1 John 1:9 - Q&As

Preamble: You are strongly encouraged to read my separate article on “1 John 1:9 is for believers”.  The Q&As here serve to answer some of the pertinent questions raised concerning the interpretation of this 1 John 1:9 verse, and the surrounding text.  If you go through all the Q&As here, you will get a good picture, too, of the posture expected of us, believers, in our lives, in relation to a holy God.
 

1.          Some say that 1 John 1:9 was a result of this: A confused church in Asia asking the Apostle John to write a letter to help clear up some major doctrinal heresy called “Gnosticism”;  is this a correct position to take?

Ans: There is a belief that this 1 John 1 was written to counter the Gnostics who said that Jesus did not come "in the flesh," but only as a spirit, but to say that  it (1 John 1) was written to counter the Gnostics purely, it really is incorrect, for after 10 verses of 1 John 1, in the 1st verse of 1 John 2 (please note that original letter has no chapters and verses numbers), John made clear the purpose of his writing of the letter, i.e. "so that the children of God (of the targeted church) would NOT sin".  In other words, it was about how believers were to live their lives post-entry into salvation.

 

2.          Some say, the “light and darkness” in 1 John 1 text could simply be replaced by “saved and lost”, is that correct?

Ans: No, in my view that is NOT what light and darkness there represented. That is simply eisegesis to tie with the “once saved always saved” (OSAS) theology.

 

3.          What about light (in 1 John 1 text) as love?

 Ans: If light were love, then darkness in the same passage would be “hatred”; that would NOT be the truth of the matter, for verses 5-6 would be odd:

1 John 1:5-6 - 5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

Putting “love and hatred” in, we get, “….God is love; in him there is no hatred at all.  If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in hatred, we lie and do not live by the truth.”  To say that God is love, that is NOT wrong.  But to say that in God there is no hatred at all, that is NOT true!  God does hate; God hate evil and wickedness.  Prov 6:16-19 reads, “16 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:  17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,  18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,  19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.”

 

4.          What then does light (in the 1 John 1 text) represent?

Ans: holiness.  So, that, vv5-6 could read like this: “….God is holiness; in him there is no evil (or wickedness) at all.  If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in evil, we lie and do not live by the truth.”

 

5.          Talking about the cleansing by the blood of Christ, is it once we become a believer, we are continually be cleansed by the blood of Christ, so as we can never be sinful, something like a computer virus program that auto-cleans our computer of all viruses?

Ans: My answer is no.  But let me explain: The efficacy of the blood of Jesus does run into the future, but in specific manners, NOT in all manners. 

One specific manner is this – that although Jesus died more than 2,000 years ago, and so, His blood was capable of cleansing then (at the time He died), and has continued to be available for cleansing right up to this moment, and into the future.  In other words, today someone can still appropriate the works and blood of Christ, done and shed respectively, more than 2,000 years ago.  In the years to come, a non-believer is still able to come into salvation based on it.

My “no” is to this manner:  I do NOT believe, from the moment a non-believer became a believer, the blood of Jesus has continued to cleanse him automatically, the moment he sinned, under all circumstances.  We can see in 1 John 1:7 a condition was specified - “if you walk in the light”

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. (1 John 1:7)

My “no” is also to this manner: I do NOT believe, from the moment a non-believer became a believer, all his sins, past (strictly, speaking there is no such thing as a present sin; it is either a sin is committed or NOT yet committed; once it is committed, it is past, if NOT yet committed, it is a future thing) and future, were forgiven him, AT THE MOMENT of entry into salvation.

There is still the expectation for a believer to ask God for forgiveness of sins he commits subsequent to his entry into salvation.

Scripture said that Jesus is the propitiation for the world; yet even for that, it is NOT automatically, everyone has been made a believer.  Generally, each has still to appropriate the salvation works of Christ Jesus.

 

6.          Bro. Anthony, based on your belief as expressed in the answer to Qn 5, that we have to ask God for forgiveness for sins after entry into salvation, what about sins we are NOT aware, not remembered or sins of omission, surely we are NOT expected to be able to name all sins, in our confession to God; you are asking the impossible, right?!

Ans: Let me answer by asking you back this question:  Did you name every single sin you committed in your entire life up to the point of conversion, when you entered into salvation?  The answer has to be no; and so, were you forgiven of all your sins (past sins) or NOT?  So, really what is the reasonable understanding here?  At the time of our conversion, with a right heart attitude, in our confession, we named those sins we were conscious of, then, and for the rest, we employed a “catch all” prayer. 

For conversion, I would recommend this – encourage people to name their conscious sins in their confession and ask for forgiveness, and then also ask God to forgive their all other sins. The most important thing here is the right heart attitude; even if, you just asked God to forgive you of all your sins, it would be alright, as long as your heart attitude had been right then. 

In fact, for me, it was more of I asked God to forgive me of all my sins at my conversion; and then, over the course of weeks as I prepared myself for water baptism, being sensitive to the Spirit of God, I would confess specific sins the Spirit brought to mind, over the weeks leading up to the baptism.  For example, I would be brushing my teeth, and suddenly a past sin popped up in my mind; straightaway, I would confess it, and asked God to forgive.

So, the same goes with our on-going confession of sins before God.  Daily, we confess our conscious sins; for unconscious sins, we ask God to forgive us, with a “catch all”; remembering at all times, it is the right heart attitude that is most important.

 

7.          Bro. Anthony, are you saying that we are NOT sure of God’s forgiveness for any sins we may commit in the future, when you said only past sins were forgiven at conversion?

 
Ans: What I am saying is that it was NOT stated in Scripture that God MUST; it is (1 John 1:9) God is just and faithful to forgive and cleanse us.  Heb 11:6 said that we have to believe that He exists, and rewards those who seek Him earnestly.  All believers have to have the faith that God is just and faithful (faithful is NOT equal to “He must” - see Qn 15 below).  And so, the correct posture for any believer should be “I have faith in God to be just and faithful to forgive me of any future sins that I may come to commit”, and it is NOT “God MUST forgive me, or that He had already forgiven me of all my FUTURE sins.”

 

8.          But what if I die before I could confess to God and ask for His forgiveness, for a sin I just committed, will I still go to Heaven to have my eternal life?

Ans: The short answer is that, I believe, God looks at the circumstances and our heart condition, and ultimately He judges or He decides.  Know what God desires, and do as He desires, and then leave Him to be God (we don’t play God).  His desire is that we be holy (state/condition/posture), and to act holy (in what we do, be holy) – 1 Pet 1:14-16.  Repentance, confession and asking for forgiveness from God, on-going, is necessary, for one to perfect holiness -  be holy and to go on to act holy.  Ultimately, it is God’s counting that matters – we are to be of hope (salvation hope) that at the end, God counts us righteous and holy, to enter into His dwelling (Heaven) to live eternally.

