a. Sins of Omission
[11/25/19]
As I look at the subheads of this section, it seems we have already seen the points made somewhat by those verses considered as defining sin. But I shall continue. While I will fully maintain that all sin is equal insomuch as it draws an equal penalty, yet we can distinguish between certain categories of sin. The first of these categories which I shall consider is that of sins of omission. Quite simply, these are those things we know we ought to do, but do not. As I just considered from James, “To one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin” (Jas 4:17). This is the sin of omission.
Thinking on yesterday’s sermon from 1Jn 3:17, this certainly encompasses the commandment to love our neighbor. “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him” James would certainly concur. We might find room to quibble as to who counts as brother, but here I think we find Jesus supporting the most expansive possible view. It is not solely for those within the church, but for those without. After all, we know not who among those currently without the church are in fact among the elect. Stated otherwise, he who is not currently my brother may well be tomorrow. To withhold that godly, compassionate, ministering love, therefore is a sin. You knew the right thing to do and you did it not.
This is not a grant to the social gospel, but it is a warning of sorts not to lean too far the opposite way in rejecting that false gospel. The gospel is, after all, social in nature and social in application. The call is to evangelize, and that cannot be done without participation in society. I think of Paul’s comment to the Corinthians in this regard. “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world” (1Co 5:9-10). There is not call to monasticism. There is every call to go make disciples. I have to say that my own tendency is toward the monastic. Just let me live my godly life and leave me alone. But that is not godliness speaking; rather selfishness. To pursue such a course is, given the great commandment, a sin of omission. You knew the thing to do, but refused to do it.
b. Sins of Commission
Sins of commission are by way of being the obverse side of the same coin. Here, it’s the case that one knew what not to do and chose to do it anyway. It is the direct and determined violation of clear command. It is the child hearing its parent’s command to refrain from some harmful action and, having checked the perimeter, proceeding to undertake precisely that action. Given the command not to write on the walls, it is all but a foregone conclusion that said walls will be scribbled upon at next opportunity. It is a sin of commission. If there was any doubt, observe that child looking over his shoulder to be sure mom and dad are not within line of sight.
And this is exactly how we behave when it comes to the commandment of God. We look over our shoulder, and convinced He is busy elsewhere, proceed to do as we please, to do as we know full well we ought not to do. Here is perhaps the cruelest bit of self-deception, for even as we undertake to pursue our vile course, we know at heart that there is in fact no least significant point in time in which God is so busy elsewhere as to be unaware of our thoughts and deeds. “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows” (Mt 10:29-31). You know, Jesus offers this as comfort, yet for the sinner, there is also a significant caution. God knows. Beloved, God knows. There is not escaping this reality. If He knows every hair on my head, it must be said that He knows me better than I know myself, in greater detail, and with a more honest eye.
And if this is insufficiently disconcerting, then consider another point; again one I have considered previously in this study. “They show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Ro 2:15-16). Consider that, for it is what awaits. The secrets of men shall not remain secret. The façade of false piety shall in due course be removed to expose the rotten core.
There remains hope for the sinner, however, in that Christ Jesus has indeed put paid to the sins of His own. Those crimes for which He paid so dearly shall not be brought forward in that day, so far as I can discern. If the records of the court have declared the defendant legally righteous already, I expect the books reflect this. Of course, it’s quite possible that the Accuser of the brethren will seek to make them public in hopes of shaming not the sinner but the Judge. His efforts will prove futile in that regard, but it entirely possible that we shall know our own moment of shame before the Judge Who saved us. We should, I think. Indeed, we should know that moment of shame now and cry out for rescue.
“Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering” (Mt 5:23-24). “But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Pr 18:24b). That friend, our brother Jesus the Christ of God has something against us whenever we sin, for whenever we sin, we sin against a holy God, and how much more, against God in the Person of Christ, Who died a most excruciating death as the penalty for our sins that we might walk free of sin? How heinous, how egregious the offense when, having been pulled free of this, we willfully choose to return. Yet, we all experience that return. “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1Jn 1:10).
There are some semantics to recognize with that verse, and another distinction we might draw between habitual and, shall we say, exceptional sins. No one who is of God makes sin his habit, yet every one who is of God, not being God and remaining an heir to the sin of Adam, sins occasionally, and far more occasionally than one cares to admit. These are sins both of omission and commission. Don’t fool yourself. Don’t suppose you’ve attained to perfection, for that very supposition would, in that it of necessity makes God a liar, would put paid to said perfection. In the very claim, sin has entered and spoiled whatever supposed record of perfection may have obtained to that point. Indeed, I would have to say that the very claim is once again a sin of commission. You know God’s verdict. It has been declared plainly and succinctly. “For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Ro 3:23). You may be justified. I would certainly account myself as having been justified. But, recognize clearly: We are, if we are, “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Ro 3:24). We have no room to boast of our worth, for our worth is worthless. Our best efforts at holiness are even yet as filthy rags.
c. Venial Sins
[11/26/19]
A venial sin, so long as we’re moving through the list, is a concept primarily associated with the Roman Catholic church, but I think we can put the term to use at least in this one particular fashion; in reference to those sins committed without deliberate intent. That is to say, we might account it a category slightly lower on our scale than sins of omission. The problem with sins of omission is they still entail a knowing act. That which we omitted we knew we ought to have done, but willfully chose not to do. By way of contrast, the venial sin considers that which was in fact done in violation of the law of God, but done without realization of the law.
This is somewhat shaky ground. On the one hand – and the identifying of this as sin makes it sufficiently plain – ignorance is no excuse. It does not hold up as a defense in the civil court, and neither will it prove to be of value in the court of heaven. On the other hand, there are those things done in ignorance. The author of Hebrews notes this even in regard to the Old Covenant community of God. In discussing the nature of the temple, he observes that only the high priest entered the holy of holies, and that but once a year and, ‘not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance’ (Heb 9:7). Now, clearly this matter of venial sin is not the author’s focus, but insomuch as it has mention, and mentioned in a rather offhand way, it would seem clear that the concept was known to his readers.
Paul also makes mention of this idea. Speaking to an idolatrous, intellectual crowd in Athens, he has not brashly renounced their actions, but rather sought to pull the truthful grains from their system to lead them to greater truth. This is an activity worthy of greater examination, and to be sure, some would point to Paul’s lack of impact in Athens as evidence that his approach in that city was wrong. I don’t take that view. The fruitfulness is not direct evidence of the rightness or wrongness of approach, but rather of the hardness of the hearts being addressed. To return to the parables of Jesus, the sower cannot be responsible for the quality of the ground sown, but sows freely. The return, the production of fruit, is the Lord’s business. The believer’s part is to present the gospel. But, back to Paul. “I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship. I found this altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown God.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” (Ac 17:23).
