How to selflessly and profoundly love wives as Christ so loves the Churches
in helping first wives to joyfully and willingly embrace Christian Polygamy!
* Covenant Breaker Self-justifications *
* Numbers 30 & Leviticus 5:4-5 *
* Covenants vs Vows/Oaths *
Leviticus 5:4-5 and Numbers 30:2-16.
When confronted with the truth of covenant breaking doctrine, the advocates of FORCE polygamy attempt to teach others that these two particular passages somehow permit such ungodly self-justification for covenant breaking.
These false self-justifications are exploited to tell a man that, because (as they suggest) a man's binding himself to "forsake all others" in his marriage covenant with his first wife was supposedly "made outside the will of God", therefore Leviticus 5:4-5 and/or Numbers 30:2-16 supposedly allow the man to unilaterally break his marriage covenant. (God forbid. Romans 1:31b,32 and Revelation 21:8 are rather clear that unilateral covenant breakers have the hellfires coming.)
Indeed, upon closer investigation of those two verses, it does indeed become clear that those passages do NOT give self-justification for the hellfire-bound sin of covenant breaking, even if one made a covenant which they later perceive had been made "outside the will of God".
As the FORCE advocates unscripturally mis-apply the passages to attempt to persuade others to accept the false self-justifications for covenant breaking, the only reason that those two passages may indeed sometimes confuse even good people is due to the confusion about the differences of covenants with those of oaths and vows.
As such, even good people find themselves needing a further understanding of these two particular passages and of the matter of the differences of covenants from vows and oaths.
In the Autumn of 2000, this very issue had been sincerely asked and discussed on the Friends and Fellowhelpers email listserv.
To provide such deeper understanding of all the matters in this issue, and indeed, to help all to not make the mistake of falling into the hellfire bound sin of covenant breaking by being mis-led by these false self-justifications, the Founder of this ministry wrote and posted the following, on October 01, 2000, to the Friends and Fellowhelpers email listserv. It is herewith posted to the web-site so that all might have such clarification and understanding, as well.
May this be a blessing of clarification for all who read it.
* Covenant Breaker Self-justifications *
* Num 30 & Lev 5:4-5 *
* Covenants vs Vows/Oaths *
From: TRUTH BEARER
To: FAF Listserv
Date: Sunday, October 01, 2000 2:41 PM
Greetings in the love of the Lord.
Dear Friends and Fellowhelpers,
This is another one of those "meaty" posts I make from time to time, trying to share what I perceive to be important matters of doctrine for us Christians in Christian Polygamy, that we walk only in the righteousness of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, and truly in His wondrous and selfless love.
While this is addressed specifically to J who raised the important issues for which I am herewith replying, this post is intended (hopefully!) to be a comprehensive clarification about issues pertaining to
I will try to do this "download" all from my heart today in one sitting... I fervently pray that this be a blessing for all who read it.
Ahh, Leviticus 5:4-5.
As it is written,
"Or if a soul SWEAR,
pronouncing with his lips
to do evil, or
to do good,
whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce
with an OATH,
and it be hid from him;
when he knoweth of it,
then he shall be guilty in one of these.
And it shall be,
when he shall be guilty in one of these things,
that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing".
Yes, I am familiar with that one, having had some experience with some men who try to exploit that passage to self-justify their broken words.
When I say what I will be saying here, please know that I certainly am not and will not be talking about YOU personally here in any of this. For indeed, I am not saying that any of what I will be sharing here applies to YOU in any way anyway, because what I am really doing here is sharing this so that you would know about these things for your own benefit. Please be assured of that. :-)
I have long experience and learned repeatedly that men who use that passage (and do so without repentance!) to self-justify their own life's actions of breaking their covenants, promises, etc,... such men are men without any integrity. A word-breaker is a word-breaker, and for them to then mis-apply this passage, after-the-fact of covenant breaking, surely reveals the absence of integrity. They thereby show themselves to be more concerned with getting out of their promises and obligations than they are with having their word actually mean something. (And what a horrifying testimony such a word-breaker presents to the world when they claim to do so "in the name of the Lord"! God forbid!) It is the spirit of self-justification residing in them that deceives such ones to try to use that passage, because indeed all they are really doing is self-justifying themselves after the fact of their having committed the sin of covenant breaking (especially considering that a vow is not a covenant anyway, which I will be demonstrating such difference later in this post here).
