The Nature of Sin
|
Contents |
|
1. Introduction |
Introduction
Qinael: Our most holy and loving Father,
We thank you for this opportunity to gather together in your name,
though we are far apart. We thank you
for this time of fellowship and of cleansing, of examination and purification. We pray for your Spirit to be with us, to
guide our minds and hearts to the message you have for your people in these
closing days of Earth’s history.
In the name of Yahshua we pray, amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Abraham: Amen.
Tain: Amen.
Kimberly: Amen.
Daphna: Amen.
Zahakiel: This month’s study is called, “The Nature of Sin.” We are going to look at three views of what sin is. All three are true, all three are valid, and all three answer what has been, to some, a rather perplexing question: “Why, if we have an all-powerful God of Love, and a Savior that guides His people, is it written that ‘few’ find the way of life?” These are things we have looked at in previous studies, what sin is, and why so few enter (and fewer complete) the path of sanctification, but this is a good time to reexamine these things, and also to add such new light as we have received through our work in the Gospel message.
To that end, in addition to the basics we may have covered before when dealing with this subject, we are going to look at the reason why, even when confronted with clear evidence that their doctrines are flawed, and do not properly reflect the will of Yahweh for His people, some begin to justify their position in order to avoid making a necessary change. We are going to look at the proper places for faith and obedience in the context of the Christian life. We are going to look at what true conversion is, what salvation means, and how all we may explain these things to others based upon where they are at in terms of their relationship with Christ.
The three aspects of sin we will examine are, “Breaking a Rule,” “Missing the Mark,” and “A Lack of Rest.” Any questions as we begin?
Giselle: No.
Qinael: No.
Tain: No.
Barb: No.
Daphna: No.
Abraham: No.
Kimberly: No.
Breaking A Rule
Zahakiel: We are going to start with a key verse in order to get the most basic Biblical definition of sin. In fact, this verse is the ONLY one in the entire Bible that tells us what sin actually is. Because of this, all three of our views will begin with this verse, and we will look at different aspects of what it is telling us.
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1John 3:4)
Even upon that single verse, much may be said. It is of note that the only place where the Scriptures tell us “sin is” something is found in the New Testament, long after Christ’s sacrifice, and ties it in directly with the Law. This is hardly a coincidence, and we see that if we are going to examine the nature of sin, which is as much a concern to the New Covenant people as it was to the Old, we are going to have to examine the nature of the Law of God.
The Psalmist wrote, speaking to Yahweh, “Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.” (Psa 119:42) There is a lot of wisdom that may be gained from the Book of Psalms merely by reading it; but the more we know about the style of the writing (as is the case with John the apostles’ repetitiveness, or Matthew’s tendency to reinterpret the Old Testament prophecies in light of Christ’s teachings) the more we can be blessed by these inspired words.
In much of English poetry, what identifies the writing as a poem is a scheme, a pattern of words that fit together, and lines of text that often end with similar sounds. Hebrew poetry is somewhat different in that the lines of text contain, not similar sounds, but similar meanings. A couple brief examples, right from the beginning of the book:
“Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.” (Psa 1:5)
Are “sinners” and “the ungodly” different groups of people? No. Will some of those who are in the congregation of the righteous fail to stand in the judgment? No. Yet even though the two phrases are separated by “nor,” which in English would tend to indicate two separate thoughts, what we have here is a classic example of Hebrew poetry; it repeats the same thing in another way. The next verse has an example of the same idea presented by means of a different technique:
“For Yahweh knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” (Psa 1:6)
In this verse we see a similarity expressed by way of contrast. But the idea is the same in both verses. And here, in the Psalm 119 verse, we see that Yahweh’s “righteousness” and His “Law” are placed in this same kind of arrangement, an apposition. Adventist writings describe the Law of Yahweh in terms such as “a transcript of His character,” and while this exact phrase does not appear in the Bible, we understand from examples such as this that the Law is indeed a representation of His Righteousness, His expressed will, and far more than just a system of rules He wants us to follow.
Does everyone understand that?
Abraham: Yes.
Qinael: <nods.> Yes.