 

9.          Bro. Anthony, true repentance and confession stem from the Holy Spirit’s conviction, is it NOT; but I heard some brethren saying the Holy Spirit does NOT convict believers of sins; He convicts only the non-believers, right?

Ans: That the Holy Spirit does NOT convict the believers of sins is an incorrect teaching; the Holy Spirit can convict all, non-believers and believers, of sins. 

People who tell you that the Holy Spirit would NOT convict a believer of sins, they are of the theology of, once you have been converted, all your FUTURE sins had been forgiven of you;  the argument being the Spirit of God could NOT be still convicting you of something God had already forgiven you of. 

To me, there is no concrete scriptural support for arguing that all our FUTURE sins had been forgiven us AT THE MOMENT of our conversion.  Such OSAS (once saved always saved) proponents argue that “ALL sins” must be including the FUTURE ones; but Scripture did NOT define “ALL sins” to be inclusive of future ones, when it is referring to sins forgiveness, AT THE MOMENT of conversion.
 

10.       Can’t we possibly be cleansed forever, from the cleansing at conversion, that we do NOT ever need to be washed again?

Ans:  To me, we do need to be washed again, for we get dirty.  From Jesus’ words at the occasion of the Last Supper, Jesus talked about such things as one can be body-washed (cleansed at conversion), and then still needing to be washed of feet (cleansed from time to time) from contact and exposure in the fallen world that we are in.  While it is right to say, we do NOT enter into salvation or be converted again and again (we need only to be primarily justified once), we need to be forgiven of sins, by God, and be cleansed of all unrighteousness from sins, subsequent to conversion.

 

11.       We are told that the “we” in the 1 John 1 text, where 1 John 1:9 is found, does NOT refer to believers, but to non-believers or Gnostics; is that acceptable?

Ans: No.  Now, if we begin to treat “we” as NOT “we” but say, “you”, and vice-versa, there is no end to how Bible can be interpreted.  In fact, you will NOT be surprised that many people treated scripture commandments and exhortations as being put there for God to do or act(!), instead of having the understanding that most of these, if NOT all, were put in there, for us to do or act.  We just can’t define things anyhow we like, to suit the theology we made ourselves!

“We”, in the text, could either be (a) referring to the Apostle John and those with him, or his contemporary (those who were together with him as early disciples; eye-witnesses of Jesus was a man in the flesh), or (b) referring to John and those with him or his contemporary, and those in the same class as him, John.  The point is that this pronoun must be including the speaker or writer, himself.  In other words, “we” in the text CANNOT be referring to non-believers, for John was NOT a non-believer, but a believer.

Those who argue on this ground that the “we” in 1 John 1:9 was NOT including the author, the Apostle John, and so, could be referring to non-believers, at the exclusion of believers, are WRONG.

 

12.       1 John 1:10 must be referring to non-believers, right; for 1 John 3:9 (KJV) said that a believer cannot sin?

Ans:  On the contrary, 1 John 1:10 was referring to believers.  Firstly, 1 John 3:9 (KJV) does NOT mean it is impossible as in, the believer is unable (impossible) to sin; that is interpreting the verse without taking into consideration of the Apostle John’s style in his employ of superlatives. 

In essence, what 1 John 3:9 (KJV) said is that it is inconsistent or incongruent for a believer to sin, or simply, believers are NOT supposed to sin, NOT that we cannot ever sin (If we say we cannot ever sin, the truth is NOT in us {1 John 1:8}, and we are making God out to be a liar {1 John 1:10}). 

Just ask yourself (a believer), is it impossible for you to sin, or are you unable to sin?!  In fact, v10 cannot be referring to a non-believer, generally, for it is NOT expected the words of God to have a place in his heart, the non-believer (or unbeliever), in the first place; we wouldn’t say such, to a non-believer, would we, that the words of God would then have no place in his heart.  Rather it is, rightly, because we expect believers to be having God’s words in their hearts, we say such, to them, when they claimed contrary to the Word (that they have NOT sinned). When we were yet believers, we have sinned; even after we have become believers, we have sinned.  I have, have you NOT?!

 

13.       So, Bro Anthony, are you saying we can be “in and out of fellowship” with God, because of how we walk or live?

Ans: You may NOT be completely out of fellowship with God (although, in the extreme, I believe you can), but your fellowship with God can be poorer than what God has intended it to be, because you are NOT taking care of how you lived.

I give us a metaphor:  Let’s say you are married.  Are you in “marital fellowship” (if I may coin such a phrase) with your spouse?  The answer is yes; but can your fellowship be poorer or better, depending on your handling/mishandling, in your life with your spouse? It is yes, although you are still in marital relation (well, in the extreme, a divorce could be in the works!).  God is definitely more forbearing that your spouse, but still, it does NOT mean that you and I, can profane the grace of God. 

You cannot simply hang onto, “My spouse and I are one; and so he/she is with me”, when you commit adultery!  God is also NOT with you in your evil, despite His Holy Spirit dwells within us!  "But God is found everywhere!"  Yes, but God is NOT in evil!  If you go there - practice evil, God is NOT in fellowship with you, there.  God may go there, and out of the goodness and faithfulness of Him, snatch you back, but He is NOT in fellowship with you, there – in evil.

I give us another “shadow”:  During the time of sojourning to the Promised Land in the OT, the Jews were having the pillar of fire, as the LORD travelled with them in the night (God was in the Tabernacle, moving with them); suppose some of the Jews just ventured away from the light, wouldn’t they be lost to the darkness in the surrounding?!  They would be, if they strayed too far, and did NOT come back into the light, in good time.

God is light; so, you and I, believers, got to stay in the light. Non-believers are NOT in the light, unless they, be "brought" into the path of the light.  Only believers could stay in the light, non-believers cannot; but believers can stray away (it is NOT impossible for them to) from the light, but we must come back in.  The least we can do, is to be of humble and contrite heart, “call out” to Him to come to get us back in; before darkness (or evil or wickedness) completely engulfs us. 

 

14.       Are you advocating “keeping short accounts” with God; I thought we don’t need to do that, anymore?

Ans: Yes, I am advocating “keeping short accounts” with God.  Those who teach that the Bible doesn’t exhort us to keep short accounts, are perhaps, themselves smitten by lies of the dark.  It is classic, but it doesn’t mean that it is wrong; you and I need to do that.

 

15.       God got us into salvation, and He is faithful, isn’t He?

Ans: Yes, God, who has called you into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful (1 Cor 1:9), but faithfulness of God does NOT mean, no matter what, He must get our butts into Heaven!  Faithfulness is NOT “there is only one route; no choice”.  Faithfulness’ connotation is that there are possibilities, but one who is faithful stays on the course of one, unless He was overpowered-ly constrained from doing so.  It is NOT there is one route; there isn’t another; a must be.  