(Mind you, I am not talking about men who may have learned of this kind of self-justification from such ones without integrity, as my heart instead goes out to anyone who might have potentially been so unwittingly led, as any of us are always vulnerable to erring concepts. No, my heart goes to these ones, as I fervently would that no one would fall into what the Word God calls the "worthy of death" sin of covenant breaking in Romans 1:31b,32. So, I preach this for simply the sake of souls. Anyway....)
a man is a man whose word means something,
he is a man without integrity whose word cannot ever ever ever be trusted.
Why is it that such a man who will exploit Leviticus 5:4-5 to self-justify getting out of his covenants NEVER to be trusted (or, at least, never to be trusted so long as he so self-justifies such inaccurate use of that passage for his word-breaking and remain unrepentant)?
It is because in any covenant that he enters with any one, he will always give himself that supposed "escape hatch" to unilaterally break his word to another in order to get out of it, if it is convenient for him to do so. (It is deceitful because it does not openly declare any such "escape hatch" into the covenant that, if the other party to the covenant knew about, they would not be willing to enter the covenant.)
Like I said, please be comforted in being absolutely assured to know that I am not referring to you in this, but am referring only to the experience I have encountered with all men who have ACTUALLY used that verse in order to after-the-fact self-justify their breaking their word and then go on to teach others, teaching even some good men, this word-breaking concept for self-justification. These men who have done this and teach it to others (teaching even good men) can NEVER be trusted (at least, not until they repent of letting that spirit of self-justification reside in them, and repent of thus falsely exploiting that Leviticus 5:4-5 passage).
And as I will be showing further on in my reply here, covenants are NOT the same things as vows and oaths, anyway, which means that such self-justifying men are wholly incorrect to even try to exploit that Leviticus 5:4-5 passage to get out of their covenants. By our thus realizing that Leviticus 5:4-5 can not even be used with regard to covenants, the fact that such men without integrity would even try to wrongly use that passage to self-justify their covenant breaking only proves even that much more how such men can NEVER be trusted (or, at least, never trusted until after they genuinely repent of such deceit, falsehood, and self-justification, of course).
And the same is equally true if they would likewise exploit Numbers 30 in claiming that God had mysteriously "disallowed" their covenant even though no one had ever known that God had supposedly "disallowed" it until supposedly (surprise surprise!) the time when the man is actually breaking his covenant and therewith THEN saying, after-the-fact, that he supposedly has so later heard that God had "disallowed" the covenant the man had made. (Again, a vow is not a covenant, but we'll be addressing that later on here.) Such a mind-game and manipulative exploitation of Numbers 30, and such a man who would do this in actuality at the time of his having already committed the sin of covenant breaking, can NEVER be trusted (or, at least, never trusted until after genuine repentance for such falsehood, of course). So again, the fact that such men without integrity would even try to wrongly use that passage to self-justify their covenant breaking only proves even that much more how such men can NEVER be trusted (until after repentance, anyway).
Also, regarding the Leviticus 5:4-5 passage, I would also say that yes, I do know that some do suggest that this passage could have got Jephthah out of his horrifying oath in Judges 11:30-40. And yet, in the New Covenant Scriptures, we see him listed in the "roll call of faith" in Hebrews 11:32. That would seem to indicate to me that Leviticus 5:4-5 might not have got Jephthah out of that oath, and that he was considered as actually being faithful for fulfilling it! (Yikes! Yikes! Yikes! What a lesson! I never want to make an oath! But I'll address this matter of oaths/vows vs. covenants later on in this post.) Indeed, this would seem to moreso indicate that the Leviticus 5:4-5 passage would appear to be more about situations of making an oath or vow which can never be fulfilled, such as a man vowing to pick up the planet earth and carry on it is his back for three weeks. Leviticus 5:4-5 would thereby bring an end to the burden of having to be responsible for the fulfillment of a vow that can certainly never be fulfilled anyway. Otherwise, it would seem that Jephthah most certainly would have been able to use Leviticus 5:4-5 to get out of his horrifying vow!