Kimberly: Yes.
Tain: Yes.
Daphna: Yes.
Zahakiel: John tells us that sin is “the transgression of the law.” Understood at its most basic level, this means, basically, breaking one of the rules that God has for us. This isn’t necessarily an incorrect explanation, but it is a spiritually immature one. Understanding what the Law is reveals that to break a rule isn’t just about missing a point on a checklist of things “to do,” but rather a rejection of “His Righteousness,” and a demonstration of our lack of unity with the Father and Son.
Abraham: Amen.
Zahakiel: And this is an important point to review, because as we develop in the Christian life, and see the principles and spirit of the Law in addition to its “letter,” we need to be reminded that one does not replace the other. Some have said that in the New Covenant, the Sabbath day is no longer applicable, because “Jesus is our Sabbath.”
And while that’s quite true, we do not ignore the letter of the Law either, since it continues to be a revelation of Yahweh’s righteousness.
Although the modern Protestant churches have a few verses that are routinely used in an attempt to show that the law (and by that, they generally mean only the fourth commandment) is no longer applicable to God’s people, none of them stand up to any degree of scrutiny.
The law was nailed to the cross, they say. But if it was nailed to the cross, the Scriptures do not tell us that. The verse in question, Col 2:14, tells us the cheirographon was nailed to the cross, not the nomos, or the law. That term is used for a receipt, something owed. That which we owed, because of our lives of sin, was nailed to the cross.
Giselle: Even from the Spanish Bibles, before I became an Adventist, I understood the right meaning from the context.
Zahakiel: Right, sometimes we have issues of translation that tend to obscure the meanings, because the translators try to “help” a little.
And of course, if the law was nailed to the cross, the apostles had no such knowledge, continuing to keep it for hundreds of years until the congregations of Rome and Antioch came into power and began to introduce Sunday as a day of rest in parallel to the Sabbath, finally replacing the seventh day completely with the first.
So the Sabbath, and indeed all 10 Commandments, continued to be kept sacred by Christian believers. Acts 15 has the apostles directing the new converts to the synagogues to learn of Moses’ writings. Christ said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) But just as importantly, the spirit of the law continued to be understood and even expanded by believers long after the Teacher had gone ahead to prepare a place for them.
In the Book of Acts, we find Peter continuing to express abhorrence of unclean foods. But then Paul expounded on that concept and wrote, “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” (1Cor 3:17) Now, this is a concept that is not fully fleshed out in the Old Testament. Paul took the food laws, or the idea behind them, and made a general statement about anything that defiles. I have seen movies of very devout Hebrews, living in Jerusalem, who keep the feasts like Tabernacles, and are otherwise very strict in their observance of the Torah. And yet, many of them, while sitting in their booths on the holy days, think nothing of pulling out a cigarette and smoking right there in the Succoth. They have the letter of the law, but do not see the general concept behind why it was given.
Anything that would harm the body, or put it into an unnatural state of being, is avoided by faithful Adventists; in this, we follow the example of the Savior who was offered a mild intoxicant on the cross. But even in that final distress, “when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink.” (Mat 27:34) We understand His refusal in this way, that He was about to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and desired to be the spotless Lamb, sound in body and mind, for this last great struggle with temptation, and in preparation to give His flawless life for our sakes.
In response, we, who are called “kings and priests” as a matter of faith avoid alcohol, stimulants like coffee and some teas, cigarettes, and other nervous-system affecting drugs. These are also the “rules of faith” as we understand them, for which a transgression of the law, or the breaking of the rules, would be sin. And why? Because if we are Christians, if we are converted, this body that we use for a time is no longer our own. As Paul put it, “ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1Cor 6:20)
Some say of the things I mentioned above, like dietary practices and health in general, “It is my body.” It’s interesting that the abortion debate, from a Christian standpoint, rarely takes the verse I just quoted above into account. But it should, because for a Christian it would clear the matter right up; the choice to create life is not ours. And then, if even our bodies are not our own, how much less the body of a new person to whom Yahweh has given the breath of life?