What can constrain God?  Only one thing and one thing only, His holiness.  If you continue to be stubbornly evil or wicked, good luck to you!  Why “good luck” (I don’t readily use the phrase), because you are going against His holiness, and betting that He would nonetheless, sovereignly, turn you around.  Scripture has this: “Do NOT test the Lord your God” (Matt 4:7).

16.       Bro Anthony, you are turning the whole faith into a “bar of soap” or a “license to sin”, aren’t you?

Ans: I thought it is the other way round; that I could say that to those who insisted on OSAS (once saved always saved)!  I tell you God is bothered with even insinuation against His holiness.  Who is insinuating against the holiness of God? 

When you insist that no matter what evil you do, God got to get your butt to Heaven, even when you are with "the so-what” attitude, that is insinuation against His holiness.  On the other hand, there is no insinuation against the holiness of God when you confess your sins and ask God for forgiveness. 

Do NOT forget, 1 John 1:9 is with a qualification, and it is this:  God has to find it, just.  On top of that, His faithfulness is constrained by His holiness.  1 John 1:9 is NOT a bar of soap or a license to sin, when embraced by believers.  Embedded in it, is a requirement to be of right heart attitude.

But at the same time, I am NOT advocating that people just need to ask God for forgiveness, and can ignore reconciling with the one (man) they have offended; you have to ask for forgiveness from the one you hurt, if it is still possible (when he has died, it is impossible); even restitution may be in order. 

On the other hand, you are standing on thin ice, if you take the attitude that, for whatever wrongs or sins you commit against another man, you only need to deal with the matter with that man, and have no need to deal with the issue that, you most likely have also wronged God.

 

17.       What have you got to say to this: “To teach we must confess our sins in order to be forgiven doesn’t produce changed hearts.”

Ans: There is misunderstanding, here. It is NOT we confess our sins and ask for God’s forgiveness to produce a changed heart!  While it can be true that a touch from the Lord can change heart, and that touch can, sometimes, take the form of our gratitude from being forgiven by God for something really bad that we have done, the process/sequence is this:

 

It is if we numb NOT our conscience, and be sensitive to the Holy Spirit, and so, when the Spirit of God convicts us of sin, we response in humility and contrite of heart to repent and confess to God we have done wrong, and ask God, in His faithfulness, to forgive us of our sin and cleanse us of all unrighteousness from the sin; and we are to believe that God is just (and faithful) to do that – forgive and cleanse us again.  The norm expected is conviction leads to change of heart, to confession (NOT the other way round).

 

18.       To demand confession of every sin we commit, isn’t that legalism, Bro Anthony?

Ans: In one of my earlier answer to one of the questions in connection with confession of all sins, I have explained that no legalism was expected.  We confess all conscious sins, and ask God to forgive us of them, and also, all other sins we have committed (including sins of omissions). 

People who argued against believers confessing to God and asking for forgiveness for sins committed, commonly are the same ones who would argue for you to do that confessing and asking for forgiveness from the ones (men) you hurt; now, if asking God is legalism, asking men is NOT?!  What double standard!  Common on, if I step on your toes, one time, and I have to say sorry to you, can I tell you in the face, the next time I step on your toes, “Why, you want me to say sorry (this time, also); why, you want me to practice legalism(?); I won’t do it!”

Worst still, some even argue along the line that because we ask people to do something (to confess and ask God for forgiveness), that makes the whole thing a law, and so, it cannot free us from sin!  Please-lah, we ask non-believers to do something-right (to confess Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour), on conversion, it also makes it all a law(?), and so, it cannot free people from sins?!

There is just much abuse of “legalism”, making it the strawman!

 

19.       Bro Anthony, I have read this statement, what do you think? – Promoting confession (to God) keeps us under the power of sin because we are consumed with thoughts of ourselves in a sincere desire to please God.

Ans: Being consumed with thoughts of ourselves in a sincere desire to please God does NOT keep us under the power of sin!  I think people really should think before they write; what contradiction this is! 

We exist to please God.  We should be consumed with thoughts of ourselves in a sincere desire to please God.  Rev 4:11 tells that we are for His pleasure or we exist to please Him - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.  Also the Apostle Paul wrote in Col 1:16: For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him.

 

20.       Bro, Anthony, but we have also read: if we become so preoccupied with getting our fellowship right with God, as you are saying we do need to do, as opposed to others, who said, that it (the fellowship) was right all the time, and there was nothing to get right about, we would NOT have time for our relationship with other people (men), serving one another in love; what say you?

Ans: John 15:5 - “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.  If I may say so, many people, non-believers and believers, think they do a lot of good, but really, in God’s eyes, it may very be “you have done nothing”!  To be bearing fruit we got to be in right fellowship with God.  To love one another, what Scripture is exhorting, is we are to love one another with the love of God.  Unless, we are in right fellowship with God, how is the love of God to flow through us?!  You may be loving, but you may NOT be loving with God’s kinda love, without right fellowship with God.  

Again, there is just misunderstanding here, the process is like this: our relationships with men, and our serving one another in love, are to stem from our right fellowship with God.  To argue that our preoccupation with our fellowship with God would cause us to be NOT relating to men and serving one another in love, is making serious allegation against God, claiming he is contradicting Himself with the call to love Him with our all, and to love our neighbours with his love.

 

21.       What about this one – “If we are too busy keeping “short accounts”, we will NOT be able to serve our brothers in love”, Bro Anthony?

Ans: Again, this is NOT the kind of exhortation we are to dish out to believers!  Rather, more importantly, it is this:  Jesus said at the occasion of the Last Supper,  if the Apostle Peter were NOT going to have his feet washed by Him, metaphorically, to have himself (Peter) forgiven and cleansed by the Lord, he, Peter, would have no part with the Lord. 

The feet-washing was NOT particularly about humility or that we were to serve one another, although the entire symbolism of the Last Supper was on Jesus’ re-establishment of the Servanthood (unto God); it was particularly on, if you did NOT get yourself forgiven and cleansed from the filth from contact and exposure from the fallen world, you could NOT serve with and for the Lord (no part with Me!).  We have to keep short accounts if we are to be having a part with the Lord.

22.       Bro Anthony, if you will just accept it that God loves the believers, regardless, and when believers know that, their lives would change, they would love God, and they would love one another; would you stop asking believers that they should do this or that?

Ans:  A kind of well-said hypothesis!  But I have NOT seen it, in practice, to be generally true; and more true than the exegesis of the Word calling for believers to love God through resisting sins (even to the point of shedding blood – Heb 12:4), practice righteousness and perfecting holiness, including embracing 1 John 1:9, in the fear of the Lord. 

