he coveted when the law clearly stated that he was not to covet. This is all fine when speaking narrowly about the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, but what about in the greater view, when one can step back and know that the Law represents God, and all that encompasses that reality (if it were possible to encompass The Supreme Being)? To draw a parallel, the command “you shall not covet”--on the scale regarding ordinances--directly correlates to the Transcendence and Holiness of God--on the scale regarding the Law being God.
A more clear representation of sin can now be drawn taking into account everything discussed above: that sin is the failure to fulfill the law. To sin is to come short in attaining what God has decreed is perfection--holiness. Sin is literally, failure to be--or the state of not being--God.
1 Venning, Ralph. The Sinfulness of Sin (Puritan Paperbacks). New Ed ed. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996.
2 Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Limited ed. Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
3 Tozer, A. W.. The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life. New York: Harperone, 1998.
4 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ro 7:12-13.
09 February 2010
03 February 2010
“Whoring” for His Good Pleasure
It seems to be the common teaching among American churches in recent years that Christians are forbidden by God to intermarry: Christian to non-Christian. This simply is not a teaching that has any warrant inside of Scripture. In actuality, there is more evidence that men should marry non-Christian women1 as opposed to abstaining from the institution all-together. This became apparent to me over this past summer when I was pursuing a more intimate relationship with a girl who was not a Professing Christian at the time.
There were brothers in my church who had very strong warnings against what I was doing, and even my ex-youth pastor got involved. Yet with every confrontation about my situation, the arguments I presented in scripture to my defense always came out on top, without any legitimate refutation. If religious intermarriage is seen as such a grievous thing to many in the Church, and is regarded as sinful, or even blasphemous, it would follow that there would be multiple proofs of this apparent outrage, and yet there is not a single one inside of Scripture. People try to make certain passages mean what they want them to mean, but this is a severe transgression on their part. For the Church to look at a man who is pursuing an un-saved woman for marriage purposes, and condemn him for it is a serious problem that must be corrected. It is aproblem because not only do people misinterpret Scripture in this area, (which is enough of a problem in itself), but it also stifles any good that could come out of such a pursuit. A union like the one in question could prove to be a very God-glorifying one, despite the vast belief that it is an abomination. Pursuing the marriage of an unsaved person is not prohibited within the Bible, and is even warranted.
Many people will look at this hypothesis and immediately turn their attention to 2 Corinthians 6:14 which apparently prohibits Christians from marrying non-Christians. What people seem to ignore though, is the fact that the writer never mentions marriage in the passage itself, nor in the surrounding context. The section of 2 Corinthians people point to as proof to their argument is a mere seven sentences long. That small paragraph is right in the middle of the writer’s--Paul the Apostle--recollection and contemplation on his previous trials. Why would someone go into detail about all the persecution that goes along with being a Christian, randomly insert an instruction on the marriage sacrament, and then go on to analyze his experiences in his trials? It makes more sense that the passage speaking about being “unequally yoked” is referring to Paul’s trials rather than marriage.
“Though verses 14-15 are often applied to various sorts of alliances (e.g., mixed marriages, improper business associations), Paul’s primary association was probably ecclesiastical.2” Paul wasn’t writing to the Church to warn them from marrying non-Christians, but was exhorting them to expel the pagan worshippers from among them so as to keep the Church pure for times of trouble. The Church is a body, and just like a body, if there are parasites or contaminated parts, the body as a whole is more susceptible to falter in times of sickness or pain. If their is a fortress made of cement bricks, but in a few places are some bricks made of soft clay, the fortress will crumble because of those few bricks that were posing as legitimate strongholds. Christians are constantly under persecution, trials, and stress, and if there are Pagans who are imposing to be strong uplifters of the actual Christians around them, the believers will lose to worldly powers.