So then, even this most immature view of sin provides us with much wisdom. Even if the Bible were just seen as a set of “rules,” there would still be value in following them, because obedience leads to blessings, both naturally (due to the laws of cause-and-effect) and supernaturally because Yahweh is able to bless those who offer their lives to Him.
From a practical standpoint, how do we use this information? How is it valuable in evangelism?
Well, we use it when dealing with children. And by children, I mean not only those who are new to religion, but possibly those who have been faithful in all they know for years and even decades, but have been starved of new light because of a lack of godly fellowship.
Faithful Sunday keepers, for example, often need to be introduced to the Sabbath truth by simply showing them verses and asking, “Doesn’t this seem consistent with Christ’s message to us? Do you see the unbroken line of obedience to the Decalogue running through both Testaments?” And after they see it’s something to do, then we can talk about the true blessing of it. As I explained to someone recently, a child may not understand the details about germs or diseases, but they understand a parent’s authority. It may be years after they have learned the habit of washing their hands before meals and after going to the bathroom that they come to a fuller understanding of why the rule exists. But until then (and even after then, when the understanding comes) the rule does have value that ought not to be forgotten.
So that is the first view of sin: a breaking of the rules. Any questions about this?
Qinael: No.
Giselle: No.
Barb: None.
Pastor “Chick”: No.
Annetta: No.
Daphna: No.
Abraham: No.
Tain: No.
Missing The Mark
Zahakiel: The second view of sin is “missing the mark.” Here is our key verse again:
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1John 3:4)
We are going to focus on another part of this verse, the word “sin.” In Greek, the word used by the Bible’s authors to translate the Hebrew concept of sin is the word hamartia, which means, literally, “to miss the mark.”
There are two different ways of understanding why that word is used. The first is a specific “missing” of something that should be done, and this is similar to our first view of sin, which is to break a rule. If a rule exists, and we miss it, we do not comply with it, then we have missed a mark, and thus committed “sin.” But even here, this concept of missing, and not just violating, expands our understanding a little to cover not only sins of commission, but also of omission. Does everyone understand what these terms mean? Well, rather, someone tell me what those terms mean, and how they differ?
Qinael: Commission is something you commit; you actively do the thing. Omission is something you omit, that you leave out; something you fail to accomplish or do through inactivity when it was required.
Zahakiel: Right, exactly.
We have this verse from the New Testament, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17) I’ll tell you, most people in Christendom are guilty of “sin” in this regard, even just looking at the concept of evangelism. Clearly, we have been commanded, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15) We are told about it, so we know it. We are instructed by Christ Himself, so we know it to be a “good.” But how many do it? How many church members in modern Churches are actively evangelizing? They know to do the good, but they do not take every opportunity to speak of Christ to the ungodly… and I do not mean ministerial journeys to other countries necessarily, although “all the world” certainly includes that. But just in their various circles of influence, they do not take the opportunities offered to do a good. They miss the mark.
The second way of looking at those words is more general. What is, for the Christian, “the mark?”
Annetta: Perfection.
Zahakiel: Perfection of what?
Abraham: The character of Christ.
Annetta: Character, life.
Daphna: To do that which we know is good and leave off that which is bad, to answer to our high calling.
Zahakiel: Right. All of those.
The mark is the life of Christ, and His character. It is the example that He set in His life and death.
Paul, in fact, says just that, “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of Yahweh in Christ Yahshua.” (Phil 3:14) And yes, Daphna uses just that word too in her answer.
If we do not preach the Gospel with all zeal, we miss the mark. But more than that… if we do not take the opportunities we are given to expand our gifts, to learn of righteousness, to settle into the truth, (remember the parable of the talents) we miss the mark of the “high calling” with which Yahweh has called us through (or in) Christ Yahshua.
In relation to this issue, Paul speaks about self control as a necessary talent for this work. We read of that here: “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate [controlled] in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air. But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” (1Cor 9:24-27)
This is a somewhat important subject, not because self-control is important (we know that it is) but also because it continues to be necessary even in the Victory message. As we all know, Satan has many counterfeits for the one truth, in order to confuse those who would otherwise find the path to life.