I live a country with many churches, including a few mega churches, and churches with overly grace or hypergrace theology, alongside traditional churches, but I have NOT seen, markedly, the OSAS (once saved always saved) or overly grace (hypergrace) proponent churches, love God more, love one another with the love of God, more; or are serving the Lord more.  In fact, many are so proud of their motto – the means and end of the faith is just to bask in grace; and hallelujah and do nothing, purportedly; or just do what comes to your mind, no need to “ought” or “should”, purportedly, that would be going down the slippery road of works or law!

23.       Bro Anthony, why are you so stubborn, Scripture said that Jesus said, “It is finished”; why do you still deny that?

Ans: People are making eisegesis on Jesus’ simple words of “It is finished”. 

Jesus did NOT say it is all finished; there is nothing for you to do. 

Jesus did NOT say it is all finished; all sins, past and FUTURE, are forgiven at conversion. 

Jesus did NOT say it is all finished; on conversion, you become perfect in holiness and righteousness, so perfect, that you can NEVER be non-holy or unrighteous, or that you will NEVER again to seek His righteousness (People claiming Matt 6:33 NOT speaking to believers!). 

Jesus did NOT say it is all finished; with immediate effect, you have the full mind of Christ, that you have no need to “should” or “ought”, no one need to tell you what to do, purportedly, had God wanted you to do anything, you would have known! 

Jesus did NOT say it is all finished; you cannot sin, ever again, after conversion! 

And Jesus did NOT say it is all finished; you do NOT need to repent, confess and ask for forgiveness from God, ever again!

What did Jesus say?  He said all the tasks the Father God had assigned Him to do, He had done them all; He finished His assignments.  Jesus had always claimed He was doing what the Father wanted done.  The last task was for Him to die crucified, and so, just before He breathed His last, He exclaimed, “It is finished”.

His (assignments), finished, ours, NOT yet.  To be like Christ, we, too, are to finish what we are assigned, and then we go to join our Lord, just as He has finished and went to join the Father.

The way to go - love God, have faith and work with God:

God loves us first, and we ought to love Him back.

Heb 11:6 – Without faith it is impossible to please God, and we who want to go to God, we must believe He exists and would reward us when we earnestly seek Him. 

That we have entered into salvation, Phil 2:12 said, we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.  Work with God; He can give you the desire and power to do what pleases Him (Phil 2:13).   

When we love God, have faith and work with Him, we can expect, in His faithfulness, as Phil 1:6 puts it, He will bring to completion that which He has started in us. 

Don’t listen to people who tell you, you are perfected on conversion; we start with conversion or entry into salvation, and in His faithfulness, God will bring to completion that which He started in us, from conversion.


Anthony Chia, high.expressions

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here. 

  

Wilderness Death Decree – Who were covered under it?

What is this Decree?  It is referring to the {punishment} decree God gave when the Israelites disobeyed God and refused to enter into the Promised Land, the first round they came to the edge of the Promised Land.

We should all know that the Israelites entered into the Promised Land at the second time round they came to the edge of the Promised Land, after undergoing the punishment under the Wilderness Death Decree which was “deaths over 40 years of wandering in the wilderness”.

Also, it was Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt, and led the Israelites in the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, but Moses did NOT enter the Promised Land; he did NOT lead the Israelites into the Promised Land!  It was Joshua who led them in.  If you are surprised at this fact, that Moses did NOT enter the Promised Land, I suggest you read a separate article of mine, “Do you know why Moses did NOT enter the Promised Land?”

From that article I have expanded my study on the subject, and a few other articles have resulted from it, and it included this one, which you are about to read.

There are views and debates over who were covered under this Decree that would see the death of the then adult Israelites who left Egypt for the Promised Land.

Generally, we have heard it preached that all the adults at the time the Israelites left Egypt, they were appointed deaths in the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, meaning they would all die before their descendants would enter into the Promised Land. It would be the children or new-borns in the 40 years’ wandering who would enter the Promised Land.

Because of the looking at why Moses did NOT enter the Promised Land, it become necessary to be a little precise as to who were covered and who were NOT covered under the Decree.  For example, was Moses included in the Decree?  What about Aaron and Miriam?  The siblings, Moses, Aaron and Miriam were believed to be part of the leadership team leading the people out of Egypt to go to the Promised Land. 

For a moment, let’s say Moses and Aaron were excluded, what was the ground; because they were Levites?  Were Levites excluded?  Some argued so!  Some say they could see, women were excluded, and so, they may NOT agree with my position on Miriam’s death, and may even NOT accept my assumptions on the impact of Miriam’s death on her brothers, Moses and Aaron.  Were women excluded?  I will try to cover most of these, here.

Did the Wilderness Death Decree include Moses and Aaron?

First, I want to address the view that the Decree, it included Moses and Aaron; meaning they too, being adult then, would together, with the rest of the adults then, were appointed death in the wilderness.  Why is this important?  Because if it were so, the reason for Moses’ (and Aaron’s) NOT entering the Promised Land, was found, NOT at the Waters of Meribah, some 38-40 years later, but at the occasion of Israelites’ refusal to enter into the Promised Land, the 1^st time round. 

Concerning the event of Waters of Meribah, Kadesh, this happened at the close of the 40 years of wandering, when the Israelites would once again come to the edge of the Promised Land to enter it.  They came to the place, Kadesh, in the desert of Zin, after about 38 years of wandering.  Read the article, “Do you know why Moses did NOT enter the Promised Land?” and you will know what happened there, and we got this as part of what was written of it - Num 20:7-13 –

7 The LORD said to Moses, 8 "Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink."  9 So Moses took the staff from the LORD's presence, just as he commanded him.  10 He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, "Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?"  11 Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.  12 But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."  13 These were the waters of Meribah, where the Israelites quarreled with the LORD and where he showed himself holy among them.

Numbers 14 gives us quite a comprehensive account of the 40 Years Wilderness Death Decree (you may want to go read it). We find there, in Num 14, Joshua and Caleb were named to be exception (Num 14:30).  Now, were Moses and Aaron also part of the exception?  My view is that, that would be a yes.  Here is how I came to my conclusion:

1. Num 14:11-12 tells us what God wanted to do then, was to immediately put all the Israelites to death, and God would raise up from Moses another nation, greater and stronger.  Here, we can see that Moses was NOT included as a guilty one (The Israelites were guilty of disobedience, contempt, and rebellion).

2. Num 14:26.  In this verse, we find that God was addressing or speaking to both Moses and Aaron, about the contempt of the Israelites, and it was at this point (v29) that we can see God still insisted the death He had wanted to appoint unto the Israelite adults, to remain; God still insisted that the adult generation then, must die in the wilderness in the 40 years of wandering to come (why 40 years?  1 year for each day they explored/spied the Promised Land).  The point to note also, is the Decree was NOT 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, and then all, including the then (guilty) adults, could enter into The Promised Land; it was that the adult generation were to die out in the wandering. From here (addressing of Moses and Aaron together), we can see possibly, Aaron was also excluded.