I understand that you were not yet here with us at FAF during some of the past QFDs [[i.e., "Questions For Discussion" at FAF Listservs]], such as when we discussed at length the matter of the particular covenant made between the Israelites and the Gibeonites. If you are not familiar with that story, I encourage you (or anyone else reading this) to read that rather informative and fascinating story in Joshua 9 and 2_Samuel 21. That covenant between the Israelites and with the Gibeonites was made despite Exodus 23:32-33 [20-33], Exodus 34:10-15, and Deuteronomy 7:1-2. That covenant was made AFTER the Law had been given, AFTER such things as Leviticus 5:4-5 and Numbers 30 were laid down as doctrine for the Israelites. And AFTER they had been told three times not to enter into a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, which of course that covenant with the Gibeonites was such a covenant.
With regard to Leviticus 5:4-5,
if ever there was covenant for which people of God could have simply tried to get out of it by exploiting that passage to simply put forth a mere act of repentance, it would be that covenant with the Gibeonites.
Yet God held them to that covenant.
With regard to Numbers 30,
if ever there was a situation where God would have supposedly "voided" the covenant made by His people with others with such a covenant being truly made "outside His will" (even if they somehow for some unknown reason simply were "not listening" when God had supposedly "disallowed" it), it was that covenant with the Gibeonites.
Yet, God held them to that covenant.
Let me repeat a key point. If ever there was a covenant made "outside the Will of God", it was that covenant which the Israelites made with the Gibeonites. Indeed, it was even made under the premise of deception. And not only that, but they were commanded and in covenant with God to instead DESTROY ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE LAND. Truly, THREE TIMES beforehand, the LORD had told them NOT to make a covenant with the people of the land.
As it is written,
"Thou shalt make no covenant with them."
At the beginning of forewarning them in Exodus 34:10-15 to not make a covenant
with them, The LORD,
as it is written,
"said, Behold, I make a covenant:
before all the people I will do marvels...
..Observe thou that which I command thee this day:
behold I will drive out the Amorite...
[[Gibeonites are Amorites, per 2_Samuel 21:2]]"
"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land..."
"And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee;
thou shalt smite them,
and utterly destroy them;
thou shalt make no covenant with them..."
Indeed, not only was this "outside the Will of God" to make that covenant with the Gibeonites, but we also see there that God had even made a covenant with the Israelites in Exodus 34:10(12) which, when they then made that covenant with the Gibeonites, they were indeed even breaking that covenant with the LORD. To make and keep the covenant with the Gibeonites was to break their covenant with God! How much further "outside the Will of God" could God's people possibly get (notwithstanding God's foreknowledge of all things, of course)?
But despite all this,
The covenant still stood.
As it is written,
"Then there was a famine in the days of David three years,
year after year;
and David enquired of the LORD.
And the LORD answered,
It is for Saul,
and for his bloody house,
because he slew the Gibeonites."
The covenant still stood.
And the LORD enforced it (as the Israelites had added to the covenant the affirmation of a vow of God's enforcement of the covenant.) It is somewhat interesting, too, and perhaps even possibly significant, that it was THREE years of famine, just as it had been THREE times that the LORD had forewarned the Israelites to not enter into such a covenant in the first place!
But the LORD did not remove that covenant from binding the Israelites. Instead, He held them to it.
The LORD did not use the Leviticus 5:4-5 passage to allow self-justification to get the Israelites "off the hook".
The LORD did not use the Numbers 30 passage to say that He "disallowed" their vow which they used to affirm their covenant (because indeed, the Israelites did further affirm their covenant by adding the matter of a vow to it).
If ever the passage of Leviticus 5:4-5 could have been used to get children of God out of their covenant, the covenant with the Gibeonites would surely have been such. (But then again, Leviticus 5:4-5 is about vows and not covenants anyway, which are not the same as covenants, about which I will be further addressing later on here.)
And if ever the passage of Numbers 30 could have been used to say God "disallowed" a vow of His people (especially with the rather wholly unverifiable assertion that God "disallowed" it, but 'no one heard the "disallowance"'), the covenant with the Gibeonites would surely have been such. For indeed, the Israelites even did add the affirmation of a vow to that covenant, and yet God did not "disallow" it! (The fact that the LORD used the word "COVENANT" in His forewarning THREE TIMES to not make a covenant with the inhabitants shows that THAT was what was at issue, not the issue of vows or oaths anyway. And again, as I have been saying, I will be addressing the difference between vows and covenants, etc, further on in this post.)
Moreover, before moving past this point here, it is important to add one more thing with regard to Numbers 30 specifically.