Think about that for a moment. Paul could have, in anger at the idolatry all around, denounced and derided their blind propensity to worship most anything or anyone that happened along. He didn’t. He could have left them to worship this unknown God, comfortable in the belief that in so doing they were worshiping the True God. He didn’t. Neither answer suited the situation. Rather, he offers some encouragement in that he observes that they are at least on the right course here. Yes, there is this God who has been unknown to you. Allow me to introduce you, to remove the ignorance. He doesn’t jump straight to claims of exclusivity. He offers to reduce ignorance, a thing these seekers of wisdom ought rightly to appreciate.
Now, he does observe the exclusivity of God, but again in a positive light, not as decrying the misguided thoughts of his hearers. This is, he observes, “the God who made the world and all things in it” (Ac 17:24a). Okay, so coming to the ears of pantheistic Greece, that might be news. After all, they had their separate gods over this and that, Poseidon for the oceans, Vulcan for the land of the dead, Apollo for the heavens, and so on. So, yes, there is in fact a claim to exclusivity, but it is at least thinly veiled, awaiting the thoughts of the audience to follow things to their conclusions. “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation” (Ac 17:26). Again, hints of that exclusivity, but not the bold, in your face insistence on the matter.
He then moves to demonstrate the mercy, the compassion of this one God who has been so maligned by the idolatrous, pantheistic practices of those He created. He made all mankind, Paul observes, “that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children’” (Ac 17:27-28). Stop there for a moment. These poets are, at least in part, the philosophers of ancient Greece. That declaration that in God we live and move and exist was the answer to the great questions those philosophers pursued. You want to know why it is that mankind came into being? God made him, from one man producing all this wild array of humanity.
You want to understand why man is in motion, and not at seeming rest like the mountains of your habitation? God made him thus. He appointed times and seasons not merely to the world at large, but to the nations and societies of man. Kingdoms rise and fall at His direction. Populations shift at His direction. The great empires of the past gained power as He directed, and lasted only so long as He intended; each coming to their end in due time. I could observe a bit of a suggestion in regard to Rome, the dominant empire of the day. Greece must surely have rankled at their occupation in a manner not so different from Israel. They, after all, had been the dominant empire once. What happened? God ordained a new period, a shifting of power, a motion of man.
You want to understand how it is that man exists? Or for that matter, do you wonder how it is that creation exists? In this unknown God you have your answer. He did it all. The rest of these gods for which you have names and stories, by way of contrast (although this is left more or less unsaid) are nothing. You see, there’s time for that after they have come to recognize the Truth. I say it is more or less unsaid, but he does lead their thoughts through the implications. If God made everything, and is the cause and purpose of all that is, and if, as these poets suggest, we are His children – NOTE: They are correct in this, just ignorant of the full implications – then, “Being children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man” (Ac 17:29). If He formed us, it doesn’t make sense to suppose that we can in turn form Him. These idols are lovely and all, but they are pointless. So, we come to the conclusion that has this passage bearing on our topic. “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to all men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead” (Ac 17:30-31).
Isn’t it something? Had he pulled up short of that last, they might have been able to stick with him. But, when the resurrection of the crucified Christ entered in, offense chased off reason, and the philosophers, rather than hearing truth, scoffed at it. But some believed. This was not fruitless endeavor. It was the casting of truth upon the soil to see what might grow.
Coming back to my point, however, observe: There was a time of ignorance. For most of us, we might say there was a time of ignorance in our lives. This did not, to be clear, make sin acceptable. It did not alter the sinfulness of sin. It did not render our actions any less deserving of just and righteous punishment. But God in His mercy chose to overlook these things. Is God then unjust? No, for those things done in ignorance were paid for at the cross. The penalty due the court of heaven is paid in full for those who are in Christ Jesus. There is a reason Paul could not stop short of that point. It is crucial. Repentance apart from Christ has no appeal to make. The penalty remains due, and however hard one may try to live a righteous life henceforth, there remains that penalty due for past action. Ignorance is no excuse.
I would have been inclined to suggest that there is no such thing as a man ignorant of God’s Law, and in some wise I think that true. Yet, to know of God’s Law in a general sense, and to have understanding of the specifics are two different things. Does this perhaps give us grounds to discover that supposed age of innocence in children? Not if we expect to hold to the proper definition of innocence. “There is none who is righteous, no not one” remains the verdict. “In sin my mother conceived me” remains the sad opening statement of every man’s life, even the life of the unborn.
Where I run into trouble is this: Even where Paul speaks of this preceding period of ignorance, the solution is not that God has winked at those sins, or written them off because you didn’t know better. All hope remains in this central act: All people everywhere should repent. That act of repentance, to have value, to have hope of being more than a passing twinge of guilt without true heart change, must center on the Man whom God has appointed to judge, the Man whom God provided as atonement, the Man whom God raised from the dead in power, to live forevermore.
I observe for these poor Athenians that in this moment ignorance was removed. The times that were overlooked were now behind them. The decision made in this moment, and those actions undertaken henceforth, would be done in knowledge of the God Who Is. They could reject Him, but they could no longer claim ignorance. I could argue that in this moment, the category of venial sin was removed from them. They now knew what should be done: Repent. They now knew at some level what should not be done: To continue in idolatry. Excuse was removed, to the degree that it was ever an excuse. The answer had been given, and now it was on them to give an answer of their own by their response to the gospel.
In sum, I have to say that what we see of Paul in Athens is really not particularly different from what we learn of Paul in Corinth. “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1Co 2:2). I have tended to view that as declaring a course correction after the relative failure of Athens, but I’m not so sure. To be fair, we don’t see as much of an appeal to the cultural hints at truth in Corinth. Yet, Paul does draw from the culture to illustrate his points at times. The games outside Corinth are not far from view in his writing to the people of Corinth. The activities associated with the various temples in the city are not wholly unknown to him, although I am comfortable in saying they are outside his direct experience. The nature of the populace is not utterly alien to him. But, that message to Athens drilled straight to the same point. Here is your hope, your only hope: Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. Apart from this, all worship is and ever has been in vain, and every sin, venial or otherwise, remains unforgiven.
d. Immorality
[11/27/19]
Immorality is a term we must first restore to its biblical meaning before we can properly consider it. In common understanding, the word is understood to indicate anything which is not moral, which in fairness captures the literal composition of the word. In that sense, it describes one suffering a moral failure, or one who has transgressed the moral law. That would make this really little more than a synonym for sin or transgression. But in biblical usage it tends toward addressing matters of sexual misconduct. We see this in the first place we find the term applied in Scripture. “If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst” (Lev 20:14). It is zimmah, lewdness. We’re actually right back at sin in this case, and sin in a form that leads to connection with idolatry, which I’ll be considering next.
Jesus speaks of immorality as the sole legitimate basis for divorce. “Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Mt 19:9). Here, we find the underlying term is porneai, which is highly recognizable as the root for the English pornography. It is sexual sin. Adultery may be considered more the act, but pornography has already committed the act. We may think to make a distinction, but the message here is that there really isn’t one. It should be said that while we think of this as a particularly modern day problem, it really isn’t. Pornography in the form of so-called entertainment materials may be more readily obtained and more readily perused in apparent privacy, but the problem has been there very nearly from the start. Let us say that from the time there were more than one adult male and one adult female, immorality has been an issue. By the time of Noah we’re already seeing signs of it, and I would not be too inclined to suppose its presence was lacking before then.