Paul was writing to the Corinthians in a time when the early Church was being widely persecuted. Even the Apostle himself, “five times, received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times was beaten with rods. Once was stoned. Three times was shipwrecked; a night and a day was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from [his] own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure (2 Corinthians 11:24-27).” Just before Paul speaks of being unequally yoked, in verses 6:3-10, he refers to these trials that he and his brothers with him had to go through. He lists the tribulations, gives the charge to not be unequally yoked, and finally rejoices in his afflictions. The logical flow of things leads the reader to infer that when verse fourteen turns up, Paul is referring to his brothers who went through the trials with him. If he was “yoked” with non-Christians, Paul would have been demoralized and deterred in his mission to evangelize the nations.
“Yoke was used figuratively as a symbol of hardship, submission, or servitude.3” Trials are burdens: yokes are burdens. Paul talks about his trials, and immediately refers to a yoke. Somewhere in Church history, someone decided to separate and misinterpret the two passages, and it has left the Church confusing the verse for decades. When people misinterpret a passage of scripture, it is easy to debunk the delusion when one takes the context into account. It nails the
point home though, when one can not only disprove the fallacy using the surrounding text, but can identify instances in Scripture where the interpretation actually conflicts with other passages. To interpret 2 Corinthians 6.14 the way the majority of American “Christianity” does would be to contradict the entire book of Hosea.
“For the purpose of depicting before the eyes of the sinful people the judgment to which Israel has exposed itself through its apostasy from the Lord, Hosea is to marry a prostitute, and beget children by her, whose names are so appointed by Jehovah as to point out the evil fruits of the departure from God.4” The book of Hosea is an account of God’s command to His prophet to marry a prostitute. A prostitute is not a Christian because she is living one of the most detestable lifestyles one can live, yet it pleased God that His representative would become one flesh (and even produce children), with a pagan whore. “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have dchildren of whoredom, for ethe land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD.5” “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins.6” God commands the man twice to marry the non-Christian woman, and Hosea obeys with God’s blessing. Most modern evangelicals cringe at the idea of a combined, Christian/non-Christian marriage, let alone one who’s better half is a cult prostitute.
Another instance where God commands His people to marry pagan women is in Numbers 31. God commands, “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him fkeep alive for yourselves7” which blatantly goes against any thoughts that cross-religion marriages are wrong. The Israelites had just finished conquering the Midianite men, and were then instructed by God to take for themselves, the virgin women of the land. The Midianites were a pagan
people, and common thought in the Church today would prohibit such a practice, but to do so would be to contradict God.
There are innumerable good things that could possibly come out of a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian. For the Israelites, there were more women with which to bear children and grow the population. With Hosea, he depicted to the Israelites, exactly how whorish they were being towards God. The Church is hurting today because of it’s legalism in this regard. They accept the sayings of their elders without question, when there is scripture that contradicts people’s claims. Not only does misinterpretation on the Church’s part, hurt her, but the good things that could come out of such marriages are being stifled. It’s difficult to say how that would look practically, but who would have thought God would have told a prophet to marry a whore for His good pleasure? Change needs to happen, because this is a problem.
1 Notice the clarification: men marrying women. While I would argue that it is not necessarily “UN-Biblical” for a man to marry a pagan woman, it is utterly sinful for a woman to marry an unsaved man (1 Cor. 11.3; 14.35 ESV). Chapter eleven of “First Corinthians” makes the man out to be ‘the head’ in the relationship, in correlation to Christ being ‘the head’ of the man, and God being Christ’s ‘head.’ So the implication is that the man is the ‘spiritual father’ to the woman, just as it is with the relationship between The Father and Christ, and Christ and the man.
Moving on to chapter fourteen of “First Corinthians,” the context is an exhortation to women to keep silent in the congregation, and instead of inquiring at the church gathering, to ask her questions to her husband in the privacy of their own home. The implication is that 1) the husband of the wife must be knowledgeable enough in the Word, to be ready for any question his wife presents to him, 2) that he must be saved, so as to be acquainted with Spiritual truths, once and for all, delivered to the saints (Jude 1.3), and 3) that he should always be in the process of being concerned with the spiritual state of his wife: discipling her, and growing her up in the Faith, so that she doesn’t have to question what she hears in church.