Namely, we actually do not have a single piece of evidence in the Scripture of the idea that God would ever "disallow" a vow in the past and that supposedly "no one was listening", so that no one knew. I can understand how a person perhaps might think of that idea a bit quickly as a possibility. (Likewise, I am sure that any who have deliberately entered into such sin of covenant breaking may surely be expected to have formulated this idea as their formal response for passing on to their followers to use in response to the question of the sin of a man's covenant breaking.) But if we take a broader, "big picture" look at that rationalization, what we see is that it equally would provide that very excuse to each and every every single lying covenant breaker throughout history who would like to make the same claim that God "disallowed" their vow even though supposedly "no one was listening". While I understand that you yourself may not have realized it, of course (which is why I share this for your benefit of such understanding), that kind of claim plays right into the hands of the devil to tell every lying covenant breaker the ultimate act of self-justification in covenant breaking.
The lie would be that all the covenant breaking man has to assert is,
"I did not and am not breaking my covenant now.
God 'disallowed' it back when I made it,
even though none of us,
knew He had 'disallowed' it
until now when this covenant is being terminated."
We clearly have no Scripture to support such an assertion. We have never seen it happen in the Word anywhere (while what we DO see is the covenant with the Gibeonites still being binding).
And there is no way to verify that that could even happen. It leaves listeners
with only one thing:
any one of us listening to someone making that claim has to TRUST that the man is telling the truth in his claim here.
But there can be NO trust, considering that what this is about is that of a man who CANNOT BE TRUSTED, because he is herewith GOING BACK ON HIS WORD!
How more obvious could this be, eh? :-)
Let us stop for a moment and ponder the obviousness here.
It is not possible to TRUST a man who breaks his word (at least, not until he repents and changes his ways).
And here we have a man a who is breaking his word (showing that we cannot TRUST his word) and then requiring listeners to TRUST his unverifiable and unScriptural claim that God supposedly "called" the man to break his word!
This is incredible!
A man who cannot be TRUSTED because he is breaking his word is requiring listeners to TRUST him that he is telling the truth about an unverifiable claim that he was not breaking his word because God somehow "disallowed" the covenant in the first place, even though no one, including himself, knew about the "disallowance" until after the man was breaking his word!
Again, I ask in all sincerity, could this be any more obvious?
This reminds me of what someone once showed me as being something that happens most commonly in the ungodly cults.
One thing I learned from a person who put himself out as an expert of cult mind control techniques is that a key element common among such ungodly cults is where the followers in the cult have only to believe a doctrine or a false rationalization of sin (where the doctrine is about making sin look like supposed righteousness), believing that doctrine based solely on the cult-leader's claim of "God saying so to the leader" in it, having zero ability for any other verifiability. Now this is not to be confused with mere statements like when one says 'God called me to preach' and things like that. Rather, I am herewith referring specifically to things where doctrine is at issue, and that the only basis of the doctrine is based solely on someone's unverifiable claim, where it does not even match with the Scriptures.
And this is especially so when we're talking about someone saying "God called me" to do something which the Scriptures show to be SIN, such as covenant breaking (Romans 1:31b,32.) In our discussion right here, we have the idea of a man making the wholly unverifiable and unScriptural claim that God "disallowed" his covenant, even though no one, including himself, knew about God's supposed "disallowance", until (surprise surprise!) AFTER the man had broken his covenant. We have no Scripture to even begin to really support the claim (1. God has never made a "disallowance" anywhere else in Scripture, and 2. God certainly never kept things like that to Himself without others knowing it). So, now we have the new idea of doctrine that allows men to self-justify any act of covenant breaking by simply saying that God "disallowed" it while no one else knew it had been so "disallowed".
In order for this idea to be supported as a doctrine, there is only one thing available for supposed "support".
Namely, the unverifiable claim of the man who broke his word.
How can we TRUST that? We're supposed to have doctrine to be TRUSTED on the basis of a claim of a man who can NOT be TRUSTED because he breaks his word?
This is what I am referring to here about cult things, and not referring to mere claims like saying "God called me to preach", etc.
With this realized, then, for one to self-justify his sin of covenant breaking after he has broken his covenant, by asserting the unverifiable and unScriptural assertion that God had supposedly "disallowed" the covenant previously, even though the covenant breaker himself did not know that it was so "disallowed" until after the covenant breaking, well... this kind of dangerously unverifiable assertion overwhelmingly rings of the kinds of cult-mind control techniques and tactics if ever there was.