Certainly by the time of the patriarchs we see trouble. We find, as but one prime example, that Abraham has somehow managed to obtain four wives, or if you prefer, two wives plus two concubines. What we don’t find is any sort of biblical approval of this arrangement. We must be careful to recognize that what the Bible records as to the facts on the ground and what the Bible promotes as the will of God are two very different things. In Abraham’s case, history even to this day shows the effects of that sinful arrangement. I could say much the same in regard to David. It becomes clear that while many of God’s people opted for arrangements that violated the original design of one man and one woman joined in a matrimonial, one-flesh relationship, this was not by God’s design.
That, I must recognize, gets me into dangerous territory, for in one sense, it must at the very least have been accounted for in God’s design, else it could not have come to pass. Sin was, in this very limited sense, part of God’s design, but not as a reflection of what He deemed good, rather as what He would allow to transpire in order that His glory might be made more evident in His victory over sin. I am not even close to providing a satisfactory explanation of the distinction I wish to make clear. Some would speak of it as God’s express will and God’s permissive will, that which He desires to see done, and that which He allows to be done. I am not 100% comfortable with that delineation, but then I’m not 100% comfortable with my own attempt.
Perhaps a brief consideration of the history of Joseph will set it straight. Joseph, the product of Jacob’s polygamy, fell prey to the jealousy and infighting that pretty necessarily followed from the nature of Jacob’s approach to procreation, as well as his rather unavoidable propensity to favor the children of that one he had originally designed to marry. The sons of other mothers saw that favoritism and found cause for resentment. No particular surprise there, but neither was there found an excuse. Joseph’s own propensity for self-promotion, however innocent it may have been, didn’t help matters. Be that as it may, his brothers come near to killing him, but instead pretty much give him away to be a slave in some distant and unknown land.
His life story continues, and he endures all manner of mistreatment in the course of his labors. The wife of his master seeks to have her way with him, and he flees, only to wind up charged and imprisoned for the act he so scrupulously avoided. Here is punishment for sins not committed. How can this be just? How can this come of a just God? Well, it doesn’t. It comes from a jealous husband. Yet God, who orders all things, who knows all things and ordains the end from the beginning, allowed this to transpire. All of it. God allowed the deception of Joseph’s brothers to convince Jacob that Joseph was dead. God allowed the deception of Potiphar’s wife to leave Joseph wrongfully imprisoned. God also allowed the day when Pharaoh’s troubled dreams would lead to remembrance of Joseph by his former fellow prisoner, and Joseph’s rather swift ascent to significant power in Egypt. God also allowed all of these most negative, truly sinful events to become tools in His hand by which to bring Joseph to the place where he was most needful for the fulfillment of God’s purposes. As he himself would eventually summarize his life to that point, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Ge 50:20). God’s plans account for the sinfulness of man, and have from the outset. But, God does not Himself plan evil nor does He participate therein. That is a necessary distinction for us to retain.
Returning to the matter of immorality, the seriousness of this sin in God’s eyes is made clear. “Flee immorality! Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1Co 6:18-20). “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, ‘the two shall become one flesh.’ But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him” (1Co 6:16-17).
Do you see why these sexual sins become so great a sin? First, they corrupt the original design of man; the two made one flesh. Then, too, they violate the union of God in man. Your body is a temple, and that temple is, as temples are wont to be, occupied by the God of the temple. You are indwelt by God. You are one spirit with Him, a union we must argue is more intimate yet than that one-flesh relationship of husband and wife. And – a thing that should be unthinkable – you effectively attempt to make God a participant in your harlotries when you allow your flesh, the temple of that spiritual union, to become one with another who is not your spouse. It is not merely the pursuit of illicit pleasures; it is utmost sacrilege.
[11/28/19]
Do you see as well why sexual sins are among the chief temptations of mankind and why it is that in our present-day sexual pursuits of every sort seem to have captivated the hearts and minds of so many both within and without the church? It is not merely that man is bent, although that is true. It is not merely that the opportunity is greater, although that is most likely true. It is that the enemy of our soul, finding his time growing shorter, has increased the assault on those who were created in the image of God. Here is his most effective weapon. If he can entice with the lure of sexual pleasures – an enticement few are able to withstand – then he can lead from there to idolatry. Indeed, historically, this enticement was a chief tool or service of idolatry.
So, in the face of the corrupting influence of immorality, God calls us to stand firm in purity. He has provided the marvelous, covenantal relationship of marriage to give us not just fellowship and intimacy one with another, but also so that these temptations may be met with purity. Here is the place where sexual urges are allowed pursuit with mutual agreement of husband and wife: Here, and here alone. It is of a piece with experiencing the depths of this one-flesh relationship which is marriage, and is not an activity to be withheld from one’s spouse unless this too is by mutual agreement. Even then, we are advised, let it be but for a season, lest temptation overtake us. We are, after all, tactile creatures, and will seek that which provides us with pleasurable sensations.
But in this matter of immorality we have taken the pure pursuit of this most pleasurable sensation and bent it, allowed it to lead us into acts which are not permissible. This includes even such prurient and supposedly victimless sins as pornography, which are not in fact victimless, for somebody had to degrade themselves to produce that material. Further, evidence has shown that the viewing of said material does in fact degrade the viewer.
This also covers those acts forbidden by the prescribed definition of marriage. If marriage is between one male and one female, as ‘male and female He created man’ makes clear is the case, then any other combination of individuals violates the terms, and sexual pursuits within that combination are likewise declared sinful. Paul makes this sufficiently clear in his discussion of fallen man. Having made clear that mankind as a whole and in total had rejected the God they knew, and that their religious practices by and large exalted a created thing above the creator God, he comes to a point of judgment. “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (Ro 1:24a). The term is a bit more wide-ranging when he speaks of impurity rather than immorality, but the point is made clear enough in short order.
Before I proceed, however, it’s worthwhile to note the form of punishment God chooses, for it is something of a common theme in His dealings with man. God did not impose upon them some activity that they found distasteful, or would have successfully avoided had He not pushed them. No, His sum total involvement in their decision process at this juncture consists in not acting, not undertaking to restrain their proclivities. There is, perhaps, no worse punishment than to be left to pursue the lusts of our hearts. That continues to hold for every believer. There is nothing less to be desired than for God to say, “Have it your way.”
To continue Paul’s thought, though: “For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (Ro 1:26b-27). Paul is being somewhat circumspect in his description, but there’s really no question as to his meaning. The pursuit of homosexual encounter is nothing new to our day. Neither is the acceptance of it by those who do not choose to pursue such a course. For that matter, neither is the rejection of it by those who recognize the act as reprehensible, or at minimum, counterproductive. This is, whatever your views on God, a dead-end pursuit. Bring God back in, and it must be recognized that not only does this violate the marriage covenant as laid out by God, but also another of the clauses of the original creation covenant: “Go forth and multiply” (Ge 1:22). “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Ge 1:28). There is a concept that’s under assault quite apart from the pursuit of acceptance of every sort of sexual deviancy.