3. Num 20:12.  After Moses (and Aaron) had acted inappropriately at the Waters of Meribah, Kadesh, God spoke to both Moses and Aaron this: But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."  Had Moses and Aaron were already included in the Wilderness Death Decree (38-40 years previous), there was no need and superfluous to tell Moses and Aaron that they would NOT be bringing the children of the previous adult generation into the Promised Land. 

My belief is that, it is at the Waters of Meribah, Kadesh, that Moses and Aaron lost the privilege to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land (and so, too, would NOT be entering it).  And it is to be noted that the punishment here, at the Waters of Meribah, was different from that of the Wilderness Death Decree, in that, it was NOT a death penalty; just that they would NOT lead the Israelites into the Promised Land.  That they died subsequently, outside of the Promised Land, was NOT the penalty.

What about Deu 1:37-38?  From this text, some people concluded that Moses was under the Decree, and so, he was already to die, before the community's entry into Promised Land, and so, he was NOT to lead the Israelites in. 

I beg to differ on how I look at this text.  I consider the events and details of Deu 1 as rehash and recap, after secondary processing, mixed with “idea mappings”, and a NOT straight forward chronicling account of events; and specifically, for vv37-38, I accept the exegesis of the leading medieval Jewish scholar Nahmanides.

Deu 1:37-38 - 37 Because of you the LORD became angry with me {Moses} also and said, "You shall not enter it, either.  38 But your assistant, Joshua son of Nun, will enter it. Encourage him, because he will lead Israel to inherit it.

The author, Moses (in secondary processing of events), combined two separate sins of similar consequences: the Israelites’ sin in refusing to enter the Promised Land (the 1st time round) and the sins at the Waters of Meribah {the people’s and his own} resulted in him, Moses, not entering the land. Nahmanides puts it this way:

“The sin which you [Israel] committed at that time with regard to the spies led to your being denied entry into the good land; yet you continued to sin again, until you prevented me [Moses], too, from entering the land. For he wanted to mention together the punishment of all those who were prevented from entering the land, since it was all by reason of their sins.”

In other words, I have accepted the unambiguous texts of Numbers 14 & 20 (the scripture texts in the 3 points above, for believing Moses [and Aaron] was excluded from the Wilderness Death Decree) over the text of Deu 1:37-38.  I have adopted this: in biblical interpretation, where there is conflict, weightage is given more for the basic narrative or chronicling texts over texts from processing of events.

Also my own research showed this up:

Num 27:14-19  - 14 for when the community rebelled at the waters in the Desert of Zin, both of you disobeyed my command to honor me as holy before their eyes." (These were the waters of Meribah Kadesh, in the Desert of Zin.)  15 Moses said to the LORD {here still asking the question},  16 "May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community  17 to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD's people will not be like sheep without a shepherd."  18 So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him.  19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence.

This text tells us that it was unlikely that God had told Moses at the occasion of the Israelites disobedience and refusal to enter into the Promised Land the first time round, that Joshua was to succeed him (Moses), like what was said in Deu 1:37-38.  It was more likely that those words of God were given Moses, much, much later, like after the Waters of Meribah event, perhaps, in one of the repeated attempts Moses pleaded with God to forgive him and to let him into the Promised Land (Moses did ask repeatedly, until God said He wanted NOT to hear any more of it!). 

It could be previous to this occasion as given us, here, in Num 27:14-19. Perhaps, at some point after the Waters of Meribah event, God already said so, Joshua was the one who would enter, NOT him (Moses); it was just the Moses did NOT catch the fullness of what the LORD had wanted (because he was still hoping God would relent).  It was like, for the words in Deu 1:37-38, God hinted Joshua to replace him (Moses), and in Num 27:14-19, God got it going, formally appointed Joshua.

What about Miriam?  Was she included in the Decree?

What does she got to do with Moses’ NOT entering into the Promised Land?  The account of the Waters of Meribah, at Kadesh, started, for us, this way, Num 20:1-3 –

1 In the first month the whole Israelite community arrived at the Desert of Zin, and they stayed at Kadesh. There Miriam died and was buried. 2 Now there was no water for the community, and the people gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron. 3 They quarreled with Moses and said, “If only we had died when our brothers fell dead before the Lord!

Now, do you think the fact that Miriam died and was buried at Kadesh was put in, for us, for no apparent reason?  The story or account would have been just fine, without the mentioning of Miriam’s death there; why then the mention? 

It was quite possible there was reason(s) for stating that fact. There was nothing else said concerning Miriam in the account, so why the need to say Miriam died there and was buried there.  Many other people died in this 40 years of wilderness wandering, but why mentioned specifically, only Miriam’s death?

I have chosen NOT to ignore this fact.  The way I perceive this, is like this:

Since there were no mention of death of anyone else, subsequent to this, apart from the death of Moses and Aaron (both died subsequent to this, Aaron on Mount Hor, Moses, Mount Nebo), and the Israelites entered the Promised Land some 2 years later (from that Waters of Meribah event), Miriam’s death can be believed to be put in, to tell us that, up to that time, on reaching Kadesh, there were only a handful of the adult generation left, that left Egypt some 38 years earlier; 5 were Moses, Aaron, Miriam (who died there, at Kadesh), Joshua and Caleb.  Eleazar, son of Aaron, was alive, and he was an exception, but we will look at him, as an exception, a little more, later.

Miriam’s death served as a marker

So, to me, Miriam’s death perhaps, served as a marker, marking the last of the adult generation of the Israelites from Egypt who had to die, under the Wilderness Death Decree.  But why do I think that she was the last one, and NOT she was part of the rest who were NOT under the Decree? 

From Number 14, we could only arrive at 4 persons as exception – Joshua and Caleb (specifically named by the LORD), and Moses and Aaron (inferred with verses supporting). Number 14 was silent on Miriam, and as far as I know, other scriptures were also silent on this point.  On hindsight (she did die!), it is reasonable for me, and us, to conclude Miriam was NOT part of the exception; but if we put ourselves in Moses and Aaron’s shoes, don’t you think it was possible that Moses and Aaron might have harboured the thought that perhaps, Miriam was also excluded from the Decree? 

Why could Miriam possibly be excluded?  On what strength?   Perhaps, on the strength that she was part of the leadership team leading the Israelites in that time.  Moses was excluded; Aaron too.  Both were in the leadership team. Was Miriam in the leadership team?  I believe so.  Miriam was the prophetess, and the writings in Numbers 12 seemed to suggest she was in the leadership team.  Numbers 12:1-5 –

1 Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. 2 “Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?” they asked. “Hasn’t he also spoken through us?” And the Lord heard this. 3 (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.) 4 At once the Lord said to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, “Come out to the tent of meeting, all three of you.” So the three of them went out. 5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When the two of them stepped forward,

The above does suggest the trio were in a leadership team; they entered the tent of meeting together, and God would address them together.