(Once again, please do understand, I am not saying that YOU are doing this here, J. Not at all, dear friend. Rather, I am simply trying to share this with you here so that, should you or any of us encounter men who would use these kinds of cult mind control techniques --and indeed, sometimes those who are experts at cult mind control techniques [which I do not make such a claim about myself] are themselves experts at USING cult mind control techniques, YIKES!--- to self-justify the clear sin of their covenant breaking, then when you and all of us see these kinds of things, we will now be armed with the understanding of it all so as to see it for what it is and to thus not get caught up in it.)
And not only that, but the very fact that Numbers 30 says that the "disallowance" has to be made known "in the day that he heard it" shows us that the idea of "no one was listening" when God supposedly had "disallowed" it, that idea can not ever apply, because it is clearly the obligation to MAKE IT KNOWN that it was "disallowed", not simply to "disallow" it and then sit back when it is realized that "no one has heard" the "disallowance". So, again, this makes it so clear how such a claim can not be trusted, because God would have been OBLIGATED to "make it known" that He had so "disallowed" it "in the day that he heard it". And since no one knew about it, Numbers 30 makes it clear that it was not "disallowed" after all, anyway.
But even beyond all that, the very important fact remains that there is a difference between vows/oaths and covenants. (And yes, I do I realize that you, J, were not here with us when we discussed the difference between a vow/oath and a covenant, so I'll try to lay it out here again, hopefully even much more clearly than before for all of our sake.)
Oaths often can be used to AFFIRM and strengthen a covenant (much like we see the LORD did in Psalm 110:1-4, as Hebrews 6:16-20 shows us).
One may make an oath or a vow involving no one else.
An example of a vow/oath is like saying, "As I win this war against these enemies, I swear by the LORD this vow that I will offer the life of the first thing to walk past my doors unto the LORD."
However, a covenant is between two or more parties, holding each other accountable.
An example of a covenant is like saying to another person, "Yes, I do, I covenant and promise you that I will forsake all others 'till death do us part." And the other person makes their agreement to the covenant too.
The thing is, a covenant is not the same as an oath or a vow. Covenants are agreements between two or more parties, whereas oaths/vows are either self-proclaimed obligations, or strengthening of a commitment to do something, whether as added to a covenant of more than one person, or as a mere vow where the one person proclaims they will do something (involving no one else).
The confusing part is that oftentimes, the making of the vow involves something greater, such as the LORD. And so, because God is often additionally included as an additional part of the covenant (i.e., the vow is added to the covenant to make it stronger and seemingly more binding, calling upon God to further enforce it, for example, then it can almost look like the vow IS a covenant, or is one with God. But all that's actually happening is that God is being called upon to enforce something).
Indeed, one might be making a covenant with God to do something, and they add that they are vowing it to the LORD that they will perform their side of the covenant. That's how the language can get us "caught up" into being confused. (A person making an individual covenant with God might be doing so by means of additionally vowing, which, while it might appear as though that is a covenant being a vow, it is only a covenant having the added "weightiness" of enforcement of the sworn vow added to the covenant, making its enforcement appear even stronger and committed.)
For indeed, an oath or a vow might be added to a covenant to make it more binding, stronger, but the oath and vow itself, these are not the covenant itself.
For example, the husband making a covenant with his wife at their marriage ceremony and celebration could potentially say such things as,
"Yes, in this marriage with you, I agree to forsake all others till death do us part, and I swear by heaven that I will keep this covenant."
"Yes, I make an oath with you by the earth, that it consume me, if I not keep this promise to you that I will forsake all others until death do us part."
"Yes, I vow by the holy land of Jerusalem that I will forsake all others until death do us part."
"Yes, I swear by the hair of my head, that it turn white on me, if I not keep this covenant to forsake all others until death do us part."
What we see in the above examples is that the husband is making a covenant, and is adding the matter of swearing, vowing, making an oath to the covenant. But that does not mean that those added things mean that the covenant IS a vow or an oath. Yes, there is a vow or oath going on there, but it is happening TOO, there is the vow/oath being added to the covenant.