That immorality tends to counter the mandate of the creation covenant adds to the sinfulness of immorality. It is a compound violation. It violates the marriage covenant. It tends, at least, toward violating the creation covenant’s mandate of fruitfulness. It degrades the image of God in which man was created. Finally, where it involves a believer (and yes, sadly, this is almost as frequent an occurrence for believers as for unbelievers), it necessarily attempts to make God a participant in the sinful act.
Speaking to that awful point, I have to suppose that in the case of the believer, the indwelling Spirit of God must in some way depart the temple of the body until that temple can be made holy again. The strength of the condemnation assayed to those who would couple with a prostitute lays it out. Don’t you know that you are a temple of the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are not your own? Don’t you know that in pursuing this act, you become one flesh with this other person, and – were it possible – make Christ Himself a participant in your sin?
Listen! I am addressing primarily acts of immorality, because it is clear that God accounts these amongst the most reprehensible of sins. I think we must allow that in the pursuit of such sin, God necessarily has to absent Himself. If He could not look upon His own Son, His own being, because of the presence of sin, it is surely unthinkable that He would remain with one pursuing so sinful an act. There remains room for forgiveness afterwards, when repentance has truly taken hold, but seriously, how can we think a perfectly holy God still accounts the temple of the body suitable accommodation when that temple has been thus defiled?
But we ought rightly to understand that the same issue arises in whatever way we may sin. Sin defiles. The temple, being holy, has been defiled, for holiness implies designated use. It is for His use only, and in pursuing sin, we have given it over to another user. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (1Co 6:15a). It’s right there in the discussion of immorality. Don’t you realize what you are doing? “Do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Ro 6:13). This applies to immoral acts, but it applies equally to every pursuit of sin. Stop! What are you doing? You died to this, and “sin shall not be master over you” (Ro 6:14). You don’t have to give in. Stand firm and resist the devil. He will flee. Recognize that this sin must necessarily lead to God vacating your temple. It must necessarily render you Ichabod. Can this possibly be worth it? Can you be assured of restoration to a temple properly fit and occupied once again?
Of course, we have answer to this from Paul himself. “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin” (Ro 7:25). Therein lies hope, but therein don’t think to find excuse. That has been rejected outright. There is no excuse. There is repentance and redemption. There is a path to cleanliness once more. There is victory over sin. But if we would have victory, we must commit ourselves to the battle, ever and always in the strength of God.
e. Idolatry
[11/29/19]
I have commented already on the relatively strong connection between immorality and idolatry. This applies both as to practice and as to significance. As to the former, a look at the practices associated with the worship of most of these false gods whom the idols represent demonstrates the connection. If we look to the Canaanites, for example, we find a god whose worship included public sex acts. If we consider the Greeks, with their temples to Aphrodite and the like, the display may not have been so public, but the act was not so very different.
I could almost argue that this explains the strong prohibition upon participating with or in prostitution, because that activity so often had connection to some false god or other. But I would actually hold that prostitution is already condemned on its own merits, as violating the covenantal relationship intended between one male and one female.
As to the latter, the association of the two might be recognized even in the terminology applied. If I return to the Hebrew word zimmah, for example, I find a word that yes, applies to sin generally, and particularly to those sins which result from intentional planning of wickedness. Then, too, it gets more specific in application, and applies to such sexual sins as have been considered as immorality, as well as other sexual sins I have not seen fit to enumerate, although the Bible does so. What is interesting is that in this particularly explicit connection with sexual sins, the term is also applied to the behavior of those who participate in idolatry. Idolatry is adultery – adultery against God. Think, for example, of Hosea 6:10. “In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing; Ephraim’s harlotry is there, Israel has defiled itself.” The term used in this instance is different, being zenuwth, a term specific to adultery, but zimmah is found in the verse preceding. The connection is there. Idolatry is adultery.
This, I must insist, applies regardless of the forms the idolatrous practices may take. It doesn’t matter whether actual sexual sins are involved. The adultery is present all the same, because the adultery isn’t a violation of the marital vows between a male and a female, but of those vows between God and man. “I will be your God, and you shall be My people” (Jer 7:23).
For a sin that is so egregious in the sight of God, it is surprising how rarely the actual term idolatry arises in Scripture. I see it but once in the Old Testament, and there it is as a comparative point. “For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry” (1Sa 15:23a). This comes as part of God’s rejection of Saul as king of Israel. The message is painful in the extreme, and comes with not only God’s rejection, but also Samuel’s. “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel” (1Sa 15:26). Considering Samuel had been the one to bring Saul news of his anointing as king, and had been his counselor thus far during his reign, this was hard news indeed. From his perspective, it may very well have been harder to take than God’s rejection. After all, as Samuel observed, he had already effectively rejected God.
For our purpose, however, I want to turn the comparative around. After all, it seems fair to say that equivalencies apply in both directions. If rebellion is as the sin of divination, then divination is rebellion. After all, divination is effectively an attempt to discern that which God has chosen not to reveal. It is a pursuit of unauthorized disclosure. It is seeking a leaker in the courts of heaven. Likewise, if insubordination is as idolatry, we can as readily suggest that idolatry is insubordination. It is, to borrow the Merriam-Webster definition, the act of being disobedient to authority. From the legal dictionary, we find it is ‘a willful or intentional failure to obey a lawful and reasonable request of a supervisor’. Carry that to the realm of civil governance and you have an offense worthy of prison and potentially worse. Carry that to the realm of heavenly governance, and you have man thumbing his nose at God in the most egregious way, by promoting something or somebody else as god.
Our multiculturally intoxicated society doesn’t much care to hear such things, but the truth holds. Those who pursue other religions, be it Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, animism, or even Judaism, are pursuing idols. In the case of Judaism, we might wish to stop short of such a claim, but insomuch as Judaism in its present state rejects Christ the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, it misrepresents the very God it claims to uphold. If it misrepresents God, then it presents an idol. The same, sadly, must be said for many a purportedly Christian church. What is presented may be called god, but insomuch as what is presented runs contrary to the very essence of God, as He has revealed Himself to man, it cannot be said that God is in the pulpit. When the pastor sings paeans to the grass for allowing our feet to tread upon it, God is no longer in the picture, except maybe as some walk-on character, or one god amidst a pantheon of available gods. But, then, that’s no longer God, is it? It is crass idolatry made crasser by its claims to present God as He is.
Idolatry is insubordination. It is the rejection of authority, lack of respect for God at minimum, and worse, lack of respect for God expressed boldly and publicly. If we take the Greek term for idolatry, eidololatreia, we find a literal meaning of ‘image-worship’. I think this is part of our problem, but only part. We have difficulty maintaining proper regard for that which we cannot see. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, we are tactile creatures, informed by our senses. God being spirit, we don’t have that immediate tactile information coming in from Him, at least not in so obvious a fashion. Truth is, we actually do have a near constant stream of such tactile information in regard to God, for His invisible attributes are seen in His visible creation (Ro 1:20), but we delude ourselves, and become convinced these are mere natural phenomena.
