Is it a sin? Some of the most heated debates in mainstream Christianity today are centered around what exactly is considered a “sin” in the Bible. The doctrine of hyperdispensationalism, which I subscribe to for reasons set out in this series of posts, complicates this question somewhat by recognizing that what is considered a sin for Jews might be different than what is considered a sin for Gentiles (something that Paul also acknowledges in Rom. 2:11-16). Although Jesus (during His earthly ministry), John, and the other apostles to Israel [1] clearly believed that following the Mosaic Law in its entirety was a necessity for the Jewish people (Matt. 5:17-20; 19:16-17; 23:1-3; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; 3:4), Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, seems to have had a vastly different perspective on what is right and wrong. In this post, I will examine Paul’s views on sin and the Law, and come to a conclusion about what can be considered sinful for Gentiles.
Paul’s perspective on the Law
Overall, Paul seems to have had a very low view of the Law in terms of how well it works at preventing sin. In fact, in one place, he says that the Law is the power of sin (1 Cor. 15:56); without the Law, sin has no power. Although he insists that the Law is not inherently a bad thing, he states that when combined with the “fleshly” nature of humanity, it actually works to increase sin rather than decrease it. As he wrote in his epistle to the Romans:
The Law came in so that the offense would increase... sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? Far from it! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by bringing about my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin. (Rom. 5:20, 7:8-14 NASB)
Notice that being “fleshly”, the state which when combined with the Law produces more sinfulness, is not something that changed after Paul was saved. At the time he wrote this, he was still fleshly and sold into bondage to sin. Rather, the flesh - that which we need deliverance from, that which causes sin - is mortality, our current “bodies of death” (Rom. 7:24). More on this below.
Therefore, since we will not be fully delivered from this mortal flesh until our resurrections unto immortality, when both death and the “sting of death” will finally be defeated (1 Cor. 15:51-56), it is both futile and detrimental to try to place ourselves under the Law. This is confirmed by what Paul says to the Galatians, that those who place themselves under the Law are under a curse:
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide in all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.” 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.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” — in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:10-14 NASB)
This also brings up another point that Paul often makes throughout his epistles - that Christ’s death, by justifying us, removed us from any and all obligation to follow the Law. This is made clear in the following passages:
For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4 NASB)
And when you were dead in your wrongdoings and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our wrongdoings, having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross... If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees? (Col. 2:13-14, 20 NASB)
For he himself [Christ] is our peace... by abolishing in his flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances (Eph. 2:14-15 NASB)
Taking all of these passages together, we can conclude that Paul saw the Law as something that (1) although inherently good, when combined with our mortal flesh becomes “the power of sin” and increases sinfulness, and therefore (2) should be avoided at all costs, as following the Law puts us under a curse; for this reason, (3) Jesus has removed the Law entirely and released us from any and all obligation to follow it.
Another extremely important thing to know about the Law is that it was never meant for the Gentiles to follow, but only for Israel alone. The Old Testament repeatedly states that the statutes and judgments of the Law are for the children of Israel (Exod. 25:21-22; Lev. 26:46; Deut. 29:1; 2 Chron. 5:10; 6:10-11), and that no other nation has such laws (Ps. 147:19-20). Paul writes that what the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, in context meaning the Israelites (Rom. 3:19) and that the Law and covenants pertain only to Israel (Rom. 9:4; 1 Cor. 9:20; Eph. 2:11-12). Instead, Paul says, the Gentiles (as well as Jewish members of the body of Christ) are supposed to follow a different law, the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2 cf. Rom. 2:14-15).
What about the “moral law”?
Often, people will draw a distinction between the “moral law” and the “ceremonial law” of the Old Testament, and claim that whereas the ceremonial law has been abolished, we are still supposed to follow the moral commandments of the Law. The problem with this view is that no such distinction is ever drawn throughout all of scripture; it is an entirely unbiblical view being forced onto the text. Instead, Christians have to draw an arbitrary line between what they consider to be moral vs. ceremonial.