In the above four examples, if the husband had not added the phrases about swearing, vowing, or making an oath, but instead only said that he agreed that he was promising his wife that he would "forsake all others till death do us part", then he would have made no vow or oath, having only the covenant itself remaining by itself, to which he would still be bound.
Oaths and vows are what get people into trouble (as we know in the horrifying case of Jephthah!). It is for that reason that Jesus told us not to swear, not to make oaths at all, as He said in Matthew 5:33-37.
But that does not mean that we cannot make covenants with others. It is only that we are not to add oaths or vows to affirm covenants (nor to make any oaths or vows in general).
But no one has to take "my word" on this (who am I anyway?). Let's see what the Lord has to say about this.
As it is written,
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not forswear thyself,
but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
But I say unto you,
SWEAR NOT AT ALL;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool:
neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be,
Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is MORE than these cometh of evil."
By looking at this instruction from our Savior, the first thing we see is that He says that we are only to say, "Yea, yea; Nay, nay".
To what is that referring?
Either give acceptance or refusal to a covenant, yes or no! Add no vow or oath to it!
Again, It means that we only make our agreement to a COVENANT as either being YES, or as being NO, that we are NOT to add anything more to it.
He has not herewith instructed us to NOT make COVENANTS. Not at all. The very fact that the Lord is here telling us to use only the word "Yes" (to indicate our acceptance of the terms of a covenant) or to use the word "No" (to refuse to enter the covenant), shows us that we are able to make covenants, while we are instructed of Jesus not to make oaths and vows. And that automatically shows us that a covenant is NOT a vow or an oath. And then THAT automatically shows us that doctrine pertaining to VOWS and OATHS are NOT the same things as pertaining to COVENANT doctrine.
In the details of this Matthew 5:33-37 instruction, our precious Savior explains that we have no control over those matters which we might try to add to the covenants by way of vows, oaths, swearings, et al. We can't control heaven or earth or Jerusalem or even our own head!
As such, the Lord has only instructed us to not make oaths or vows. (Praise the Lord, lest we fall into the horrifying issue as did Jephthah in Judges chapter 11! Yikes!)
But let's step back for a moment and look at the consequences if we make the mistake of saying that vows/oaths ARE covenants.
If that is the case, then to make a covenant is to be disobedient to the word of the Lord Jesus Christ in that Matthew 5:33-37 passage. After all, if oath-making and vow-making are the same as covenant-making, then the Lord Jesus has just made it a sin of disobedience for us to even be covenant-making.
If that is a person's position, that a vow or an oath IS a covenant (so that they can then try to exploit the passages that deal only with oaths and vows in order to try to extend such passages to include matters pertaining to covenants too), then that means that they are sinning in disobedience to Christ if they enter into ANY covenant.
This brings massive hypocrisy. If one would use the Leviticus 5:4-5 and Numbers 30 passages to self-justify their sin of covenant breaking, then how can they require anyone to ever enter into a covenant with them at all? And of course, how could anyone be willing to enter a covenant with someone who is an unrepentant covenant breaker, instead using Leviticus 5:4-5 and Numbers 30 to self-justify the sin and showing that their word means nothing anyway? If they use those two passages to self-justify their sin of covenant breaking, by saying that vows and oaths ARE covenants, then that would rhetorically also mean that they are in disobedience to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:33-37 if they would require anyone to enter any covenant with them, because they are claiming that vows and oaths are the same things as covenants!
Moreover, let's look at this, for anyone who would ever perceive that vows and oaths ARE the same as covenants... Namely, that if so, then Jesus has also instructed us not to be "covenant MAKING", and to do so would be a sin of disobedience to the word of the Lord.
Did they ever sign a rental lease? Then they have committed this supposed sin of covenant-making.
Do they have a mortgage for their house? Then they committed this supposed sin of covenant-making.
Do they have any financed item? Then they have committed this supposed sin of covenant-making.
Have they made any contract with anyone in any form? Then they have committed this supposed sin of covenant-making.
If married, did they make a covenant with their wife? Then they have committed this supposed sin of covenant-making.
Obviously, all of this is absurd. The act of living as mere human beings requires us to make agreements with each other, and to be able to TRUST (there's that word again!) and rely upon the word of other people with whom we make such agreements.