2 John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary., The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), 2:570.
3Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers. Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature., Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 1153.
4 Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 10:26.
dch. 2:4 e[ch. 2:5]; See Ezek. 16:15
5 dch. 2:4 e[ch. 2:5]; See Ezek. 16:15 5The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ho 1:2.
6 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ho 3:1. fSee Deut. 21:10–14
7 fSee Deut. 21:10–14 7 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Nu 31:17-18.
There were brothers in my church who had very strong warnings against what I was doing, and even my ex-youth pastor got involved. Yet with every confrontation about my situation, the arguments I presented in scripture to my defense always came out on top, without any legitimate refutation. If religious intermarriage is seen as such a grievous thing to many in the Church, and is regarded as sinful, or even blasphemous, it would follow that there would be multiple proofs of this apparent outrage, and yet there is not a single one inside of Scripture. People try to make certain passages mean what they want them to mean, but this is a severe transgression on their part. For the Church to look at a man who is pursuing an un-saved woman for marriage purposes, and condemn him for it is a serious problem that must be corrected. It is aproblem because not only do people misinterpret Scripture in this area, (which is enough of a problem in itself), but it also stifles any good that could come out of such a pursuit. A union like the one in question could prove to be a very God-glorifying one, despite the vast belief that it is an abomination. Pursuing the marriage of an unsaved person is not prohibited within the Bible, and is even warranted.
Many people will look at this hypothesis and immediately turn their attention to 2 Corinthians 6:14 which apparently prohibits Christians from marrying non-Christians. What people seem to ignore though, is the fact that the writer never mentions marriage in the passage itself, nor in the surrounding context. The section of 2 Corinthians people point to as proof to their argument is a mere seven sentences long. That small paragraph is right in the middle of the writer’s--Paul the Apostle--recollection and contemplation on his previous trials. Why would someone go into detail about all the persecution that goes along with being a Christian, randomly insert an instruction on the marriage sacrament, and then go on to analyze his experiences in his trials? It makes more sense that the passage speaking about being “unequally yoked” is referring to Paul’s trials rather than marriage.
“Though verses 14-15 are often applied to various sorts of alliances (e.g., mixed marriages, improper business associations), Paul’s primary association was probably ecclesiastical.2” Paul wasn’t writing to the Church to warn them from marrying non-Christians, but was exhorting them to expel the pagan worshippers from among them so as to keep the Church pure for times of trouble. The Church is a body, and just like a body, if there are parasites or contaminated parts, the body as a whole is more susceptible to falter in times of sickness or pain. If their is a fortress made of cement bricks, but in a few places are some bricks made of soft clay, the fortress will crumble because of those few bricks that were posing as legitimate strongholds. Christians are constantly under persecution, trials, and stress, and if there are Pagans who are imposing to be strong uplifters of the actual Christians around them, the believers will lose to worldly powers.
Paul was writing to the Corinthians in a time when the early Church was being widely persecuted. Even the Apostle himself, “five times, received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times was beaten with rods. Once was stoned. Three times was shipwrecked; a night and a day was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from [his] own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure (2 Corinthians 11:24-27).” Just before Paul speaks of being unequally yoked, in verses 6:3-10, he refers to these trials that he and his brothers with him had to go through. He lists the tribulations, gives the charge to not be unequally yoked, and finally rejoices in his afflictions. The logical flow of things leads the reader to infer that when verse fourteen turns up, Paul is referring to his brothers who went through the trials with him. If he was “yoked” with non-Christians, Paul would have been demoralized and deterred in his mission to evangelize the nations.
