Question of the Week: What is the Sin leading unto Death?

The sin leading unto death is a topic that gets so much attention from Christian circles due to how little it is actually talked about. Very sincere people who are aware of their struggle with sin are drawn to this issue concerned about whether or not they are/have committed it. The good news for them is also the greatest source of frustration for those who want to know more about this topic. The sin leading unto death is only addressed once in scripture by the Apostle John, and does so as an exception to the point he was making, rather than the point itself.

Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him. If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.
1 John 5:14-17 (NKJV)

The Apostle John begins the conversation that includes the sin leading unto death with the topic of intercessory prayer. To pray on behalf of someone else who is sinning is a topic that isn’t exclusive to John. Therefore, we would so well to note the common theme throughout the New Testament so we don’t miss the point they were all making. That is, it’s a demonstration of Godliness to pray for a struggling brother’s restoration from sin.

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.
James 5:19-20 (NKJV)

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
Galatians 6:1 (NKJV)

Moving on to his point about the sin that actually leads to death, it isn’t explained in any other terms apart from the exception to what should normally be the rule. If we were to look for examples of sin leading unto death in scripture, it would only be the case if we take the term “Sin leading unto death” as literally as possible. Ananias and Sapphira, Herod Antipas, and those in the Corinthian church who took communion dishonorably are examples of people who committed this sin. The only problem with these examples is that in one way or another, they fail the criteria John sets up when this topic was introduced in the first place.

1 John 5:14-17 addresses the topic of intercessory prayer on behalf of a sinning brother, and that the only exception to this would be if the sin they committed was one leading to death. Do the following examples fit that criteria?

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
Acts 5:1-6 (NKJV)

In this scenario, Ananias and Sapphira were lying to the church about how much they had given to support those who had just become a part of it. After being directly questioned about the matter and given a chance to tell the truth, they are struck dead due to the level of accountability they were held to. Did Peter intercede for them in prayer? No. Was it because their sin was leading to their deaths? Perhaps but it is uncertain he was aware of this until after they continued to lie. A good parallel passage to this in the Old Testament is the incident with Achan in the book of Joshua. Were Ananias and Sapphira brothers and sisters in the church? Most believe yes. Given the questionable nature about the second and third factor, we can’t be dogmatic about whether or not this is what was meant by the sin leading unto death.

So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.
Acts 12:21-23 (NKJV)

In this passage, Herod Agrippa I is judged by God following a lengthy period of persecution of the church that culminated with him starving the people of Tyre and Sidon by cutting off their trade. Being island dwellers and human beings in need of food, begin to worship him as a god in order to get him to stop the lockdowns on their economy. In response to this worship, he receives it as he speaks. In response to this response, an angel strikes Herod dead. Did anyone intercede for Herod in prayer? No. Was it because his sin was leading to his death? Perhaps. Was Herod Agrippa I a brother in the church? Absolutely not. It would be awkward for a member of the church to take pride in his public execution of the Apostle James, and attempting to do the same to the Apostle Peter. He never claimed to be a believer in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. And no historical source ever refers to him as a follower of the Jewish Messiah. Given that it fails to meet the context of John’s statement about the sin leading unto death, there’s no reason to associate this event with it.

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
1 Corinthians 11:27-30 (NKJV)

This scenario was one where members of the Corinthian church were taking communion disrespectfully. Surrounding passages clarify that the unworthy manner they were taking communion was for the sake of getting drunk on the wine rather than the intended remembrance of Jesus’ sacrifice. For this reason, many people had gotten sick and even died. Paul doesn’t say this was coincidence either. He directly attributes that outcome to the actions they were committing regarding communion. Did anyone intercede for them in prayer? No. Was it because their sin was leading to their deaths? Not entirely. Some had gotten sick and hadn’t died yet. You could make the case that continuing in that sin would ultimately lead to their deaths, but that would be reading the topic into the text rather than directly taking it out of the passage. Were the people committing this sin brothers in the church? Yes. God wouldn’t hold them accountable to a standard they weren’t aware of or discipline them accordingly.