But image worship is in our blood. We want gods we can see and touch and cajole. In all honesty, what we want are gods we can control; we want to be gods. That has been the problem ever since the serpent first had his little chat with Eve while Adam sat by. Our idols of the present day may not be so crassly obvious as those of old. We probably don’t intentionally set up some work of stone or wood or metal on our shelf and offer prayers to it in hopes that it might bring us better fortunes, fertility, or what have you. I say probably, but I have to acknowledge that such practices are becoming more common in the West than once would have been the case, and that’s a sad comment on the state of faith here. Indeed, I have to acknowledge that even amongst Christian practitioners, the habit arises. If one has their little angel statues carefully ensconced in special places, lit through the night with music playing to the empty room in which they are established, how is this not idolatry? What is being worshiped here, the Creator or the created? It isn’t God, and given the lack of angelic rebuke for thinking to do such a thing, I’m going to have to say it isn’t an angel, either, at least not one in heaven.
But, “God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it” (1Co 10:13). Now, observe: This is not the same as saying that whatever God does not vehemently put a stop to is okay, or whatever you fail to resist must therefore have been acceptable. No! Paul’s statement is not that you will never be tempted in such a way that you fall, only that falling wasn’t necessitated. You could have escaped it, could have endured in purity. If you didn’t, the fault, dear one, lies with you. You chose not to escape, not to endure. Thus, Paul’s point continues. “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak to wise men; you judge what I say” (1Co 10:14-15).
The wider discussion in that chapter is also highly pertinent to our subject, and to our practice more generally. In our actions, what do we say about our God? If we insist on partaking of things that are questionable in the sight of others, however much we may appeal to greater knowledge, and that idols are nothing, and therefore participating in acts associated with idols can’t be much of anything either, at minimum, we present a hazard to that brother who is not so convinced. At minimum. In reality, the crime is far worse. Idolatry is insubordination. You can play act that you were not really worshiping the idol, just enjoying the party. How well would that defense play in relation to matters of immorality? You’ve been told how well it would play. The thought is as criminal as the deed. The voyeur is as guilty before God as those he watches. Idolatry is immorality, and immorality against God. It is an act of infidelity, whether pursued by eye alone, or more actively. It cannot be written off so blithely. “I speak as to wise me. You judge what I say.”
Look at the company idolatry keeps. “Immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, uncontrolled anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, etc.” (Gal 5:19-21). These are the deeds of the flesh, and, “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s a hard stop. Practice, of course, addresses constants, normative behaviors. We’re not talking about momentary lapses, but rather habitual activities.
Now, look out! The occasional sin swiftly develops into the habitual. We are told, for example, that for a habit to become established takes but thirty days. I would suggest to you that habitual sin takes fare less time. When it comes to idolatry, our idols may vary day by day, but they are ever present, aren’t they? For the most part, we keep them cleverly disguised lest we be forced to confront our insubordination against God. We may raise family to the level of idol, or work, or possessions. We may grant our hobbies greater sway then they ought to have over our use of time and money. Or, we may have even made time and money our idols; or perhaps it’s another favorite: Power.
Consider this: When you praise God, what comes to mind first as cause for praise, the fact that He is Who He is, or the things He has given you? Put it another way. Let it be supposed that God granted you salvation, and the assurance of heaven, and nothing more in this life. You might be left in penury, or suffering from some chronic, physical malady that God in His sovereign goodness decides to leave unaddressed in this life. Is God still enough for you? You may see others, even others who, so far as you know, have and want nothing to do with God, receiving those things you long for. You may see the promotions going to a less capable fellow while you are left to slog away at some less glorious task. You may see your children taken from you, your family rejecting you. You may suffer all manner of injustices in this life. Is God still enough for you?
If the answer is no, and I suspect if we come up with the right list, the answer will be no for most anybody, then what this exposes is idolatry. Something else has been set in God’s rightful place. Something else has primacy in your worldview. I’ll let you in on a not so secret truth here. Chances are very high that when you dig down through your pile of idols to get a clear view of what really sits on the throne of your life, you’re going to discover you are looking at yourself. You are your chief idol, and until that little matter is addressed, there’s always going to be insubordination against God whose throne you attempt to occupy. That effort to occupy is, in fact, evidence of your lineage, for it is the sin that came at the outset, the sin of the devil, to whom you tossed your place on the throne long ages ago in the deeds of Adam, your federal head.
What is the antidote? Well, the short answer is Jesus. Paul actually provides a somewhat more accessible answer. “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:24). Clearly, that is not a statement to be taken literally. We are not the walking dead. But we do recognize a certain power here, in that the dead are unlikely to rise to the bait of temptation. The flesh that has been crucified no longer responds to sensations because it no longer feels sensations. Put another way, the blind eye can hardly be tempted by what it sees, for it sees nothing. That’s not to say that sin doesn’t find other avenues, but that one’s closed. Paul continues. “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another” (Gal 5:25-26). It’s going to take effort to confront and reject our own idolatries. Our flesh has been crucified, but it seems that it hasn’t noticed yet. That crucifixion is ongoing. If we live by the Spirit (and we do), then let our practice be as befits the Spirit. That’s effort. It doesn’t come naturally. If it did, the whole story of the Bible would be something quite different. There would be no Son come to redeem us. There would be no New Testament. But man being man, there’s another necessary conclusion to reach: There would be no hope.
Elsewhere, Paul makes a similar appeal to the believers in Colossi. “Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry” (Col 3:5). Now, I can see room to question how far back down the list Paul intends that equating with idolatry to go. I think we generally suppose it applies to greed alone. Ah! Greed is idolatry. Well, yes, it is. It is the elevation of possessions to a point far beyond that which is right. But, then, all those other things are idolatry as well. In each and every case, they demonstrate an elevating of the thing pursued above and beyond anything God may have to say on the matter. Immorality, as we have been discussing at length, rejects God’s limits on sexual interaction, and violates the intent of man being created male and female. Impurity, given that God defines what is pure, is the insistent pursuit of that which God has prohibited. Passion is effectively desire grown out of control, an elevation of one’s wants to that place on the throne which belongs to God. And what shall we say to evil desire? The fact that it is evil already sets it clearly at odds with the governance of God who is good. All of this, at root, demonstrates man on the throne and God pushed to the side. All of this, then, is idolatry.
[11/30/19]
I should note that idolatry is a matter addressed far more frequently in Scripture than a mere search for the word idolatry would seem to indicate. It is a large subject, and worthy of constant attention on our part, for we are so inclined to idolatrous practices as to be blinded to the reality of our own practices. We may be ever so adept at spying out the idolatries of our fellow man and yet completely miss the idolatrous nature of our own behavior.
The last verse I have in mind to consider under this head is Revelation 2:14, which points the reader back to Balaam’s efforts to prophesy against Israel. Balaam becomes somewhat famous in that while he was being paid to curse Israel, and while his approach to prophecy had little in it that could be said to honor God, yet God chose to speak through him. The words he was given to speak, however, could never satisfy the king who paid him, for those words blessed Israel rather than cursing Israel.