One common line that is drawn between the moral and ceremonial law is whether it is called an “abomination” in the Old Testament. If something is called an abomination, they say, then it is forbidden for all people at all times. However, there is at least one case where an “abomination” is negated by Paul. In Deuteronomy 14:3, all unclean meats are declared “abominable” (towebah), and yet Paul says that
One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables.The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him... I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean. For if because of food your brother or sister is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your choice of food that person for whom Christ died...
All things indeed are clean (Rom. 14:2-3, 14-15, 20 NASB)
And again:
[Do not] advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:3-5 NASB)
Therefore, it is clear that if there is a distinction between the moral and ceremonial law, it cannot be drawn at the level of “abominations”. Another common point at which this distinction is drawn is between the Ten Commandments, or the Decalogue, and the rest of the Mosaic Law. However, again, this finds at least one exception: the commandment to keep the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15), variously considered to be the Third or Fourth Commandment, is explicitly negated by Paul:
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. (Rom. 14:5-6 NKJV)
Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day — things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col. 2:16 NASB)
Thus, neither the “abomination” distinction nor the Decalogue distinction stand up to Paul’s own writings. Since there is, therefore, no distinction between the so-called “moral” and “ceremonial” laws in the Bible, any such distinction is entirely subjective and must be based on one’s own moral opinions.
But then, if there is no clear distinction to be made between the “ceremonial law” and the “moral law” that supposedly applies to all people at all times, then how can there possible be an objective moral standard for all people? Paul’s answer to this question, as it pertains to Gentiles and members of the body of Christ [2], is simply that there isn’t. According to him,
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (Rom. 2:14-15 NASB)
According to Paul, the “moral law” of the Gentiles is simply written in their own conscience. For us, there is no Law of written ordinances, for that was nailed to the cross and abolished (Col. 2:13-14, 20; Eph. 2:14-15). Rather, anything that our own conscience condemns is sinful for us, even if it may not be sinful for another person (cf. Rom. 14:22-23). An objective moral standard is certainly not to be found anywhere in the Mosaic Law, for Paul says that
...as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide in all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.” (Gal. 3:10 NASB)
This could not be any clearer: if we try to perform any part of the Law, without doing everything else written in the Law, we are under a curse. Those who separate the Law into a moral law and a ceremonial law are doing exactly what Paul condemns here. By placing themselves under a written law, rather than simply reckoning themselves dead to sin as we are exhorted to do (Rom. 6:11), they remain a slave to sin and under its power; for “the Law is the power of sin.”
The law of Christ
However, although there is no objective moral standard to be found in the Mosaic Law itself, there is still a single, objective moral command for the Gentiles, and this is to love one another:
Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law. For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law. (Rom. 13:8-10 NASB)
For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14 NASB)
According to Paul, the entire “moral law” for the Gentiles is summed up in the single statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” As clear as Paul is that this statement should be followed by the body of Christ, he is equally clear that this statement is the only objective moral command for the Gentiles; after all, we are to “owe nothing to anyone [μηδενι μηδεν - extremely emphatic] except to love one another,” and following this single commandment is the fullness (πληρωμα) of the Law.
It is this law that Paul elsewhere called the “law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2), saying that although the Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law, they are not exempt from loving one another under the law of Christ, under which we are to bear one another’s burdens [3]. Thus, according to Paul, the only objective moral standard for the Gentiles is to love one another, which he defines as that which “does no wrong [lit. ‘evil’] to a neighbor”.
The flesh vs. the spirit of God
Another important aspect of Pauline morality is the idea of the flesh warring against the spirit of God. This idea has been twisted beyond recognition over the centuries, with most Christians today thinking that the term “flesh” (σαρξ) is somehow related to sex, or even any kind of physical pleasure. Unfortunately, this has led to some amount of asceticism becoming inherent in the ‘Christian’ lifestyle, even though that is exactly what Paul warned against in one of his “flesh” passages (Col. 2:20-23).