Scripturally, as well, it would surely be absurd for us to think of this idea of a supposed sin of "covenant-MAKING", considering Romans 1:31b lists the sin of "covenant BREAKING". After all, if "covenant MAKING" is a sin, then how could we be in a position where we are not supposed to be "covenant BREAKING", if we were not supposed to be there in the first place because we're not supposed to be "covenant MAKING"? Additionally, since "covenant BREAKING" is indeed listed as a sin in Romans 1:31b, then why did Paul not just as easily therewith tell us in that same passage that "covenant MAKING" is a sin too, given the implication? The answer is clear for us here, obviously. :-)
After all, if "covenant MAKING" is a sin, then how did we ever get the wondrous NEW Covenant for the salvation of our souls in Christ Jesus anyway?
No, the matter is plain before our eyes. We mere humans have to make covenants as a matter of living among other human beings.
And the Lord Jesus instructed us to simply say whether we agree to the terms of covenants or not, to let our "yea be yea" and our "nay be nay". To add anything more to it, to make an oath or a vow on top of it, the Lord Jesus says that THAT comes of evil. (God is able to keep all things, including any Oath or Vow He would make, and so, because He cannot sin, he is able to keep such things. It is that we humans are not so able that we get into "trouble" when we add the matters of vows and oaths, for which the Lord has instructed us not to do so.)
So, in the end of all this, it seems to me that by the word of the Lord Jesus, we now have definitive proof that a covenant is NOT a vow or an oath.
Because of that, we can now see how clearly the matters of Numbers 30 and Leviticus 5:4-5 do NOT apply to the matter of covenant breaking doctrine.
That brings us back to the issue of person claiming self-justification to be a covenant breaker.
As instructions for us in the New Covenant, Romans 1:31b,32 makes it clear that, as it is written,
...Who knowing the judgment of God,
that they which commit such things are
worthy of death,
not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them."
And we know that that is given to us in the context that, as it is written,
"For the wrath of God
is revealed from heaven
ALL ungodliness and
who hold the truth in unrighteousness".
Covenant breaking is thus one of the listed items therein revealed from heaven for us as being
Accordingly, with all this now realized and clarified, we see that there really is absolutely no opportunity for any covenant breaker to find any rationalization to use Numbers 30 or Leviticus 5:4-5 in the self-justification of asserting that God supposedly "called" him to commit the sin of covenant breaking.
For anyone to attempt to use those passages in their after-the-fact seeking self-justification of their sin of covenant breaking reveals that such ones are not walking according to the Word of God. (We preach this not for condemnation but for the sake of souls finding repentance unto salvation.)
And what that also tells us therefore is that any man who would make such a claim is doing some serious things to great peril.
Such a man would be, for examples....
O how tragic it is that any would allow themselves to be misled of the two false spirits unto their own soul's destruction. I myself bring no condemnation here (for I am nothing). Rather, my heart goes out to any and all who would make this mistake, that they might come to the truth of the Lord Christ Jesus (for His Word is true and without rebuke ), and that they find the true reality of the Lord, unto repentance for their own soul's sake. As I have no rejoicing for their self-caused condemnation of the LORD for any, but I have only a heart of preaching, for their sake, with which I would that all would only know the true love and joy of the Lord according to His true truth. Hallelujah!
And therefore, it is for souls' sake that we must be sure to understand these things, to clarify where needed for the sake of such souls, and to ever preach against the sin of covenant breaking so that none would so fall into therein!
That is why we must ever preach of love-not-force, lest any fall into sin and thereafter find at the end of their days, the tragic of horror wherein the Lord concludes to them,
"I never knew you:
depart from me ye that work iniquity."
O how tragic that is indeed!
May we only preach the truth so that more would not fall into such a tragic ending.
Praise the Lord that,
as it is written,
"If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Anyway, J, I understand how a person might, at first glance, come to some of the things you have mentioned ---which may have possibly come from other sources beyond yourself anyway, or maybe not. Regardless, though, I thank you for raising them here, as that has revealed the need for these things to be clarified. And that's why as I have endeavored to lay out such clarification here.
I fervently pray that this, lengthy though it is, has been at least a blessing, if not a revelation, for you and for anyone else who has read this.
Thanks again, as you have surely been a blessing for us here in many ways with many of your posts!
May the love of the Lord Christ Jesus ever be with us.
Continuing the Reformation...
Bringing Christian Polygamy to the Churches
© October 01, 2000, TruthBearer.org
P.O. Box 765, O.O.B., ME 04064