One of the “close counterfeits” even within Adventism, is the “holy flesh” movement, which is an extreme and corruption of the true message of righteousness by faith, or victory over sin. In the holy flesh doctrine, the teaching is very similar to the Gnostic beliefs that John the apostle refuted so vehemently in his first epistle. It’s also similar in a way to the one-saved-always-saved doctrine, although its wording is different.
In the O.S.A.S. doctrine, once you are “saved” nothing you do can alter your destiny; you go to heaven regardless of the quality of your life thereafter, or whether or not you follow any or all of the instructions Christ gave His followers, though He specifically told them it would be necessary for them to continue in the things He taught, (John 8:31) and to endure to the end. (Mat 10:22) The formal presentation of this doctrine is usually worded a little more elegantly than I’m saying it here; they will say that those who continue in the teachings “for the most part” are the ones who are “truly” converted, while the others may have made the prayer and claimed conversion, but did not really mean it. But what it boils down to if we strip away the finery is the very Gnostic, very refuted position that our actions do not matter that much (if at all) once our souls are “right with the Lord.”
John of course, says exactly the opposite: He said, “Don’t be fooled. Those who are truly righteous will do righteous things,” a close paraphrase of 1John 3:7. This includes avoiding sins of both omission and commission, which we were discussing before.
And the holy flesh movement is essentially a variation on this. What the holy flesh teaching does, as I understand it, is to say, “Since the saved do not commit sin, whatever we do cannot – by definition – be called ‘sin.’” If that sounds a bit convoluted, it is… the once-saved idea will say that the saved may continue to sin, but the sin does not separate them from God. The holy flesh movement goes a step further, and justifies whatever is done, because they were “saved.” So while it may be sin for you, it is not sin for me, because my acts are righteous. This removes even the concept of temptation (and certainly the need for self control) because we are motivated by the right spirit, whatever our actions end up being. If sin is missing the mark, the victory message says, “You have perfect aim in Christ, so you will always hit the target.” The holy flesh movement says, “Don’t worry about your aim. Once you are saved the target becomes so big you can’t miss it.” This removes the standard, so there’s no way to miss it.
Now we have seen that the spiritually immature need the concept of sin as “breaking the rules.” Who needs this second understanding of sin as a missing of the mark? Those who may have a more mature view of spirituality, but are captive to the wrong doctrines, need this version. They need to see that there is a standard, a mark, that they are expected to hit.
Those who have been in a false religion, or in Christianity laced with pagan doctrines, are in a special kind of danger when they finally do encounter the truth. This is the “valley of decision,” where they choose what kind of person they will be for time and for eternity. Can they sacrifice their traditions in favor of new light? Can they reject the darkness that has been comfortable and familiar to them for the light that can seem stark and revealing in its strangeness? It is not an easy choice, but it is made easier if they know what it is they are fleeing, a failure to meet the standard that Yahweh has set forth in His Word. If they truly love the Word, they will dismiss nothing until they have compared it with the Bible’s teachings.
The CSDAs have been very good at this. We have encountered individuals, some bearing extremely strange teachings to our ears. Yet I cannot think of a single time when we’ve just dismissed it without bringing the Scriptures to bear on it at least one time. Even when they are very strange, we’ve taken the time to study them out. The Lunar Sabbath idea, the Rapture, head coverings for women, the Feast days and New Moons, the original names of the Father and Son… these are not taught in traditional Adventism. Yet we’ve not been shackled by thoughts such as, “It was good enough for Ellen White, so it’s good enough for us.” That way of thinking is the death of freedom of faith, and individuality in religion. What has been true we have accepted, what has been false we have put away. We’ve done the work, we have taken the time… and this is the reason we stand where we do on the issues we address.
Are there any questions on this second meaning of the verse we are studying?
Qinael: No.
Daphna: No.
Abraham: No.
Barb: None here.
Kimberly: No.