To figure out what Paul might have meant by “flesh”, we should first turn to the Old Testament to get some necessary context. In the Old Testament, whenever “flesh” (basar) is presented in a negative light, it is almost always associated with the idea of mortality and the fleeting nature of human existence. For example, see the following passages:
Then Yahweh said, “My spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.” (Gen. 6:3)
So He remembered that they were only flesh, a wind [ruach, “spirit”] that passes and does not return. (Ps. 78:39 NASB)
Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When Yahweh stretches out His hand, both he who helps will fall, and he who is helped will fall down; they all will perish together. (Isa. 31:3)
All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, because the breath [ruach, “spirit”] of Yahweh blows upon it; surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever. (Isa. 40:7-8)
Interestingly, in each of these passages the “flesh” is not only connected with the fleeting nature of human existence, but just as in Paul’s epistles, the “spirit” is compared and often contrasted with the flesh because of its everlasting nature. It is highly likely that this is what Paul had in mind when he wrote about the flesh, and is supported by Romans 7:24, which suggests that the flesh is synonymous with (or at least very closely related to) our current “body of death”, as well as Galatians 6:8 which contrasts the corruptible flesh with the immortal spirit. This is confirmed when we see that, in Paul’s theology, our mortality is what causes us to sin:
Because of this, just as through one man the sin entered into the world, and through the sin, the death, so also the death spread to all mankind, on [account of] which [εφ ω] all sinned... just as the sin reigned in the death, so also the grace should reign through righteousness. (Rom. 5:12, 21)
According to Romans 5:12, the sequence of events that occurred at Adam’s sin and afterward is: (1) through one man (Adam) the sin entered into the world; (2) through the sin (referring to Adam’s sin) death spread to all mankind; and (3) on account of death, all sinned. Although this passage is often translated as though it were saying that death came because of sin, the Greek grammar seems to indicate that it should be the other way around (the most natural referent of εφ ω is θανατος). Furthermore, the parallel implied by the “just as... so also...” clauses indicates that all sin because all die, in the same way that all die because of the sin of Adam.
Paul goes on to say in v. 21 that sin reigns in death, in the same way that grace reigns through righteousness, which implies that the means by which sin reigns is death. This, like verse 12, provides further evidence for the view that sin is ultimately caused by mortality.
Death, where [is] your victory? Death, where [is] your sting? Now the sting of the death [is] the sin, now the power of the sin, the Law. (1 Cor. 15:55-56)
This statement, “the sting of death is sin,” has been debated and interpreted in one of two ways: either it means that sin is what gives death the power to harm us (i.e., sin causes death), or else it means that sin is the way in which death harms us (i.e., mortality causes sin). In light of the above, it seems likely that the meaning is that mortality is what causes sin.
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself [Christ] likewise also partook of the same, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. (Heb. 2:14-15 NASB)
According to the author of Hebrews, the fear of death is what causes us to be subject to be slavery throughout our life. Since, in the New Testament, the imagery of slavery is usually connected to sin (Jn. 8:34; Rom. 6:15-20; 7:14; 2 Pet. 2:19), this passage very likely means that the fear of death - mortality - is what causes our condition of enslavement to sin.
But if the “flesh,” in Paul’s theology, refers to mortality, then what did Paul mean when he spoke of “walking according to flesh,” “trusting in flesh,” and the “desires of the flesh”? Well, in Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, the desire of the flesh is considered synonymous with the Law:
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. (Gal. 5:16-18 NASB)
So then, we can conclude that our mortal flesh somehow desires to be under religious law, which is in line with what Paul said about the Law being the power of sin (i.e., being what gives sin its power). Since the “flesh” is connected with the fleeting nature of human existence, this means that trusting in the flesh, or walking according to the flesh, refers to trusting in one’s own ability to procure salvation for oneself by one’s own religious accomplishments, according to the Law. In contrast, walking according to spirit means trusting in God’s ability to unilaterally procure salvation and create within oneself the fruit of the spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).
But does this match up with what Paul says elsewhere about the flesh? Let’s take a look at those passages:
Therefore there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit. For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the spirit, the things of the spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:1-8 NASB)
This passage distinguishes between what it calls “the law of sin and of death” and “the law of the spirit of life”, or “the law of God”. This first law refers to the Mosaic Law, which as described above causes sin to increase because of our mortal flesh (Rom. 5:20), whereas the second law refers to the “law of Christ” which is simply fulfilled by loving one another.