Some, I suppose, would look at this and wonder where the issue is. After all, Balaam spoke as God gave him to speak, and did not alter the message, even though faced with an irate king. But his actions were most assuredly rejected by Go, not least, I suspect, because he acted in a fashion that sought to mix idolatrous practice with proper sacrifice. With all that in view, let us look at what Jesus writes to the church in Pergamum.
“But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality” (Rev 2:14). Now, it has to be said that you will not find any point in the narrative regarding Balaam that indicates he advised Balak to do any such thing. Yet, the poison of Balaam’s ostensibly God-led operation spread not only to Balak, but to Israel as well.
I am going to suggest that the instruction given in his efforts to prophesy for Balak already did a bit toward teaching Balak about stumbling blocks. Remember that Balaam purports to speak God’s words, and in fairness, given the message, I think we must accept that he indeed does so. But, observe the approach. “Balaam said to Balak, ‘Build seven altars for me here and prepare seven bulls and seven rams for me here.’ Balak did just as Balaam had said, and offered up a bull and a ram on each altar” (Nu 23:29-30). What’s going on here? It sure isn’t worship as ordained by God. First, we are looking at deeds on a high place, not an offering at the tabernacle altar. Second, we have seven altars, not one. Where is this coming from? I know I have heard teachings on this topic, but they apparently didn’t stick well enough to speak to specifics, but it’s clearly an appeal not to God alone, but to whatever gods might be in the area. Balaam is an all-purpose prophet, it seems. Whoever is willing to speak through him, he will be their mouthpiece. And yet, he wishes to say he ‘knows the knowledge of the Most High’ (Nu 24:16). If he does, then he’s being rather meticulous about hiding it, for all his noise. Then, too, there is the fact that he has a king performing what must be recognized as a priestly duty. Even if nothing else had been awry, this would be clear violation of the worship God decreed for Himself. Here again is strange fire. If Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron and in the priestly line, were put to death for unauthorized offerings on the proper altar (Lev 10), how much more this illicit offering on an illicit altar by unauthorized personnel?
But this wasn’t the full extent of the problem. Thus far what we have seen is Balaam misleading himself, and misleading Balak, or at least giving him poor service for his money. But the last prophecy he gives is from the place of Peor, and in Moses’ narrative, it leads immediately into abject failure on the part of God’s people. “While Israel remained at Shittim, the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So, Israel jointed themselves to Baal of Peor, and the LORD was angry against Israel” (Nu 25:1-3).
Now we see the occasion of which Jesus speaks to Pergamum. Here is Israel fallen into idolatry, and here is Israel caught in acts of immorality. Recognize that this business of the daughters of Moab is not merely figurative harlotry. Remember: Idolatry and sexual performance went hand in hand in these cultures. The daughters of Moab were quite likely, indeed almost certainly in this case, serving as temple prostitutes in the cult of Baal. What is left unstated is Balaam’s involvement in this, but only from Moses’ immediate perspective. It isn’t until later that he announces the connection.
There comes a time, not much later in the narrative, when Israel has succeeded in battle against the kings of Midian, and as part of that victory had even killed Balaam. But, as to the women and children of the defeated foe, they brought them back, along with their flocks and their goods. This, after all, had been a decisive victory, and to the victor belong the spoils, right? But, “Moses was angry with the officers of the army” (Nu 31:14a). He rebuked them severely. “Have you spared all the women? Behold! These caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately” (Nu 31:15-17). I cannot say whether Moses was properly merciful in sparing some, or if he was in fact disobedient, but my inclination is toward the latter. The nations were to be driven out and destroyed because of their corruptions in service of Baal. This was not compliant with that purpose. This was leniency shown where leniency was likely to cause future difficulties. Indeed, even as he addresses the deadly counsel of Balaam, he in part gives permit to continue in it.
This same Moses later warns the nation. “Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you. You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days” (Dt 23:5-6). But he had spared the seed of that people, albeit in part.
This act of appeasement toward his generals would cost Israel dearly, as did all her failures to complete the eradication of the Canaanite corruption from the land. It arises over and over again as Israel moves into the land of promise. The command was to destroy utterly, but the eyes of the people were attracted by glittering objects and beautiful women: the error of Balaam. And so, rather than eradicate, they enslaved, and those that were enslaved in turn entrapped them, until we arrive at a point where Israel, the people of God’s own choosing, are offering their own children as sacrifices to the vile idol Moloch, the poisonous product of Balaam’s insidious message of accommodation. “Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever” (Jd 11-13).
Now we begin to see why Jesus is so vehement in His warnings of that same poison come to Pergamum. Acts of immorality are once more shown as the enticement to idolatry, and idolatry leads to such acts as ought to be utterly unthinkable to one made in the image of God. Here lie the roots of abortion. What has made abortion flourish in our own culture, if not the enticements of immorality? What are those enticements, if not acts of idolatry which have lifted the pleasures of the flesh onto the throne, an idol of lust and of passions unbridled. Here, too, lie the roots of all these many perversities that define the sexual culture around us, as it seems every restraint has been undone, and nothing is considered too extreme, a step too far. And what does Jesus say, “I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam.” It is not only outside the church, but slips its way inside, and there, a people seeking to be loving and tolerant come to tolerate more than is right. There, it seems, we have forgotten that loving the sinner does not include accepting the sin. Is it any wonder that the Church is often felt to be weak? It’s not because of rejecting charismatic powers, it’s because of compromise. The problem cares little for denominations and movements. It infects every limb of the Church, a cancer spreading throughout. As such, it must be battled with the same ferocity as one would battle cancer in the body “Therefore repent; or else I AM coming to you quickly, and will make war against them with the sword of My mouth” (Rev 2:16). This is not a place one wants to find himself, in the midst of war with God. But that is inevitably where idolatry and its companion practices of immorality lead.
f. Unforgivable Sin
[12/01/19]
If idolatry and its companion sin of immorality are so heinous a crime against God and in fact have the effect of trying to make God, through the Christian, a participant in that idolatry, it should really amaze us rather thoroughly to discover that even this can be forgiven if we but repent. If we will but wake up to what we have done, realize the awfulness of it, turn from it, reject it, and seek restoration to God’s good graces, He is gracious to forgive and to once more accept us into His family and fellowship. Yet, there is something that sets us beyond hope, and it strikes me that if this is so, we should most keenly desire to be aware of it.
It requires a bit of effort on our part, actually, to come to grips with just what that sin is which would set us beyond the hope of redemption. This effort is not one to be undertaken so that we can know our limits and sin with abandon within those limits. Honestly, such a motivation would suggest that we have never been truly among the redeemed to begin with. But even the redeemed find cause for concern in knowing that this remains a possibility. I should also have to say that the redeemed need to take care to discern the true issue lest awareness of the general issue be made an excuse to accept or tolerate error.