“Yoke was used figuratively as a symbol of hardship, submission, or servitude.3” Trials are burdens: yokes are burdens. Paul talks about his trials, and immediately refers to a yoke. Somewhere in Church history, someone decided to separate and misinterpret the two passages, and it has left the Church confusing the verse for decades. When people misinterpret a passage of scripture, it is easy to debunk the delusion when one takes the context into account. It nails the
point home though, when one can not only disprove the fallacy using the surrounding text, but can identify instances in Scripture where the interpretation actually conflicts with other passages. To interpret 2 Corinthians 6.14 the way the majority of American “Christianity” does would be to contradict the entire book of Hosea.
“For the purpose of depicting before the eyes of the sinful people the judgment to which Israel has exposed itself through its apostasy from the Lord, Hosea is to marry a prostitute, and beget children by her, whose names are so appointed by Jehovah as to point out the evil fruits of the departure from God.4” The book of Hosea is an account of God’s command to His prophet to marry a prostitute. A prostitute is not a Christian because she is living one of the most detestable lifestyles one can live, yet it pleased God that His representative would become one flesh (and even produce children), with a pagan whore. “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have dchildren of whoredom, for ethe land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD.5” “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins.6” God commands the man twice to marry the non-Christian woman, and Hosea obeys with God’s blessing. Most modern evangelicals cringe at the idea of a combined, Christian/non-Christian marriage, let alone one who’s better half is a cult prostitute.
Another instance where God commands His people to marry pagan women is in Numbers 31. God commands, “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him fkeep alive for yourselves7” which blatantly goes against any thoughts that cross-religion marriages are wrong. The Israelites had just finished conquering the Midianite men, and were then instructed by God to take for themselves, the virgin women of the land. The Midianites were a pagan
people, and common thought in the Church today would prohibit such a practice, but to do so would be to contradict God.
There are innumerable good things that could possibly come out of a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian. For the Israelites, there were more women with which to bear children and grow the population. With Hosea, he depicted to the Israelites, exactly how whorish they were being towards God. The Church is hurting today because of it’s legalism in this regard. They accept the sayings of their elders without question, when there is scripture that contradicts people’s claims. Not only does misinterpretation on the Church’s part, hurt her, but the good things that could come out of such marriages are being stifled. It’s difficult to say how that would look practically, but who would have thought God would have told a prophet to marry a whore for His good pleasure? Change needs to happen, because this is a problem.
1 Notice the clarification: men marrying women. While I would argue that it is not necessarily “UN-Biblical” for a man to marry a pagan woman, it is utterly sinful for a woman to marry an unsaved man (1 Cor. 11.3; 14.35 ESV). Chapter eleven of “First Corinthians” makes the man out to be ‘the head’ in the relationship, in correlation to Christ being ‘the head’ of the man, and God being Christ’s ‘head.’ So the implication is that the man is the ‘spiritual father’ to the woman, just as it is with the relationship between The Father and Christ, and Christ and the man.
Moving on to chapter fourteen of “First Corinthians,” the context is an exhortation to women to keep silent in the congregation, and instead of inquiring at the church gathering, to ask her questions to her husband in the privacy of their own home. The implication is that 1) the husband of the wife must be knowledgeable enough in the Word, to be ready for any question his wife presents to him, 2) that he must be saved, so as to be acquainted with Spiritual truths, once and for all, delivered to the saints (Jude 1.3), and 3) that he should always be in the process of being concerned with the spiritual state of his wife: discipling her, and growing her up in the Faith, so that she doesn’t have to question what she hears in church.
2 John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary., The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-c1985), 2:570.
3Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers. Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature., Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 1153.
4 Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 10:26.
dch. 2:4 e[ch. 2:5]; See Ezek. 16:15
5 dch. 2:4 e[ch. 2:5]; See Ezek. 16:15 5The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ho 1:2.
6 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ho 3:1. fSee Deut. 21:10–14
7 fSee Deut. 21:10–14 7 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Nu 31:17-18.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
