* Covenant Breaker Self-justifications *
* Numbers 30 & Leviticus 5:4-5 *
* Covenants vs Vows/Oaths *
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.
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
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
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
- Leviticus 5:4-5 and Numbers 30,
- the difference between COVENANTS versus OATHS / VOWS etc., and
- overall, the matter of covenant breaking men trying to self-justify their sin
after the fact.
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
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
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.
- Exodus 23:32-33 [20-33],
- Exodus 34:10-15,
- Deuteronomy 7:1-2
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
"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,
- despite that they had been told THREE TIMES by the LORD not to make such a
covenant with the inhabitants,
- despite that they were in covenant with God Himself not to make such a covenant,
- despite that they were even deceived in being willing to make the covenant,
- despite that the covenant was clearly made "outside the Will of God",
despite all that, we see in 2_Samuel 21 that God still held the Israelites to
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
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
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
techniques is that a key element common among such ungodly cults is where the followers in
have only to believe a doctrine or a false rationalization of sin (where the
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).
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
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
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
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
Do they have a mortgage for their house? Then they committed this supposed sin
Do they have any financed item? Then they have committed this supposed sin of
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
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
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
who hold the truth in unrighteousness".
Covenant breaking is thus one of the listed items therein revealed from heaven
for us as being
- ungodliness and
which is held by men who hold the truth in unrighteousness, and that those who
do such things have pleasure in others doing such things, even though knowing
that those who commit such things are worthy of death, the known judgment of
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
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....
Bringing an occasion for the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, to speak
against the LORD as though the LORD would ever supposedly allow His people to go
back on their word.
- Blaspheming the Lord himself, making a claim of something that the Scriptures
clearly reveal He would never do, because the LORD does not call a man to sin
for which the known judgment of God is that that covenant breaker be "worthy of
- Leading others down the path of destruction as they follow him in the same
"worthy of death" sin of covenant breaking, empowering the two spirits of
self-exaltation and self-justification to further destroy even more unwary men
- Tragically placing his own soul in peril of the condemnation of the LORD
Almighty for so brazenly committing these sins, blasphemies, and
responsibilities for teaching others to sin. (Jesus speaks of His terrifying
answer to ones who do amazing things supposedly in His Name, while the truth was
that they were not of Him, in Matthew 7:21-23.)
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
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
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