Legal Consequence of Confessing Sins to one another

by **keithareilly** on Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:47 pm

Suppose a brother or sister in Christ confesses a sin to another believer and that sin is a crime for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired. Should the believer turn his brother or sister in Christ over to the legal system or not?

by **Keeping Alert** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 8:02 am

Good question. I wonder if the Catholic Church have any guidelines for their priests when they listen to confessions?

by **redeemed1953** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 9:31 am

In light of how the "Catholic" "church" let priests molest children for decades and DID NOTHING, I suspect their guidelines would be useless.
:a3:

by **keithareilly** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 9:37 am

James 5:16 tells us to confess our sins to each other.

Are we to obey the scripture?
Or are we to refuse to obey because we cannot trust our brothers and sisters to hold our confidences?

Are we to encourage our brothers and sisters to obey the scriptures and confess their sins by keeping their confidences?
Or are we to discourage our brothers and sisters from obeying the scriptures by turning them over to the legal system?

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:18 am

keithareilly wrote:Suppose a brother or sister in Christ confesses a sin to another believer and that sin is a crime for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired. Should the believer turn his brother or sister in Christ over to the legal system or not?

Keith, passages that encourage confessing sins to one another are primarily for the purpose of reconciliation between two persons. We confess something we have done to another person and hope for restoration in their eyes. Here are some examples that might take place between two believers.

- Joe, I called you today to confess something I did that involves you and the Holy Spirit has convicted me that it was sinful because of something that happened this morning.. I saw you enter a liquor store months ago and passed along the assumption that you might be an alcoholic. I thought, why else would he be buying liquor? Please forgive me because your wife mentioned today in women's group that she uses wine in one recipe for chicken and said how wonderful it is. She printed the recipe out for each of us so we could enjoy it too. I want you to know I'm going to do my best to confess my error to those I talked to at that time.

- Mary, please forgive me for losing my temper yesterday. I was stressed out and took it out on you when you asked me a simple question. I saw the hurt look on your face but didn't care at the moment. Stress or not, there was no excuse for doing what I did.

- Henry, I am returning your weed-eater you lent me over 6 mos. ago. I heard you mention you couldn't find it and I guessed you forgot that you lent it to me and I was glad because I was hoping to keep it for myself. It's a very handy tool and lacking the funds to purchase one myself, I justified keeping it. I've been convicted it was sinful and deceptive and am asking you to forgive me. You were such a good friend and so willing to help when I needed it that I am ashamed at how I took advantage of your generosity.

Paul speaks of confessing, healing, effectual and powerful prayer, and the love that turns someone who is backsliding back to the faith. He admonishes them to refrain from complaining. He encourages them to patiently endure like the prophets who suffered patiently. Are they suffering? Then they should pray! Are they cheerful? Then sing! Are they sick? Call the elders to pray for you!

We cannot yank a verse out of context and arrive at a proper understanding.

Now...in the event someone receives a phone call from a brother or sister who says they were drunk and placed a bomb in Joe's car last night and it's scheduled to explode at 10:30 a.m. when he will be traveling to work, should we report it to law enforcement? Of course! Without a doubt we should call 911! You might say quickly, Jim, I'm hanging up right now as this needs to be reported to the police if you have not done so. Have you?

Or while you're having breakfast at the "Chat & Chew" restaurant (that's the name of a real restaurant btw - at least it was years ago) with a friend. He's fidgety and you ask if he wants to share the reason or if there's anything you can do for him. He shares that he's had an on-going problem molesting his young daughter and despite much prayer and fasting, has not gotten the victory over this sin. Should you report this? Of course! You might gently, lovingly, but firmly let this friend know that his actions are against the law and must be reported to the proper authorities. You offer to accompany him to the police station and tell him they will advise him of the procedure they are mandated, in turn, to follow. You can thank you for sharing his secret with you and say it must have been difficult for him to do so, but you are going to stand by him during his treatment and help in any way he can.

Do you see the difference? Some of the confessions are spiritual in nature and others are illegal and involve the safety and protection of others.

If you don't know how to handle a situation you are presented with, simply say so. Then admit further advice is required and offer to help investigate the proper channels.

There's no "one-size fits all" solution.

When I was about 8-10 yrs. old, I stole a peppermint patty candy bar from the store and ran like crazy. I hate them, but they were the closest thing to me so it had to do. I knew it was wrong and it bothered me for about a week. I decided to make restitution to clear my conscience. I went into the store with a nickle; told the man as quickly as I could I had stolen a candy bar last week; and here's the money. Then ran like crazy out the door.

I never confessed that to a living soul. 60+ yrs. later, you are the first to hear about it. :mrgreen:

by **Abiding in His Word** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:33 am

James 5:16 tells us to confess our sins to each other.

Are we to obey the scripture?

It's not a command that requires obedience for every sin for everyone. If you see it as requiring obedience, then you must sing when you're cheerful. And when you get sick, you must call the elders to come and pray for you. Never mind the doctor or the Pepto Bismol .

by **keithareilly** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:45 am

Abiding,

I understand your position. I simply do not agree.