A Lack of Rest
Zahakiel: Finally, there is the third view of sin that we are going to draw from our key verse:
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1John 3:4)
For this one we’re going to look more closely at the entire phrase “transgression of the law.” This is not a strict translation of the term. It is derived from the word for law, nomos, and for this reason the “simple” explanation of breaking the law, or violating a rule, is accurate. Yet that’s not the full meaning that can be derived from the phrasing here. The phrase “transgression of the law” is actually a single word in the epistle, anomia.
I’ve gone through this specific idea a couple times in previous studies, but it bears repeating. Let’s take a word like “moral.” If something is moral, it is good as society judges goodness. If something is “immoral,” it means that it is in opposition to what is socially acceptable. It is criminal, evil, bad, etc. But there is another word, “amoral” that is a little more complex. If John had said that sin is “innomos,” or the correctly phrased equivalent, this would be more like the simple concept of “breaking the law.” But anomia, like amoral, has the connotation of not only being in contrast with it, but also separate from it, beyond it, even “above” it in a sense.
There are those who believe the Law is done away with. This is anomia, a separation from the law. And it’s the very definition of sin. There are those who believe we determine our own morality; human beings determine what is right and what is wrong. This is anomia, a feeling of being “above” the law. This is also the very definition of sin. I’m going to put the full definition of the term from Strong’s Concordance word for word:
1) the condition of without law
a) because ignorant of it
b) because of
violating it
2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness
You’ll notice that the traditional conception of “sin,” that of being in contempt or violation of the law, is the secondary meaning. The first is a condition of being “without” the law. And really, isn’t that what is being taught by most Churches in Christendom today? Some will protest this and say, “Well, we teach we are without the Old Testament law. There’s the law of Christ, the law of love, the law of the new covenant.” Well, I would at that point have to ask them what this law is, and where it is defined. It’s true that these terms are used in the New Testament, but they are not “given” the way that the commandments are. When Christ is asked what the greatest commandment in the law is, He does not replace the 10 with anything new, He quotes from the Old Testament, the first commandment and then the book of Leviticus, when He says that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.
He, in His life, walked perfectly according to the Decalogue, and told His disciples to “follow Him.” His disciples then turned around to the people they converted, and said, “Imitate us as we imitate Christ.” This should – should – have lead to an unbroken succession of faithful commandment-keeping Christians all the way down to the time of Revelation, when the church would be defined by its faithfulness to the law of God, and the faith of Christ, (Rev 14:12) but unfortunately some ages have seen very few who maintained both these defining characteristics of the religion of Yahshua the Messiah.
Sin, as John the apostle defines it, is a condition of being without the law in one’s actions, thinking, lifestyle. It is not necessarily an active rebellion against it. As Strong’s points out, the state of opposition to the law can be due to ignorance. Nevertheless, it is defined clearly as sin. In a word, sin as John described it can be described in terms of harmony. One who commits sin is out of harmony with the law. This covers it very well, for one can be out of harmony with something due to ignorance, due to willful violation, due to active or passive failure to move with what is proper – basically all the definitions of sin that we’ve covered so far in this study. And beyond that, it gives the connotation John did, that it is not only about actions, but about the state of one’s being, that defines whether or not he or she is in “sin.”
Some do not at all like this new, expanded explanation of sin, even though it is the most accurate in terms of the epistle’s wording and intent. One individual I met a few years ago said he didn’t want to consider the concept I was presenting to him – sin as a condition of disharmony – because he liked the idea of the “checklist” to see if he was doing something wrong or not. For him, religion was about works, not faith, about the letter and rules, not about the character of Christ coming to reside in our flesh.
Understanding sin not in terms of rules, or failure to act, but as a condition, as a disharmony, as a “lack of rest” to put it another way, forces us to do something many people find unpleasant. It forces us to be diligent in our self-examination. Sin, understood has a disharmony and an unrest relating to the law, causes us to look at our thoughts, actions, motives and tendencies, to see if there is harmony or lack of harmony that must be corrected. In this the Sabbath blessing becomes an invaluable tool, because it teaches us how to “rest.”
Tain: Couldn’t the idea of disharmony also be another bit of freedom? If I go with my checklist.. I have to “try to convert” everybody all the time.. if you know what I mean.. Instead of listening for Yah’s will in regards to timing and wording. Does that make sense?