The primary declaration we have on this comes from Jesus Himself, and comes with reference to Himself. “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12:31-32). Now, it is crucial in this case to recognize the context in which Jesus speaks this message. He has just been accused of having an evil spirit, of doing those works He has done as representative of the devil. It’s a foolish claim, on the face of it, as He proceeds to point out. “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Mt 12:26). He also points out the hypocrisy, given that they could count exorcists amongst their own sons. If it’s Beelzebul that powers My efforts, who powers theirs? Be consistent. This is the setting into which He speaks of this sin of blaspheming the Spirit.
Observe: The assault is still against the Son, even if He observes the assault as concerning the Holy Spirit. It would be a question worth asking to wonder to what degree His accusers even acknowledged any sense of there being a Holy Spirit Who is in some sense separate from God the Father. This was already a problem for them, that the One God was to be understood in three Persons. It remains an issue for them down to this very day. To consider the Spirit may have been one step easier to accept, given the many places in which the Scriptures speak of the Spirit of God being put upon this one or that. Yet, there was debate amongst the Jews even about the matter of Spirit, or spirits for that matter, whether such things existed or not.
The thing we need to be careful about is understanding just what constitutes speaking against the Spirit or blaspheming against Him. Some would suggest that the mere rejection of any man’s claim to speak by the Spirit risks such blasphemy. As such, most any prophet is taken as legitimate, any man with vision or an idea, so long as he claims it has come by the Spirit, is to be treated as one might suggest the Apostles ought to have been treated in their day, with utmost regard and near unquestioning acceptance. I would suggest to you, however, that such blithe acceptance of every claimant to come by is more likely to wind up speaking against or blaspheming the Spirit.
My point is this: The crime is not in rejecting the claim of divine inspiration in one’s words or deeds, although I think we can go too far in defending against the false claimants and wind up rejecting that which is true and good. The crime, however, is in attributing the good of God to evil motive, of giving the glory that is due to God for those good things which have transpired to the devil, who is only evil in all his intentions, and whose only desire is to steal and kill and destroy.
Think, before you attempt to recognize where this blasphemy may lie, of the mission of the Holy Spirit. This has been addressed in previous parts of this study, but I’ll bring it forward again. As Jesus neared the end of His ministry, He spoke to His disciples to prepare them for what must come. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you” (Jn 14:16-17). Note: He abides with you already – present indicative; established fact. He will be in you points to the future. This One Who is with and will be in is on a mission, a rather singular mission, and that mission is not to turn Christianity into some sort of magic show. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (Jn 14:26).
Again, we can find those who will look to this and twist it out of bearing. They will suggest that by this Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit will tell us everything about everything. There will remain no knowledge God retains to Himself, for the Spirit will teach us all things! There remains no earthly matter in which we shall lack knowledge and understanding. Of course, it oughtn’t really to take any great effort to recognize the error of the second clause, but this will be written off to simply not asking. “You have not because you ask not” (Jas 4:2). But it could as readily be the case that the second part of that message applies, not the first. “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motive” (Jas 4:3).
The Holy Spirit, however, is on a mission to bring the Son to remembrance, in particular that which He said. That is to say, the Spirit comes to keep us mindful of Scripture and of Scripture’s point, which is Jesus, the Son of God, come to redeem fallen man and preserve to Himself a bride, pure and spotless, to be with Him in eternity in due time. How then does one blaspheme the Spirit? I would suggest to you that insomuch as one insists on a truth that is opposite of that which Jesus taught, which is to say that which God has revealed, which is to say the canon of Scripture, one has blasphemed the Spirit. After all, it is the Holy Spirit who has Himself overseen the work of bringing the Scriptures into being, and it is the Holy Spirit who has acted through the ages to see those Scriptures preserved against all that man and devil could do to destroy it. This includes efforts to alter the text. This includes efforts to destroy the text utterly, and even those peoples among whom the Scriptures were preserved and transmitted.
If we but consider how the Church has moved across the globe, and stop to wonder why this place at this time, I think we find that as much as it involves simply spreading the Gospel to all the tribes and nations of the earth, it also involves ensuring that God’s Word, from which not one jot or tittle shall fail, is preserved from those who would destroy it. When barbarians invade Rome, the Bible has gone north, to England, to Ireland, to wherever it was necessary to go that it might be preserved while empires fell. When the middle east is overrun by the Saracens, who would happily have purged every trace of Judaism or Christianity from the land, the Scriptures born of that land have gone to Rome. And so on and so on. When the Church itself sought to hide the Scriptures from God’s people, God’s people took flight to the far continent of America with Word in hand, that it might be preserved once more. Over and over, as the Spirit has directed the people of God, the people of God have cherished and guarded the Truth found in Scripture, and that work continues in this day, as do the myriad assaults that would twist and destroy that Word.
If the Holy Spirit is the editor and protector of Scripture, then he who would distort, or misrepresent, or otherwise seek to destroy or denounce the Word of God surely blasphemes against the Spirit. He who labors to undermine the authority of Scripture labors against the Holy Spirit, whatever claims of inspiration he may make.
So, then, let me turn to another passage on this subject. “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death” (1Jn 5:16-17). I will just observe in passing that this particular discussion culminates with the urgent instruction, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols” (1Jn 5:21). As I said, that concern is ever-present.
But here I am concerned with the unforgivable sin, which we understand consists in blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit’s mission amongst us is to impart the whole Truth, and to bring to mind all that Jesus said. That is to say, He presents us with the Scriptures, completed, preserved, and understood. This is not the sum-total of His work certainly, for He is also intimately involved in the effort to bring God’s people to Him. Where there is faith unto salvation, it is because the Holy Spirit has come to that one who has found faith to believe. Here is the dawning of understanding, the first recollection of what Jesus said and did. I tend to insist that for Him to bring to remembrance requires that we at some point have known. One can’t rightly remember what one has never been aware of to begin with, but then, as Paul pointed out, we are none of us ignorant of God’s being. His evidence is all around us. We already have somewhat to bring to remembrance, and the Spirit, working in accord with the name of Christ, upon His authority and with the decree of the Father backing that authority, so works upon the heart as to break through that stony defiance and bring awareness both of our sinful reality and of God’s promise of forgiveness.
How, then, does one blaspheme the Holy Spirit? It seems to me that the utmost blasphemy against Him would be to reject His message, to reject the Christ to Whom He insistently directs our attention. Here is God offering the way to life, showing man the Truth, and man insists that this is not the way to life, that death is to be preferred, and so welcomes the Lie as better than Truth.
[12/02/19]
The one thing that pulls me up short here is that Jesus has explicitly said, “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.” So, if the blaspheming of the Spirit is found in rejection of the Son, how is this not speaking against the Son of Man? I could try to defend this by suggesting that Jesus speaks specifically of the Son of Man, allowing this to leave open the possibility of blasphemy against the Son of God remaining unforgivable, but that would be to separate what is inseparable in the Second Person of the Trinity. I could take another path and suggest that blasphemy of the Spirit consists in any blasphemy against God, since the Persons of the Trinity are inseparable, and allow that what Jesus is talking about there is in fact Christ in His humanity.
