Unknown Sin

So far, we have discussed the usurping sin of taking the Lord’s name in vain and the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Today, we examine unknown sin: instances where we commit sins of which we are completely unaware.

Photo by Ann H on Pexels

You undoubtedly have heard the phrase, “Nobody’s perfect.” I would argue that there was one exception to that rule, but we (meaning humanity) nailed that individual to a cross roughly two millennia ago. Nevertheless, I’m sure that we would all agree that the sentiment is true today. The Bible states the situation quite concisely…

“…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” Romans 3:23

Most of the time, we think of sin as happening at a decision-making point; we are faced with a situation where we must choose between two options: one which clearly honors God versus one which we would probably enjoy, but, for whatever reason, would put us clearly outside of God’s will. The problem is… life isn’t always so clear-cut. Sometimes, we may not even realize that we’re doing anything wrong!

Think back to your childhood. Did you ever get into trouble for doing something? Of course, you did! Were you ever asked, “Why did you do that?” Of course, you were! And I guarantee that you remember responding with, “I don’t know,” at least once. As (perhaps jaded) adults, we typically respond to a child who claims ignorance as a defense with disdain. “Oh, you know better than that!” But if I really search my memories, I’m certain that there were, in fact, times where I did things without thinking about whether they were good or bad. I just wanted to do it, and so, I did it.

Unforgivable Sin

Last week, we discussed the usurping sin of taking the Lord’s name in vain. In our investigation, we uncovered the seriousness of this sin; breaking the Third of the Ten Commandments…

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”  Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11

Image by Adis Resic from Pixabay

The explicit statement that God will not hold guiltless (will not forgive) anyone who takes His name in vain is a particularly unsettling thought. That’s a very steep penalty, especially in light of the New Testament, where salvation from our sins is based on the crucifixion of Jesus. Christ’s blood covers the sins of all who believe in Him, but we previously discussed why an outward statement of faith is not necessarily a true statement of what is in one’s heart. Even the New Testament mentions one sin that will not be forgiven. The unpardonable sin is revealed to us in Matthew 12:31, “…every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven…”

It might be easy to conclude that since both testaments mention a sin which will not be forgiven, the two sins in question must be the same. I have heard this argument made in sermons from time to time, but I believe it to be based on a misconception, much in the same way that people misunderstand what it actually means to take the Lord’s name in vain. Let’s explore the reasons why these verses refer to two very different sins.

Usurping Sin

I can't even begin to count the number of times that I’ve heard fellow Christians say something about how they feel when they hear someone “take the Lord’s name in vain.” We all know exactly what they are referring to: a particular bit of foul language that begins by saying “god” and ends with a word that sounds like the fruits of a beaver’s labor.

All misguided attempts at dad jokes aside, I know there are Christians out there who are sincerely bothered, even offended, by hearing the word in question. While “g-d” is considered by most people (even non-believers) to be one of the two biggest, or most intense, swear words (the other being the dreaded f-bomb), it has become almost ubiquitous in its usage in the entertainment industry and in the vocabulary which some people use commonly in their own personal conversations.

The Bible clearly says, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” This prohibition is important enough to be stated twice in the Old Testament: Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11. These verses are, in fact, the Third of the Ten Commandments!

Taking the Lord’s name in vain is a serious offense, as the text indicates that anyone who does so will not be held guiltless. Being held guiltless is a longer way of saying being forgiven, which in the context of Christianity equates to salvation; for only the saved are forgiven of their sins. In light of the New Testament, we now understand this to mean that anyone who takes the name of the Lord in vain shall not be saved by the atoning death of Christ on the cross. Clearly, it behooves us to understand exactly what act merits such a drastic outcome. As it turns out, an alarming number of Christians completely misunderstand this sin.

Close Quarters Combat (The Armor, part 17)

I have never seen (nor do I wish to see) an exorcism. What I have seen, and perhaps you have seen them as well, are cinematic portrayals of exorcisms in movies and on TV. Linda Blair’s stunning scene from The Exorcist (1973) remains one of the most dramatic and terrifying scenes of spiritual warfare in cinematic history. While I know little about whether the movie portrayed such an event accurately, I am certain that such combat in our daily lives is always up-close, personal, and dangerous. There truly is no such thing as safe, long-distance spiritual warfare.

Photo by Matthias Kabel

The same could be said of combat as experienced by Roman legionnaires of the first century. Heavily armored and wielding large protective shields, Roman soldiers required a weapon which could be easily wielded in one hand. While spears and javelins were certainly used by the Romans in conjunction with their large shields, Paul mentions only one weapon in his references to the Whole Armor of God: the Sword of the Spirit. The sword wielded by the typical Roman soldier of the era would have been the gladius, a short sword with a blade approximately two feet in length. The length and weight of the gladius complemented the use of the scutum, the large shield commonly in use during the first century.

Many commentators have found it curious that a weapon should be included as belonging to a set of armor. In our modern culture, the two seem to belong to different categories. Armor is typically thought of as being any worn item which is primarily defensive in nature, while something which is used to attack the enemy would be categorized as a weapon. However, the Latin root word arma literally means “tools or implements of war” and technically applies to both modern categories of armor and weapons. Similarly, the Greek word Paul actually uses, panoplia, also refers to armor and weapons collectively. Thus, it is not incorrect to include the Sword of the Spirit as part of a set of armor.

A short sword such as the gladius is designed specifically to be easily maneuvered in close-quarters combat. Both Paul and his original readers would have known this. They would also have appreciated the resulting implication that spiritual warfare is a deeply personal thing. One cannot engage in spiritual warfare from a distance. There are no snipers among prayer warriors, only infantrymen.