Zahakiel: Well, I think I see what you mean. Sometimes all the elements of the checklist don’t apply in every situation… So we really have to look at it in terms of harmony or disharmony with the principles. Is that what you mean?
And of course, in a sense we are trying to convert others all the time. We might not be giving a Bible study every day, but in our actions we reveal Christ to them, who draws them to Himself.
Tain: I think I see your concept of harmony /disharmony as a better way of life than having a check list of rules that must be obeyed all the time. It allows us to act “in harmony” with Yah’s will, instead of according to our checklist, which may not be in Yah’s timing. LOL.. You know what.. it’s ok.. We can chat later
Zahakiel: Ok. But does what I said above make sense? I want you to get the general idea, anyway. It sounds like we’re voicing the same concept.
Tain: :)
Zahakiel: Now, there’s one place in the writings of Adventism, I think Ellen White said it, that if human society has been diligent about Sabbath keeping, there would not have been the existence of any other kind of sin. And I believe that, because if we rest in Christ, and consider our own works to be useless for sanctification (for as it’s written, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness) then where is the hatred, envy, covetousness, that leads to other acts of transgression?
We must see how sin, for whatever reason, ignorance or rebellion, takes us out of the rest that Christ has for us. And sin is not about judgment. Sin is not only about whether or not we get to Heaven; sin is a devastating presence even in this present life. It is true, as Job noted, that righteous men are not always immediately blessed, and the wicked sometimes goes unpunished. The judgment does sort out the issues that are not resolved here. But, we are hardly going to wait for the judgment to start being concerned with good and evil. We want our lives to be ordered after Christ’s character now; that is what conversion means, it is a rejection of the world’s thoughts, and processes, and an acceptance of the divine standard not only as a goal, but as a driving motivation.
The sinfulness of sin causes us to flee from it, if, IF we recognize it. Popular culture glorifies sin, at least some sins. But Satan allows there to be distinctions, and gray areas, between sins, because he wishes people, both the morally good and morally bad, to both be under his power. This is a very “clever,” if we may used the word, approach to ensnaring souls, and it’s certainly proven to be an effective one.
I was asked by a preacher, and I shared my reply with some of you, “What about all the others? What about those who have not accepted Christ, but are not wicked? What will happen to them?” This man is under Satan’s deceptions. Concepts such as wickedness and righteousness are God’s to define. Human beings have a standard of moral goodness that they apply to people to generate stereotypes like villains, heroes, innocent bystanders, victims, predators… some of these correspond with Heaven’s judgment, but some of them don’t. There are no people except “the wicked.” We may love all men, and work for their salvation. We may know people who are morally good, and some very pleasant ones at that, but we must be under no illusions as to their spiritual (not moral) nature. Some of “the wicked” have accepted Christ and been redeemed, but there’s no third classification. I gave the individual here a more detailed reply, showing what the Bible says about those who genuinely had no opportunity to learn the truth, but the point I strove to drive home to him was that if we allow human judgment to determine what “sin” is, we are actually putting ourselves out of harmony with the true standard, the law, and we become anomia which is, again, the very definition of sin!
If sin is, as John says, a lack of harmony or peace with the law, then some of the more difficult Bible verses make sense, such as the one that says, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, [along with] the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8) The more full explanation of anomia, tied in with the Sabbath rest principle, and the spirit of the law, perfectly explains how that could be, how the penalty for all these conditions can be the same. And it also reveals to us the mind of Christ with which we are to be filled. God says of those who are being lost, “if only they would enter into my rest.” This is all that Salvation is, an entering into God’s rest. And this is not something we’re waiting for… it’s something we currently experience. Salvation is the opposite not only of damnation, but also the opposite of rebellion, disharmony, and unrest. Or perhaps we could say, damnation is fully described by the concepts of rebellion, disharmony and unrest.
And who needs this conception of sin? Everyone does. Everyone eventually needs to come to the understanding of sin as a state of being out of harmony with Yahweh’s will, whether or not it is morally “evil,” and this brings us to a very clear understanding of the principle of Sabbath rest, the observance of holy days (which are His will for us), the observance of good health and dietary practices, and how all these things are a part of the Christian character.