Here is another text that can be read as suggesting Miriam was in leadership with Moses and Aaron – Micah 6:4 – “For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.”

This could be what was in Moses’ (and Aaron’s) mind before Miriam’s death, at Kadesh, “Almost every one of the adult generation has died, and we are reaching the edge of the Promised Land once again, and we are nearing the end of the 40 years of wandering; perhaps, our sister Miriam was and is also excluded from the Decree.  She must be; she did NOT die when almost all have died!  Miriam (and Eleazar) is(are) still alive.”

I believe Moses (and Aaron) wanted to believe their sister, Miriam, was like them, excluded, but she was NOT.  Perhaps, in God’s mercy, she was the last to die, under the Decree.  Can I be sure?  No, I cannot quote a verse that said that, but perhaps, this little observation can helps, that she was included in the decree:

Rabbis and scholars noted that for the death of Miriam, there was no corporate mourning, but for both Aaron and Moses’, there were (Aaron -Num 20:29; Moses - Deu 34:8)!  And Rabbis tried to explain why the different treatments, but I have NOT seen one that is convincing enough.  Rather, when we accept the understanding that Miriam was the last one to die from the Wilderness Death Decree, we see it all made sense:

According the Jewish rabbis, mourning is a show of respect to the departed and to his or her place in their lives, as well as a crucial stage in the healing of those who experienced the loss.  With this understanding one common position or explanation given was that for Miriam’s case, her death was before the people (assumed) and she was buried right there before the people (again assumed), for Num 20:1 said that the people reached Kadesh, and Miriam died there and was buried there; purportedly, there was closure, and so there was no need of corporate mourning.  Since Aaron died on Mount Hor, and Moses, Mount Nebo (Mt Pisgah), Moab, there were no closure (assumed), and so, there was corporate mourning for each.  Aaron was commanded by God to go up to Mount Hor (Num 33:38), and he died there, and so, perhaps, “no closure” could be argued, although Moses was with him, and his son, Eleazar, too; and his priesthood was passed on to Eleazar on that Mount; but for Moses, before he went up to Mount Nebo (Deu 34:1-6), he prepared the people, appointed Joshua to take over from him, reminded the people of the commandments and prescriptions of God, and he blessed Israel before he went (the whole chapter of Deu 33 was on this); to argue “no closure” for Moses’ case seemed short; although, the remains or grave of Moses could not be found. 

But I found that in a way, there were mournings for all 3 cases! One pre-death mourning, and two post-death mournings!  Aaron’s and Moses’ were post-death mournings – the people mourned after each’s death, and this was and is the usual way things happened or happen.  The pre-death mourning was for all the adults who had to die in the wilderness under the Decree.  Was there one?  Yes, there was one; and it was said in Num 14:39 – “When Moses reported this to all the Israelites, they mourned bitterly.” What was it that Moses reported to all the Israelites? He reported that God insisted that all adults then, would have to die in the wilderness in the 40 years of wandering.  I believe subsequently, upon each death from the Decree, including that of Miriam, corporate mourning was NOT appropriate, for all the deaths were God appointed deaths in punishment.  To mourn corporately on such deaths would amount to contempt of God.  The deaths of Aaron and Moses were outside of the Decree, and the deaths were NOT death penalty.  The punishment for Moses and Aaron was that they shall NOT lead the community into the Promised Land, although they did die (but NOT death punishment, and so, mourning for them, was NOT in contempt of God).

Is there support for my suggesting that to mourn such deaths, God appointed deaths in punishment, could amount to contempt and displease God?  Yes, we find it, in Moses’ warning after the death of the 1^st 2 sons of Aaron from offering strange fire to God; fire from God came forth and burn them to death (Lev 10:1-2).  This is Moses’ warning (Lev 10:6, KJV):

And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail {express great regret} the burning which the LORD hath kindled

There has been mis-translation of this text, going by the review of the various translations.  In essence, the last bit should be translated as the people was to view much regrettably (but in agreement) that the wrath of God had to be meted out, NOT as mourning for the deaths of the 2 sons (that would be contempt).  Moses warned NOT to mourn (because that would be contempt), lest wrath came upon priest family, as well as upon the people.

Coming back, the way to understand Moses’ and Aaron’s deaths is like this:  The punishment was that both would NOT be allowed to lead the community into the Promised Land.  But because it was time for the community to enter in, God let Aaron and Moses to die; NOT that death was their penalty (those under the Decree were different; they had to die, it was only in God’s relent or mercy, that God gave them time – over 40 years).  To me it would have been cruel to have left them behind in the wilderness, to live alone and be attacked even, by the natives, with the rest of the Israelites crossed over into the Promised Land.  God let them die so that they might join Him in Heaven; and we can infer that Moses (and Aaron, too, I believe) did get to Heaven, for at the Transfiguration, Moses came together with Elijah, whom we know from elsewhere in Scripture was taken up to Heaven.

So, I have deduced that Miriam’s death was NOT mentioned in the account of Waters of Meribah for no reason, and her death was probably a marker – marked the last one to die from the Wilderness Death Decree, to the surprise and grief of Moses (and Aaron).

Now, in my research I found there was a Jewish tradition that claimed that there was a mysterious well of Miriam (of fresh water) that followed the Israelites in their wandering; and when Miriam died, the well disappeared.  If you accept this, it does explain the mention of Miriam’s death at the very start of the Waters of Meribah incident.  Even it being so, the other things I expounded and the assumptions I made, on her, Miriam, including her siblings’ expectation that she would live to enter into the Promised Land still hold.  But to me, unless there is a tenable link to some unambiguous facts written in Scripture, we have to be very careful about swallowing-in of extra-biblical materials. 
 
The Decree did NOT include Levites?

Could this be the case, and so explains also why Aaron and Moses were NOT included.  Also, Eleazar, since he was the son of Aaron.  If it applied, then, Miriam too, would be excluded, since she was the sister of Aaron and Moses.  All of these, Aaron, Moses, Miriam, and Eleazar were Levites.

My view is that the Decree did NOT generally exclude the Levites.  I will NOT go into the scriptures brought up by those with the opposing view, as I consider them as NOT directing pointing to Levites being excluded. And the key text supporting my belief is this text in Numbers 26 (concerning the 2nd census, as the Israelites prepared to enter the Promised Land):

Num 26:62-65 -- 62 All the male Levites a month old or more numbered 23,000. They were not counted along with the other Israelites because they received no inheritance among them.  63 These are the ones counted by Moses and Eleazar the priest when they counted the Israelites on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho {this is the 2nd census}.  64 Not one of them was among those counted by Moses and Aaron the priest when they counted the Israelites in the Desert of Sinai {1st census, after leaving Egypt}. 65 For the LORD had told those Israelites they would surely die in the desert, and not one of them was left except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.