The flesh is unable to subject itself to this second law, because it is concerned with the “things of the flesh” which are “death” (referring back to the “law of sin and death”), determined to eke out its own accomplishments in this fleeting, mortal existence by adherence to the Law which is the power of sin. However, if we allow ourselves to be changed and renewed by the spirit of God, we will set our minds on the “things of the spirit” which are “life and peace” (referring back to the “law of the spirit of life”), and grow in love toward one another [4].
...we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and take pride in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ. (Php. 3:3-7 NASB)
In this passage, to have “confidence in the flesh” clearly means to have confidence in one’s own ability to follow the rules of the Law. This is in line with 2 Cor. 11:18, which states that some were “boasting according to the flesh,” in context meaning boasting about their own religious accomplishments. Paul, before being saved, had the most reason to be confident in his flesh, having been circumcised as a Jew, zealous for God, and blameless according to the Law. However, all of these things actually count as loss in Christ, because God counts the flesh as nothing compared to the spirit (cf. Gal. 6:8, 12-13).
in him [Christ] you were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ... having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross... If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees? (Col. 2:11, 14, 20 NASB)
In the larger context of a polemic against arbitrary decrees and asceticism, Paul states that our circumcision consists of a removal of the “body of the flesh.” This is in line with the use of the term “flesh” documented elsewhere, to describe putting one’s trust in one’s own ability to procure salvation for oneself by one’s own religious accomplishments, as Paul says that these decrees which Christ has removed have “the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion” (v. 23).
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:19-21 NASB)
This is sometimes seen as demonstrating that Paul used the “flesh” to describe any kind of sinful behavior. Although, in a sense, this is true, because mortality is the ultimate cause of sin, I don’t think that is what Paul had in mind here, since he just defined the “desire of the flesh” as being under the Law (compare vv. 16 and 18). Rather, because the Law causes sin to increase when combined with the mortal flesh (Rom. 5:20), when the desire of the flesh to be under the Law is followed, the natural result is the “deeds of the flesh” which Paul describes in the above passage.
In summary, when Paul speaks about the flesh warring against the spirit of God, he is not referring to physical pleasure, or even sexual desire. Rather, he is speaking about the unfortunate tendency of mortal human beings to place their trust in their own fleeting, religious accomplishments rather than the unilateral agency of God working in their heart. Because of this “flesh”, we desire to place ourselves under religious rules like the Mosaic Law, even though the Law was never truly meant for Gentiles in the first place, and has been removed for all in the body of Christ (including Jewish members). So, rather than trusting in our own agency and accomplishments, if we trust in God’s ability to renew our own hearts, we will grow in love toward one another and become subject to the liberating law of Christ.
Paul’s polemic against religious rules
As we saw above, Paul believed that following the Law was greatly detrimental, and even contrary to one’s salvation in the body of Christ. Trying to stop one’s sinful nature by putting it under the Law just creates more sin, even though the flesh (our mortal nature) desires to be under the Law. Instead, we are supposed to place our trust in the ability of God’s spirit to regenerate our hearts and create within us the “fruit of the spirit” (Gal. 5:22-23).
But it can’t be that there is anything inherently wrong with the moral commandments in the Law - after all, everyone would agree that not murdering or stealing is a good idea (Exod. 20:13-15), and both of those things also go against the law of Christ to love one another. So why is Paul so insistent on removing every aspect of the Law in our lives? It must have something to do with the nature of the Law, and how it interacts with our own “fleshly” natures. I can think of two reasons why this might be:
1. The psychological principle of reactance, such that when you are told not to do something, it makes you want to do it more. This is in line with what Paul says in Rom. 7:7-8 about how the Law, when it told him not to covet, instead produced in him all kinds of coveting. In contrast, the law of Christ, being a general exhortation to love one another, does not have this problem.
2. The fact that the Law provides a standard to measure oneself against others, thereby producing competitiveness and a general “holier-than-thou” attitude. This is in line with Paul’s warnings against trusting or boasting in one’s own flesh (2 Cor. 11:18; Gal. 6:12-13; Php. 3:3-7). In contrast, the law of Christ is much harder to measure up against, being a general exhortation to love one another.