Are there any questions about this part?
Giselle: No.
Ye: No.
Annetta: No.
Barb: None here.
Qinael: No.
Abraham: No.
Kimberly: No.
Tain: No.
Conclusion
Zahakiel: As we conclude, I would like to share with you something I did not notice until I was about halfway putting together the notes for this study.
There are three legitimate ways of looking at sin. The first is the “basic” way, that deals with actions, and that will be revealed and “judged” in the coming judgment. As it’s written, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2Cor 5:10) This is talking about actions, and these are the things we face in the coming judgment.
The second way of looking at sin deals with missing the mark in terms of the omission or commission of sins, and this is based upon the things we accept, whether flawed or true doctrines. If we “miss the mark” in terms of our understanding of Christ’s perfect standard for our lives, we have fallen into sin. So what we need is a clear view of that standard, and a clear set of teachings about them. We need a purity about the things we believe.
The third way of looking at sin involves a state of being out of “rest” with the law. It involves settling in to the truth about Yahweh, entering His rest, and avoiding the world’s judgment and way of doing things. Now, what does this sound like?
Giselle: Sounds like the Three Angels’ Messages.
Zahakiel: That’s right.
Qinael: <nods.>
Zahakiel: Even in the way we define sin, we see that the threefold presentation of the Everlasting Gospel, as borne by the Revelation 14 angels, is an applicable teaching.
Abraham: Ok.
Zahakiel: I think that in our studies we have only begun to scratch the surface about how these things can apply to the lives of the 144,000.
I would like to end with passage about sin, starting with our key text and reading down a bit to a most precious promise.
“Whosoever
committeth sin transgresseth
also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that
[Yahshua] was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth
in Him sinneth not; whosoever sinneth
hath not seen Him, neither known Him.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is
righteous, even as He is righteous.
“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for His Seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” (1John 3:4)
This is a wonderful passage. It moves from the definition of sin, and how to identify it, to the hope we are offered in the Word for those who wish a release from this dreadful thing. Victory over sin, complete and total and present victory. This is the hope the Bible gives us. And it is enough… and more than enough. Victory over sin as the answer to anomia is better than we could have asked for. It is better than the fairy tales told by modern Christendom, of a forced heaven, and a Christ that does not fully, fully save. But few want it, and why? Because they are not taught what sin is, what it does to their souls. They do not hate it with a perfect hatred and so the cure seems less important, less wonderful, than it truly is.
But this is not so for the children of the light. Let us take this knowledge with us as we reach out to find a few more willing souls in these last precious moments of probationary time.
Are there any questions as we close?
Qinael: No.
Ye: No.
Barb: None here.
Abraham: No.
Kimberly: No.
Tain: No.
Daphna: No.
Zahakiel: Then I will ask pastor to close with a prayer.
Pastor “Chick”: Dear Father in Heaven,
Thank you for giving us a perfect definition of sin. Thank you for giving us a perfect remedy for sin.Thank you for
perfect salvation and cleansing from sin.
We thank you for ALL souls that have taken time to be present for this
study, and we are thankful for the simplicity of this study, for we are not all
theologians. Some of us need very simple
concepts in order to understand your will for our lives. Now that we have a perfect understanding, I
pray that we will make the most of every moment, taking every opportunity,
resting in the law of love, enduring
unto the end, looking forward to that day when those we love and desire to be
fellowshipping with will not be separated by oceans and continents, having to
worship together by way of internet.
We look forward eagerly, and even with urgency, to the day that your
family will stand with perfect characters together before your throne. May all of us find our place on that holy
ground, without any missing. In
Yahshua’s name, Amen.
Qinael: Amen.
Tain: Amen.
Barb: Amen.
Ye: Amen.
Annetta: Amen
Zahakiel: Amen.
Kimberly: amen.
Abraham: Amen.
Giselle: Amen.
Daphna: Thank you, Yah, for hearing and answering. Amen.