Indeed, considering the situation into which He spoke, one could readily understand why faithful Jews would be hesitant about accepting God come down in human form. How is this not Greek mythology clothing itself in Jewish theology? Think about it. To this day you can find atheists who would suppose this an argument sufficient to undermine Christianity. It’s just another mythology like all the others. Except for one small problem. This mythology has historical roots. It addresses real people in real life, and is written to those who knew said real people in real life. It was, in its origins, documentation of current events, not fables concerning some ancient and unidentified time.
So, perhaps it is not so far off course to suggest that Jesus is making a distinction between His humble, human estate at the time, and the Holy reality of God in Three Persons, represented in this instance by the Spirit. That feels a bit too clever to me, but there is the counterweight of testimony to the fact that indeed, rejection of the Son is, in the end, the unforgiveable sin.
Consider this. “Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The LORD will judge His people.’ It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:28-31). This is clearly a severe warning against those who would reject Christ. I would stress it in regard to those who knowingly reject Christ.
“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame” (Heb 6:4-6). Here, once again, it is those who know and yet reject. I could see this being made an argument specific to participants in the Charismatic movement, but I really don’t think that’s the intent here. Rather, it is simply observing the bounteous evidence of the veracity of Christ’s claims to godhood. The Son of God proved Himself. The Apostles of the Son proved Him. The experience of Truth and of those powers the Spirit imparts to His own, whether this refers to those more spectacular gifts such as we find in Corinth, or to less showy items like, oh, saving faith, the evidence is more than sufficient. They knew. They put up an appearance of belief. And then they walked away. The author here suggests that these have placed themselves beyond hope of redemption. Were it any current author, or even some ancient hero of the faith, I might find cause to think they’d got it wrong, been overly stringent in their pursuit of perfect holiness. But this is Scripture. Error is not a possible charge.
What, then, is unforgivable? Clearly, to reject the sole path to forgiveness is going to cause a problem, isn’t it? If God in His mercy has provided one possible avenue by which to experience His forgiveness as one’s assured possession, then that avenue constitutes the path wisdom chooses. If, however, having been shown the way, one insists on following another course, whether that course be the Law of Moses (by which not one man was ever declared righteous), some false religion (in which we must include atheism, which is in fact a religion in its own right), or merely giving sin free rein, what hope could such a one have of heaven?
Regarding the Law, let me simply bring this to bear. “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.’ However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them’” (Gal 3:11-12). This blanket rejection, I must observe, includes the likes of Enoch and Elijah. Whatever befell them between heaven and earth, and whatever it was that led God to grant them respite from an earthly grave, it was not perfect purity on their part, nor perfect compliance with the Law. If it was anything, it was faith. More simply, it served God’s purpose; and I’m not convinced we as yet understand fully just what His purpose was in this.
I have to observe at this juncture that there is this movement afoot, by some accounts the same movement that arose in previous decades under different names, which would like to suggest that the purpose of Enoch and Elijah escaping the grave was to demonstrate that it was in fact possible (and even intended) for man to live forever. I note, however, that those purporting this view are highly focused on a life spent here, in this body and on this earth, which is so wholly at odds with the goals of Scripture that I find it marvelous (though not in a good way) that any believer would fall for such nonsense. It is so utterly materialistic in perspective as should lead to it being rejected out of hand by those who seek life with God.
Look, we are informed quite clearly that this earth is not so permanent as appearances might suggest. The day comes when the very elements from which it is composed will melt with intense heat. “The day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and all its works will be burned up” (2Pe 3:10). As Peter observes, this is pretty strong encouragement to live in holy conduct so as to be elsewhere when these things occur. What, I have to ask, is the enticement to eternal earthly life if this is the assured future of earth? It makes no sense to aspire to be alive to witness he event.
g. The Due Penalty
This actually brings me to my final sub-topic on the head of sin in its various distinctions, and actually here we find those distinctions erased. Return to two clear and unmistakable declarations. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Ro 3:23). This is the inescapable conclusion, and it’s not just Paul waxing hyperbolic. Earlier, in Romans 3:10, he has taken his point from the Psalms. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Ps 14:1-3). “If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Ps 130:3).
Nobody escapes this sentence. The specifics of each man’s sins do not render one more guilty than another before God. All have sinned. All are guilty. All face the due penalty. What is that penalty? The wages of sin. “For the wages of sin is death” (Ro 6:23a). Again, that’s a pretty unequivocal declaration. It’s not the wages of certain sins, with perhaps venial sins excluded. It’s not the wages of immorality and idolatry only, whereas others might draw a lesser charge. It’s not solely that unforgiveable sin that earns the death sentence. Every sin and any sin sets one before the court, guilty as charged. The penalty is predetermined. There is only one punishment meted out in this court. And oh, by the way, as your crime is against an eternal, perfectly holy God, your penalty is an eternal death; we might say an eternity of dying. It’s not that moment experienced en route to the grave. That’s a mere nothing. The sinner convinces himself that this is the sum of it. You live but once, death comes in a flash and then oblivion. No, sadly for them, this is not to be. That which we construe as death is but a moment of transition, a movement from this earthly existence into the presence of the Almighty. But, whereas for the believer this is a transition supremely to be desired, for the reprobate it is the moment of judgment, and the sentence has already come down.
“It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Heb 9:27). Again, this speaks of physical death, the passing of this body, which Paul explains at length must necessarily undergo transformation in order to be fit for eternity. This flesh and bone can’t handle it. This, I observe, covers not only those who have gone to the grave prior to the return of Christ, but to those believers who are found still living at the time. Their transformation shall, just as it is with those in the grave, come in the twinkling of an eye. “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1Co 15:51-52). This is no promise of an eternal body in the here and now. It is quite specific. The change comes at the last trumpet, at the call to stand before the Son and either be known a sheep, or rejected a goat.
“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death” (Rev 2:11). The grave, or the fires of the incinerator for those who choose that path, are as nothing. They are merely transitional events. This mention of a second death is only found in the Revelation. But the message is unusually clear for that book. “Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years” (Rev 20:6). Don’t get caught up in the promise of co-regency, but recognize the application: The first resurrection. Again, this is no suggestion of some super-Christian contingency on the earth that evades death by sheer force of purity. Rather, that first resurrection is the common experience of the redeemed, who have died with Christ and now live in Him. “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him” (Ro 6:8).
Now comes the hard message of the end. “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev 20:14-15). “For the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev 21:8). There can be no place for them in the purity of heaven, in the New Jerusalem wherein is no sin.
Here is the message of eternal life. It is not a thing for this earth, for this earth is no more eternal than you or me. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever” (1Jn 2:16-17). Look, the latter makes no sense if it applies in the setting of the former. If the world is passing away, to live forever in it becomes rather an impossibility, does it not? That which passes away has a terminus, and that which has a terminus is, by definition, not forever. That forever life is elsewhere, and that elsewhere is set before us as Scripture closes: The New Jerusalem come down from heaven, in which God dwells, finally and forever, with His people, and they with Him. Any lesser offer is a lie, a deception intended to lead astray, were it possible, even the elect. Any lesser offer is an enticement to sin, clothed in the sheep’s clothing of ostensible piety.