Verses 64 & 65 are the key – none of the adult Levites was in 1st count, meaning all the adults in the 1st count had died.  The “For” at the beginning of v65 affirmed for us that there was an intent to actually say the Levites, they were included in the Decree.

Ok, how about Eleazar?

To me, Eleazar looked an exception; he was probably above 20 years old when the Exodus begun.  He was specially picked by God to take over the High Priest position from his father, Aaron, on Mount Hor, before Aaron died.  And he did enter the Promised Land, and served as the second High Priest of Israel. He was with Joshua when the latter divided conquered plots in the Promised Land, as was commanded by God.  He would NOT be an exception if someone can come up with support that he was below 20 years old at the time of Exodus.  He was already married and had Phineas, his son, before the Exodus.  If he were an exception, for whatever ground that God had made that exception, perhaps, there had to be someone, to take over the High Priest position from Aaron, it was His prerogative.  As to the 4^th son (Eleazar was the 3^rd; the 1^st two died from the offering of strange fire I talked about above), Ithamar, we only know his descendants featured prominently, later in history, for High Priest, Eli, was from his line.  Perhaps, his children entered the Promised Land, he (Ithamar) didn’t, I cannot find scriptures, one way or the other.

What about the assertion, women were excluded?

If women were excluded, then Miriam’s death, could only be death outside of the Decree.  Then, if the view is that she was part of the leadership team, the puzzle remains as to why she was NOT corporately mourned on death, when the other two, Aaron and Moses were.

Even if Miriam were outside of the Decree for the ground that she was a woman, the argument that possibly her death still upset Moses (and Aaron) greatly, and that led on to Moses (and Aaron) being upset with God, to me, can still hold.  The grounds being (1) there, probably, were only a few adults left from the adult generation who left Egypt, and Miriam was still one, and Moses expected God to preserve her; and (2) she was in the leadership team (that is if you agree with that), and the other two, Moses and Aaron were still alive.  Moses (and Aaron) could think that the leadership team would remain intact, until they collectively finish their mission with entry into the Promised Land.

Unless someone can come up with conclusive scripture texts to support, I will continue to believe that, despite adult women were NOT included in census counts, it did NOT mean they were NOT appointed death like the adult men.

Anthony Chia, high.expressions

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here. 

  

What is holiness?

I am aware of some teachers holding out holiness to include every excellent virtue, making holiness equivalent to godliness.  To me, I don’t equate holiness to godliness; the end-goal of our pursuit is godliness; the greatest honour we can receive from the Lord, I reckon, is when we are said to be godly.  To reach that end-goal, we need to perfect the many excellent virtues such as holiness, love, forgiveness, meekness, faithfulness, etc.  In any case, Scripture does point to viewing holiness and godliness as NOT identical – 2 Pet 3:11 – “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives”.  If holiness and godliness are identical, then we would NOT be using “and” would we?

So, I am NOT including other virtues such as love in holiness, although of course, we know that “to NOT love” is wicked in God’s eye, and so, one who does NOT love is NOT holy (wicked) {We ought to know that even “to NOT forgive” is wicked, in the eyes of God}.  But the more fundamental reason why one who does NOT love is said to be NOT holy is because “to love” is commanded by God, and disobeying God is NOT righteous (it is a sin), and so, NOT holy.  

It is best we discuss such other virtues, such as love, separately, although I must make it clear though, that all other virtues, including love, are subjugated to the holiness of God (or we say, it, His holiness, shapes all His other attributes; so, for example, we speak of His holy anger!), as holiness is the most fundamental nature-attribute of God.

Holiness, the most fundamental nature-attribute of God?

I believe it so.  The holiness of God pervades His entire being.

In the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible, John, the author, was taken up and brought before God in His throne room in Heaven.  This is what he said he saw, “In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle” (Rev 4:6b-7).

What were the creatures doing, day and night, before God? In verse 8, we read, each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”

To me, this painted to us, holiness is the most fundamental nature-attribute of God.  Just imagine, day and night, the creatures never stop saying the words, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty.

Isaiah Chapter 6, we read this:

“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.  Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.  And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;

the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Isaiah 6:1-3)”

Although, in this case, it might not be in Heaven, all the same, when God was on His throne, the creatures were there saying the same thing, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord [God] Almighty”.  Holiness is the most fundamental nature-attribute of God.

Fundamentally, what is holiness about?

Isaiah’s cry and what the seraph did, afterward, gave us the clue as to what holiness concerns, when men are referenced.  This is his cry, “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:5) “Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar.  With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” (Isaiah 6:7)”

When men are referenced, holiness is absence of that which defiles.  And “defile” means, chiefly, this: “To debase the pureness or excellence of another”.  A man is holy or NOT, is NOT measured from within himself, but measured against the purity of another, who is God.  A man is holy only when in him is absence of that which defiles/debases the purity of God.

What is purity of God [hognos – G53]?  It is His holiness.  There is only one who was absolutely holy and has remained holy, God; there is no other.  Rev 15:4 reads: “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.” 1 Sam 2:2 (KJV) - There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

Isaiah knew he was full of that which would defile God or would debase the purity of God; and he said “Woe to me”, but what is the holiness or purity of God? What we can possibly infer from the Isaiah’s account is this:  Metaphorically speaking, it is that God is clean (He is the Clean), and Isaiah was unclean; and that unclean would debase or offend the Clean.

This, I believe, was the background to Isaiah’s exclamation of “unclean lips”:  In those days, leprosy was NOT uncommon, and men with leprosy were cast off from the clean community, and they were NOT allowed to come into the clean community, for the contagious nature of the illness would debase the clean community.  And so, the clean community and the unclean community (making up of men with leprosy), they were separate.  When an unclean (or leprous) man happened to come near to a clean man or community, he must, with his lips, warn that he was unclean (or leprous) by covering his lips and shouting, “Unclean, unclean”.  Unclean lips symbolises, NOT only the being {person} is being unclean, but also that, what comes forth (with the speech and breath) from the lips could defile.  Isaiah understood without holiness no one could see God (Heb 12:14) and NOT suffer any ill consequence from it; and in humility and contrite of heart, quickly likened himself as one who was leprous coming near to the Clean One.

Of course, the “unclean” and “clean” were metaphorical to sinful {men, sinful} and sinless {God, sinless}, evil and good (absolute) {only God is good – Mark 10:18}, wickedness and goodness absolute, completely virtuous. 

In this connection, it is to be noted that strictly speaking, it is, one or the other; for example, it is unclean or clean, or sinful or sinless; and NOT, “quite clean” and clean, or  “with a little sin” and sinless.  Back to the metaphor of leprosy, then in those times, an unclean (or leprous one), he did NOT get back into the clean community unless he was checked and declared “clean” by the high priest.  So long as he was still with a little leprosy, he did NOT get back in, and it was NOT possible for him to get back in, except having been declared clean once again by the high priest.  It is that distinct, one or the other, unclean or clean, or sinful or sinless, no shades or in-betweens.  So, what were unclean and clean, as used by Isaiah, to be understood as? State of being sinful (or evil), and sinless (or holy).