In both cases, this is not a problem with the Mosaic Law specifically, but with all religious rules and prohibitions in general. Although Paul did warn against specific actions (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-5), all of these can be summed up in the exhortation to “love your neighbor as yourself” (and indeed must be, because as Paul writes in Rom. 13:8-10, that is the only commandment that truly matters).
So then, Paul did not have a problem with the Law specifically - in fact, he repeatedly said that the Law by itself is “good” (Rom. 7:12, 14, 16, 22) - he believed that religious rules and prohibitions in general (typified in the Law) were not meant for the body of Christ, and catered to the desires of the flesh, thereby producing even more sin. This is confirmed in Paul’s letters to the Colossians and to Timothy:
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of man? These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Col. 2:20-23 NASB)
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith. Some people have strayed from these things and have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. (1 Tim. 1:5-7 NASB)
Placing others under decrees, the commandments of man that are nowhere to be found in scripture, goes entirely contrary to Paul’s message of freedom in the law of Christ. Even if these commandments appear to have wisdom, religiosity, and humility, they are contrary to Christ and have no value against the flesh (our sinful nature caused by mortality). The goal of morality is simple, and that is “love from a pure heart;” arguing otherwise is simply “fruitless discussion” and fit only for heretical “teachers of the Law.”
So... is it a sin?
Going back to the original question that plagues Christianity today, over whether specific actions should be considered sins or not, the answer is... it’s complicated. Scripture was never meant to be a rule book for Gentiles, or even for members of the body of Christ; so there is no black-and-white standard by which one can say “such-and-such is a sin,” or “such-and-such is not a sin.” Very likely, there were many things considered to be wrong in Paul’s day that shouldn’t be considered wrong today, and we don’t know enough about the cultural context to piece together exactly why such things were considered wrong.
If you’re asking whether a specific action is a sin, you’re likely coming at the issue from entirely the wrong angle. We aren’t supposed to focus on specific actions and prohibitions - which is exactly what Paul warned against - but on acting out of love in everything that we do. However, if a question like this is still plaguing you, consider these two questions:
1. Will this action end up harming myself or someone else? Paul defines love as that which “does no harm to a neighbor” (Rom. 13:10), so if it harms another person, it is most definitely wrong. However, if it does no harm to yourself or anyone else, then it can’t be considered objectively wrong.
2. Will my conscience allow me to do this action? Paul says that there are some things that aren’t objectively wrong for everyone, but if you yourself can’t do it in good faith, then it might be a sin for you personally (Rom. 14:22-23). But if it does no harm to yourself and anyone else, and your conscience allows you to do it, then you are free to do it; it is not a sin for you.
Unfortunately, the majority of Christians don’t live by these guidelines, and instead force unscriptural rules on people, which is exactly the thing that Paul warned about. They see the Bible as a rule book that has objective moral prohibitions for all people at all times, which has led to actions that don’t harm anyone as being seen as sinful and morally repugnant. People who do this, however, are catering to the desires of the flesh and remaining under the power of sin [5], even if they don’t see themselves as doing so. We should join Paul in condemning such rules as
the commandments and teachings of man... matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Colossians 2:22-23 NASB)
______________________________
[1] Galatians 2:7-9 cf. Matt. 15:24; Rom. 15:8
[2] In which there is no functional difference between Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:28).
[3] It is important to note that, although we are exhorted to love one another, this is by no means necessary to keep our salvation. As Paul said to the Corinthians, “All things are permitted, but not all things are of benefit. All things are permitted, but not all things edify” (1 Cor. 10:23 cf. 6:12). Because we have been fully justified, all things are permissible in the sense that nothing that we do can cause us to lose our salvation. However, only those things which do not go against the law of Christ, to love one another, are beneficial.
[4] It is likely that Paul, in this passage, is simply elaborating on what he said just before: “with my mind I am serving the law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25). This is even more explicit on the distinction between the two “laws” and their relation to the flesh versus the spirit.
[5] Both of which are considered synonymous with “the Law” in Paul’s epistles (1 Cor. 15:56; Gal. 5:16-18).
No comments:
Post a Comment