Given examples like Ananias, Sapphira, and the Corinthians, it would be appropriate to a degree to consider their actions a sin leading to death since their sin directly and plainly led to their deaths. However, this isn’t what John was focusing on when the matter was brought up. If 1 John 5:14-17 was talking about praying for restoration, then that is what we should take away from the passage. If our attention goes to a topic brought up in the passage that isn’t actually what’s being addressed, then we’re missing the point the passage is making.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

Question of the Week: How do you respond to someone who doesn’t want to become a Christian because of the African Slave Trade?

This question gives a specific example of why someone would not believe in Jesus’ claim to be God and rising from the dead to prove that claim is true. If you’re paying attention the issue brought up, you’d notice that this issue has nothing to do with what it means to be a Christian. If we were to deconstruct this question to its core, it would essentially sound like this. I am not a Christian because Christians haven’t solved every moral, social, or historical problem with humanity. In order to properly respond to this kind of objection, we need to know what’s really being asked. Once the question has been properly evaluated, we can come to proper conclusions about the one asking the question.

To address this, we’ll clarify the origins of slavery, the concepts of slavery included in the Bible, and the origins of the abolitionist movement. Historically, we know that slavery was a constant before, during, and after the writing of the Bible. It wasn’t introduced by Christianity or Judaism due to the fact that the foundations of both religions mentioned that the majority of early Christians in Rome were slaves, and the Jews who were liberated from Egypt were all slaves. You can’t invent a concept that existed before, during, and after the lifetimes of the first participants of a religious system. Examples of this can be found in Exodus 1:8-14 and Philemon 1:15-16. We can’t level the blame of slavery’s origins on Christianity, therefore they do not bear the responsibility of ending a system they themselves were subjected to.

When it comes to how the Bible addresses the concept of slavery, the Old and New Testament both give a perspective on this system that redefined how those who call themselves Christians and Jews would understand the concept of slavery. Regarding the Old Testament, it is telling how the first issue the Law of Moses addresses following the Ten Commandments is what slavery would be in Israel.

“Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.
Exodus 21:1-11 (NKJV)

The following conditions unique to Israel were clarified to be how slavery was understood.
1. A slave would serve for a maximum of six years, and on the seventh they would be freed.
2. A slave would be allowed to marry into their master’s family.
3. A slave would only serve for the rest of their lives if they publicly requested this from the nation’s leadership.
4. A female slave would be treated the same way as a wife or they would be set free.

Those hostile to Christianity would make the claim that later passages allow for the abuse and dehumanization of these slaves, doesn’t specify how Israel came across these slaves, and only involves the preservation of rights of their fellow Jews in slavery. Foreigners were fair game to be treated like farm equipment. The problem is that these claims only hold water if you stop reading this chapter in Exodus and take their word for it. Those who make these claims are either uninformed about the passages they are critiquing or are deliberately lying in order to inspire emotional disposition against Christians and Jews. Neither of these potential scenarios give them credibility.

Kidnapping was an acceptable means of acquiring slaves?
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:16

Slaves can be abused without consequence?
“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
Exodus 21:20-21 (NKJV)

“If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
Exodus 21:26-27 (NKJV)

Foreigners were not given the same rights as Hebrews?
You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 22:21 (NKJV)

Any abuse that a slave endured, though being considered property, would set them free if any cosmetic damage took place. Any slave that died under their master’s hand would result in the same punishment that killing a free man would experience. Kidnapping was a capital offense and foreigners were given the same rights as Jewish slaves. Obviously being a slave wasn’t supposed to be a good time or they’d charge admission. The sole condition mentioned that would put someone into slavery biblically was incurring debt. It is in light of all these specifications that the rights of slaves in Israel were clarified. None of which give us the picture we see in the Trans-Atlantic or Trans-Saharan Slave Trades.

Moving on to the New Testament, we need to note that unlike the Old Testament, the early Christians had no political influence or power concerning the laws they lived under. Rome was ruled by pagan law under pagan rulers. Their definitions of slavery gave slave owners the right to kill slaves without consequence, torture slaves for their own amusement, and treat them however they wished. There were such things as good slave masters, as well as the option of releasing slaves if their master chose to do so. When it came to a Christian’s ability to redefine slavery, it could only take place on an individual basis. That is why Paul the Apostle’s exhortations to slave masters in general and by name do so appealing to them ethically. Not politically. The two most prominent examples were in Ephesians and Philemon. In Ephesians, Paul clarifies the Christian perspective slaves and slave masters should both have in light of their relationship with the God of Israel.

Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
Ephesians 6:5-9 (NKJV)

Slaves were to remember that whoever they served in an earthly sense, they should do so sincerely and setting an example of integrity in their work, considering Jesus their master. Likewise, Slave Masters were to treat their slaves like they would want to be treated in light of the fact that they also have a master who treats them well. This perspective redefined what it meant to be a slave on an individual basis. Likewise, Paul also addresses a slave owner by the name of Philemon by not only reiterating this point, but does so with a direct example of what this looked like in action.

I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, who once was unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me. I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary. For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
Philemon 1:10-16 (NKJV)

Paul appeals to Philemon on behalf of his slave Onesimus, who committed crimes that other slave owners would be completely justified culturally in putting him to death for. Instead, Paul points out the fact that Onesimus should no longer be considered his slave, but his brother in the Lord. It was this new perspective on human relationships that bring us to the final issue relevant to this topic.

The Abolition of Slavery was a movement founded by William Wilberforce who himself was a Christian. Living in light of his affirmation of Jesus’ claims to be God and His resurrection from the dead, He began to take His words seriously enough to live in light of them and speak about them in a cultural setting where he could influence the political and economic reasons the Slave Trade existed in Europe. The very foundations of what many secularists and skeptics take for granted in accusing Christianity of opposing were actually the inspiration for them in the first place.

The real issue at heart here is what’s called a red-herring fallacy. Their problem with Christianity has nothing to do with Christianity. If they actually cared about the history of slavery and its abolition, they would want to become Christians all the more since the foundations of that movement and the ideas that inspired it exclusively came from the Jewish and Christian scriptures. The problem with answering a person who doesn’t actually care about what they’re asking about is that it won’t matter how you answer. Another issue will be brought up until they can justify dismissing you to themselves. The only response to someone who isn’t listening is not to talk to them. Give them specific and informed answers to the issues they bring up. But the moment a pattern arises, address them directly about whether or not they would actually give their lives to Jesus if they heard an answer to this objection. Even if their answer is dishonest and manipulative, you spare yourself the frustration of wasted time and effort by getting to the real issue. There is no shame in leaving a conversation that never actually began in the first place.

A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio

Email your questions:

questionsforhope@gmail.com

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.

A Reason For Hope Question of the Week:
Date: 6/1/2016

Question of the Week: Did Abraham’s promises from God pass to all his descendants or just to Issac?
Verses: Genesis 12:1-3 – God’s promise to Abraham
Genesis 16:10 – God’s promise to Ishmael
Genesis 25:5 – God’s promise to Issac
Genesis 27:29 – God’s promise to Jacob and his descendants

God made three promises to Abraham.
The first promise was that he would have more children than stars, outnumbering the very sand of the seashore in multitude.
The second promise was that God would bless those that blessed him, and curse those who cursed him.
The third promise God made to Abraham was that through His Seed, all the nations of the Earth would be blessed.

This last promise was noting the Messiah would enter the world through his family line. We know that Abraham had more children than Issac, so do all of these promises apply to Ishmael and his other children as well as Issac and Jacob’s children as well? The answer is no. Abraham specifically blessed each of his children in turn, and under no uncertain terms passed all he had, spiritually and physically, to Issac, the son God told him would receive these promises. So what did Ishmael inherit? We are told specifically from God Himself. He would have many children as well, but not anything further. God’s blessing to Abraham passed onto the Sons of Issac and Jacob specifically, not to all biological descendants of Abraham.

For more excerpts from A Reason For Hope, visit our page HERE.

 

Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, AM 940 KGMS

Call with your questions:
1(877) 556-1212 (Toll Free)
(520) 790-5663 (Local)

Email your questions:
questionsforhope@gmail.com
Or fill out the form below.

Follow Twitter: @ScottR4H

Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson

Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on GodTube or YouTube.