Another verse of Isaiah confirms my understanding:

Isaiah 64:6 (Amplified Bible): For we have all become like one who is unclean [ceremonially, like a leper], and all our righteousness (our best deeds of rightness and justice) is like filthy rags or a polluted garment; we all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away [far from God’s favor, hurrying us toward destruction].

And that understanding is that, clean is referring to sinless, and unclean, sinful (And so, too, I believe we can see that leprosy was used in Scripture as a metaphor for sin).  In other words, when we picture God as holy, we are to be getting this picture that God is with a state of without sin – sinless always.  And so, as said by Rev 15:4, God is the only one who is holy (was and is holy), God is sinless always, and so, also without evil always, and without wickedness always.  God is set apart from evil, meaning evil, wickedness or sinfulness cannot be found in God.  In fact, purity or holiness of God, complete absence of evil or wickedness, or being sinless, is opposed to evil, wickedness or sin.  In love-hate terminology, it is God hates evil.

If God does NOT hate evil, then “the fear of the LORD {/God/the Lord}” would NOT be defined the way it was defined in Scripture.   How was the fear of the Lord defined?  The definition was given us in Pro 8:13 and understood and psalmed by David in his Ps 34:11-14.

Pro 8:13 (KJV) - The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Ps 34:11-14 – 11 Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. 12 Whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days, 13 keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies. 14 Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

We are exhorted to have the fear of the Lord, and that means to hate evil. It is clear God hates evil, otherwise, His Word would NOT be exhorting us to hate evil, too.

By the way, if you are still thinking that it is inappropriate for us to say that God does hate, Pro 6:16-19 reads:

16 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:  17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

All of the above things said to be hated by God can be summed by the same words of they being sins, evil or wickedness.

Apart from Isaiah’s words, as discussed above, that we know that holiness of God is about Him being sinless, without evil, without wickedness always, there is a New Testament text, by the Apostle John, that pointed to the same.

1 John 1:5-10 - 5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.  6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.  7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.  8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.  10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

The metaphor of God is light, the light there, is NOT love, as is taught by some teachers/preachers; it is referring to holy or holiness.  If you just think back to what have been touched on, in connection with Isaiah’s words above, the same items were present there, in the John’s text – light (equivalent to holy, holiness, clean), darkness (evil, wickedness, sin, unclean-ness), and sin that needed to be forgiven (live coal touching Isaiah’s lips, by the seraph). 

Light there, was NOT love, for if it were so, then darkness in the same verse would be hatred, and 1 John 1:5 would read “…God is love; in Him there is no hatred at all”.  This, we know, as I have pointed out above, it is NOT that there is no hatred at all in God; God hates evil, and some of the specifics have been given us in Pro 6:16-19.  When we replace light with holy (or holiness), and so, darkness, with evil, it would read just right – “… God is holy; in Him there is no evil at all”.

Some other NT scriptures about holiness

1 Pet 1:14-16
As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he [the Lord] who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written {Lev 11:44; 19:2}: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

This text said these important things: 1. The Lord (or God) is holy; 2. Evil is antonymic {opposite} to holy; 3. We are to be holy in all we do (in all we do, we are to be without sin); 4. Be holy is imperative because God is holy; and 5. Even as children of God, it is possible for us to go back to our vomit (2 Pet 2:22), and be still be led by evil (desires) common to those who are NOT yet children of God.

2 Cor 6:16-18 – 2 Cor 7:1 (KJV)

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,  18 And will be  a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

We can see God promised to be our God and Father, and be with us, and we, be His people and children on the conditions (v17) that we stay off being unclean (be separate from the unbelievers or be no longer of the world, and “touch” no unclean thing), and to have ourselves cleansed of contamination (all filthiness) to the body and spirited soul, in our perfecting of holiness in the fear of God (KJV uses "fear of God", instead of {NIV’s} "reverence for God").  We need to stay off being unclean, and we need to have ourselves cleansed of contamination to our body and spirited soul.

The Apostle Paul was urging us to perfect holiness.  So, we need to work on our holiness (as measured against God’s standard of holiness).  When we falter, we need to ask Jesus for forgiveness; and try again and try harder, with the help of, or working with the Holy Spirit. 

The phrase, “perfecting holiness in the fear of God” {KJ version} is just right, and it means “perfecting holiness in hating what God hates - evil”.

Heb 12:14, Matt 5:8 & Rev 21:27 (KJV)

Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God (Matt 5:8). And there shall in no wise enter into it {the Heavenly City} any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Rev 21:27, KJV)

Do you want to see God? Do you want to go to Heaven to live with God? In Heaven, would you be seeing God?  So, do we need to be perfecting holiness or NOT?  The answer is clear.

1 John 3:2-3

2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.  3 Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.

The Apostle John too, underscored the need to be holy.  Why did he say what he said in verse 3?  Because he said, when the Holy One, our Lord, comes back, we want to see Him; and if you and I want that, that is our hope is that NOT, to see Him, we have to purify ourselves, for the Lord is holy.  It is the same, said a bit differently, by John, of “Without holiness, no one sees God (Heb 12:14)” or “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matt 5:8).  The style of John’s emphasis is like that -  “must be, no other way, impossible to be NOT so {he could go to the extent of using “one (a believer) CANNOT sin” [1 John 3:9]}”, even when it is his way of expressing there must NOT be incongruency; in this case, if you has this hope, hope of seeing the holy Lord when He comes back, you have to, it will be incongruent for you to be NOT doing it, purifying yourself or perfecting holiness, as Christ Jesus is pure or holy.

Heb 12:10

Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.

We have seen from the 2 Cor 6:16 – 2 Cor 7:1 text that God promised to be our God and Father.  Fathers discipline their children, and God is no different.  We are being worked on by God, and being refined so that we may share in His holiness.  Why?  It is so that, we, ultimately, are NOT prevented from seeing Him (and living with Him, too) due to our lack of holiness.  God chastises in love, and His love for men is love unto righteousness (`ahab love).  God loves you and wants you to see Him, and live with Him in Heaven, eventually, and so, prescribes that we have to perfect holiness.

I hope the above gives us, a good idea of what holiness is about, and from it, we would come to the position that we cannot do without (holiness), and there are things we have to do, concerning it, and NOT nothing as taught by some, arguing incorrectly that we are already perfect in holiness or everything is God’s part, none ours.

Watch out for 2 more articles following this: one on “Holiness and righteousness” to help people to see the 2 are NOT exactly identical; and another on “What we are to do, concerning holiness?”


Anthony Chia, high.expressions

Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.