One Sword to Rule Them All (The Armor, part 16)

I’ve been a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings for nearly as long as I can remember. I was introduced to the Rankin/Bass animated version of The Hobbit back in the late 1970s, and I was instantly hooked. One of my favorite scenes is when Gandalf rescues Bilbo and the dwarves from the Goblin King. The sword Gandalf wields, Glamdring (a.k.a. The Foe Hammer), is featured prominently in this scene. The mere appearance of Glamdring was enough to send the Goblin King into a panic, and Gandalf quickly dispatches the brute and leads the party to safety. This scene left quite an impression on the seven-year-old me, and I’ve been fascinated with swords ever since.

Tolkien’s Glamdring, King Arthur’s Excalibur, and Charlemagne’s Joyeuse are just a few of the iconic swords which have played prominent roles in fiction and/or history.  Once the pinnacle of battlefield armaments, swords continue to symbolize power and authority even to this day. In Ephesians 6:17, the Apostle Paul states that the Sword of the Spirit is the “word of God.” As such, this final piece of the Whole Armor of God would be the ultimate symbol of power and authority.

The use of sword imagery and symbolism in the Bible can get a little strange. The first mention of a sword in the Bible is the flaming sword which “turned every way” to guard the entrance of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24). If a (possibly) levitating sword of fire isn’t odd enough, imagine having a sword coming out of your mouth!

… from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword…

~Revelation 1:16 (ESV)

This bizarre passage is not alone in the “swords for lips” category. A sword is symbolically linked to the mouth numerous times in scripture! If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is that words are powerful; none more so than the very word of God.

©B-C-designs - stock.adobe.com

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

~Hebrews 4:12 (NKJV)

This idea of the Word of God being alive shares a direct link to another passage of scripture which reveals the identity of the Word to be none other than Jesus Christ himself.

Hidden Meanings

If you’ve read the New Testament very much at all, you’re probably aware that Jesus made extensive use of parables in His teaching. In case you’re not exactly sure what a parable is, let’s define it.

Parable: a simple story about everyday life which is used to illustrate a spiritual or moral lesson.

No matter what subject you’re teaching, your goal is to communicate new ideas to your students. One of the most effective ways to do this is to start with concepts which your students already understand, preferably with ideas that they have fully mastered, and build upon what they already know in order to learn something new.

Madonna Challenges The Pope, Says Jesus Would Support Abortion

Photo by Adam Sammler

Apparently, pop singer Madonna wants to have a debate with the Pope about abortion. Most disturbingly, she seems to suggest that Jesus would side with the pro-choice crowd. She proposes the following potential questions for the Pontiff: “What do you really think he thought of women? And don't you think Jesus would agree that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body?”

Pope Francis has made his pro-life stance very clear on a number of occasions. I'm no Catholic, but I have to say I'm going to side with the Pope on this one.

So, Madonna, since you brought Jesus into this conversation, allow me to provide you with the answers you would like to ask about Him. Your overtly loaded questions make it abundantly clear that you are terribly, terribly mistaken.

Ten Principles of Success You NEED to Practice

So here’s what happened. I was working on research for a completely different topic, having a little trouble zeroing in on the main idea, when I stumbled across a list I had written some years ago. As it turns out, the list consisted of ten points -or principles- about success, and it became instantly clear that THIS was to be the next project.

The principles in the list that follows are not necessarily gentle, comforting sentiments. They are neither warm nor fuzzy, though they are intended to be helpful.  And by the way, that warm, fuzzy feeling people try to use to inspire you can actually be a destructive thing. 

Why is that? 

It’s because of the Participation Trophy Effect, which gives one the false impression that any outcome is acceptable - praiseworthy, in fact - even when the results are less than stellar.  They say, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions,” and this kind of feel-good approach to success based on repetitive unconditional affirmation is a perfect example of good intentions gone wrong.

This approach actually does more harm than good in the long run.  Part of this is because it holds us back from producing our very best results by failing to provide a motivation for improvement. But this method is also ultimately self-defeating. At some point, you will inevitably encounter serious criticism (now it might be a fair, unbiased, valid critique of your performance, or it might be someone trolling you - either way, the result is the same). If our only exposure to feedback has been in an echo chamber of safe-space trigger-free bubble-wrapped mumbo-jumbo, any criticism that comes our way will likely be crippling.

A truly meaningful, positive self-image can only be built by realistic evaluation. Warm, fuzzy feelings pale in comparison to the satisfaction you feel when you have actually had to overcome some serious difficulties in order to accomplish something.  So, the following comments are intended to point you toward something spectacular, and then push you forward.

Star Trek, Nightmares, and Jesus: An Unexpected Lesson

I had a very disturbing dream last night. 

fanpop

You see, it stemmed from an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise called “Similitude”.  In this episode, the chief engineer of Enterprise, Commander Tucker (“Trip”), is hurt very badly and goes into a coma.  His prognosis is terminal – he will die because of severe brain damage.  Doctor Flox suggests a very controversial treatment which involves creating a clone of Trip which would live for only 15 days, during which it would grow from newborn to old age.  They anticipated being able to harvest some brain tissue from this clone when it reached Trip’s current stage of development (or “age”) without causing harm to the clone, thus allowing it to live out its full life cycle, limited though it would be.  Obviously, the episode raised some critical ethical questions about modern medical research, including cloning, stem-cell research, use of lab animals, and I’m sure a host of other possible dilemmas.  None of this is what got to me, though.