The Problem of Sin

In my discussion about theonomy I am dealing with the idea that all of the OT Law has been abolished… except the parts that weren’t. And the vague definition of ‘the parts that weren’t’ goes sort of under the rubric of ‘those parts repeated in the New Testament’. But the concept of ‘repeated’ is rather vague. What does it mean for a law to be ‘repeated’? Can it merely be named? If one aspect of it is named are the others included? What if a whole group of laws is named as a group, does that count?

Fornication

Acts 15:20

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols,

and from fornication,

and from things strangled, and from blood.

FORNICA’TION, noun [Latin fornicatio.]

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

2. Adultery. Matthew 5:32.

3. Incest. 1 Corinthians 5:1.

4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2 Chronicles 21:11, Revelation 19:2.

-Webster’s 1828

The first crisis for the anti-theonomist is the word ‘fornication’. It is very clearly repeated in the New Testament. But what is it?

The first thing we have to deal with is our English readers misunderstanding of the word ‘fornication’. As the Webster’s dictionary points out, even in English (old fashioned English, perhaps) the word ‘fornication’ is broader than one might think. But the Greek word that is translated ‘fornication’ in the New Testament is broader still. It includes all sexual sins.

But unfortunately for the anti-theonomist, the New Testament doesn’t have dozens of case laws demonstrating what sexual sin is, how to recognize it, and how to deal with it. There are not instructions to the civil magistrates on any of those things, or even any indication if it is the civil magistrate that should deal with them!

So the anti-theonomist is stuck trying to decide if he should say that marrying your sister, or bestiality, is OK… or if he should take the word ‘fornication’ as the repeated part, and then point back to the Old Testament for its defintion!

Sin

John 8:34

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Which brings us to the problem of sin. A huge problem, obviously in a lot of ways, but I wish to bring up the problem that we saw with ‘fornication’. We can all agree that the New Testament condemns ‘sin’… just like God’s Law did in the Old Testament. But what of it's definition? Does sin have a new definition in the New Testament? What is it?

Belief

John 16:9

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

One sin that it might seem is rather clearly in the New Testament and not in the Old, is that of lack of belief in Christ. Hard to find anything more New Testamenty than that, eh?

Well, except…

John 1:15

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

But, I guess John is New Testament? Well, what about…

Matthew 1:20-21

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

And she shall bring forth a son,

and thou shalt call his name JESUS:

for he shall save his people from their sins.

Still New Testament?

Well, it’s in Matthew. But what about…

Luke 2:25-26

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout,

waiting for the consolation of Israel:

and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death,

before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

Oh, wait, I know…

Isaiah 7:13-14

And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,

and shall call his name Immanuel.

So, serious conclusion here… the messiah was long foretold, and belief in Him was a mandatory part of what God required of His people. An ‘article of faith’, as it were. A failure of faith in this area would indeed be sin.

Ye have heard it said…

Matthew 5:27-28

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,

Thou shalt not commit adultery:

But I say unto you,

That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

But what about all of those times when Christ contradicted the Old Testament Law? Surely those mean that the OT Law is passe, defunct, fini?

Well… not so fast. First of all, when Christ wished to quote the OT Law, he would say ‘It is written’. When he said ‘You have heard it said,’ what He is clearly doing is correcting… a false interpretation of the OT Law. And not any kind of false interpretation, but one that took the law too lightly! The Jews of his age congratulated themselves on not committing adultery… until Jesus told them that lust was adultery! It wasn’t that hard not to murder… but a bit harder to avoid hate!

John 8:17

It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

No, far from denigrating the law, Jesus augmented it. And far from inventing some new law, or merely repeating parts of it, Jesus accused his contemporaries of ignoring it.

Corban vs The Commandment of God

Mark 7:9-13

And he said unto them,

Full well ye reject the commandment of God,

that ye may keep your own tradition.

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Note how Christ elevates the law in his condemnation of the Pharisees. He points out how they had invented their own traditions, and used that to avoid following the Law of God! Far from divorcing the idea of sin from the idea of the Law, He reinforces it!

The Carnal Mind vs the Law of God

Romans 8:7

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:

for it is not subject to the law of God,

neither indeed can be.

At times it seems as if some anti-theonomists are saying that the Christian mind should not be subject to the Law of God. Which would put it in the same category as the carnal mind…. not a great place to be. In order to avoid this, they must say that what is meant by ‘the law of God’ here is not ‘The Law of God’… meaning the totality of the revealed Word of God from Genesis to Revelation… but ‘The Law of Christ’, meaning their substitute law of the New Covenant, meaning only those parts of the Law of God repeated in the New Testament.

But in light of what the rest of the New Testament, including Christ, says about the Law of God, and in light of the fact that there wasn’t even a New Testament by the time that this letter to the Romans was written… that seems an odd interpretation.

Back to Sin

Rom 3:10-19

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law:

that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:

for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

So, let’s get back to the definition of sin. The student of Scripture will know two things about sin and the New Testament:

1. The New Testament roundly condemns sin and

2. The definition of sin is found in God’s Law.

Now anti-theonomists don’t (at least don’t usually publicly) disagree with point (1). However they roundly disagree with point (2). Which is problematic, because the New Testament so clearly teaches it. ‘For by the law is the knowledge of sin’.

Links