No greater love hath mortal man than for a friend to die. (less so to go to jail for refusing to break a confidence).

Oh, and by the way, I won't tell. :wink:

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:18 am

keithareilly wrote:Oh, and by the way, I won't tell.

I didn't think you would agree with me, but thought I'd give my perspective anyway. Hopefully someone else will comment and you will find agreement with their understanding.

by **keithareilly** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:29 am

Abiding,

I like your input. It represents a very different perspective than I have had on Christianity for my entire life.

I don't agree, but you have good arguments. Feel free to back others up or help them if you like. I am not trying to win.
It just surprises me that such a basic thing as trust, which is necessary for unity and oneness, is not held by all. It might help explain why I don't hear much about the conversion of people who hate their lives (Luke 14:26) and are looking to be rescued from a body of death (Rom 7:24), and want to be created newly (2 Corinthians: 5:17); we seem to be few and far between.

As such a convert, I am constantly surprised by those who don't have my background, especially those who grew up in the church or a Christian family.

What concerns me with your perspective is it does not provide church as a safe place where a person can be honest about their sins, seek help and peer pressure for change. It leaves people on their own without being able to get help for fear of being arrested and jailed. Such an environment, where a person cannot be honest and trust godly people, is an environment that promotes recidivism.

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:05 pm

keithareilly wrote:What concerns me with your perspective is it does not provide church as a safe place where a person can be honest about their sins, seek help and peer pressure for change.

Oh, now it's my turn to disagree. :wink:

I've seen so many groups and ministries in churches that it's a wonder we call ourselves "one in the Lord." We are fractured into nurseries, pre-school, high school, women's groups, men's groups, recovery groups, groups for singles, married, groups for divorcees, accountability groups, musician's groups, drama groups, etc.

It leaves people on their own without being able to get help for fear of being arrested and jailed. Such an environment, where a person cannot be honest and trust godly people, is an environment that promotes recidivism.

Keith, most churches have or know of groups for either men and/or women with specific needs. Here's just one in a church in Oklahoma called Celebrate Recovery that's led by lay members. I'm absolutely certain you could find a similar group where you could be honest and share your inner thoughts and feel safe. It wouldn't take a lot of research on the internet or references at the link I provided to enable you to at least ask some questions.

by **keithareilly** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:42 pm

So,

Are you saying in such groups is where a Christian who confesses a crime for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired can expect not to be turned over to the legal system?

Are you saying there are circumstance where we can keep confidences but not others?

Oh, and did my time in therapy during my twenties, thanks, it is for those like myself I am taking up the gauntlet.

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 1:50 pm

keithareilly wrote:Are you saying in such groups is where a Christian who confesses a crime for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired can expect not to be turned over to the legal system?

Keith, I've answered that question so many times in so many ways I don't know how else to answer. I've given examples of crimes; both minor faults and major crimes and suggestions as to how they might best satisfy both the confessor and the listener.

Are you saying there are circumstance where we can keep confidences but not others?

I've said as well that there are no "one-size fits all" answers. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on whether forgiveness has been sought and restitution paid. It depends on the age of the offender and the age of the offended and if someone is still in danger. It depends on whether a police report was made and or is still active; i.e. there is no statute of limitations for murder. So many variables that can't just be answered without specifics. I highly recommend contacting a group such as the one I linked, a pastor, a lawyer, or someone qualified and knowledgeable in the area of the confidential offense.

I still maintain the differences between the spiritual principle of forgiveness and the legal ramifications of breaking the law. But that's my personal conviction and observation from scripture. Exodus and Deut. show in great detail how concerned God is/was in justice.

"You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. "You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. "Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you. Deut. 16:18-20

He established laws concerning bribes, murder, vengeance, theft, slaves, loans and repayment, cheating (different weights and measures) anger that leads to murder, rape, and prescribed the appropriate punishment.

Much of our court systems are loosely based on God's laws in the Pentateuch as they prescribe fair penalty based on the seriousness of the crime as well as the strength of witnesses.

Oh, and did my time in therapy during my twenties, thanks, it is for those like myself I am taking up the gauntlet.

Ok, I can understand why confidentiality is important to you. I love and have the highest respect for the Wade Burleson at the Emanuel Enid, Oklahoma church. You can be absolutely certain he would answer your question with wisdom and compassion. His father served as a pastor for 56 yrs. and also has a blog that I visit from time to time. Wade has served in the Enid church for 30+ years and as I said, if I could travel from Florida to Oklahoma to attend church, I would. He's the only pastor I trust....so I attend his church via the internet where he packs much wisdom and knowledge of scripture in 25 minute "talks" (he prefers to call them). You might consider contacting him with any concerns you might have.

That's the best I can do, Keith. You already knew I didn't have all the answers but I have a great deal of respect for your berean zeal and desire to find the answers to your questions.

:blessyou:

ETA: Forgot to mention that prisoners from the local prison have special permission to attend Burleson's church so he's been blessed to have them as friends and most likely is aware of the reason for their incarceration as well. He's seen a number of them find Jesus while at those services.

by **momof3boys** on Sat Jun 13, 2015 10:26 pm

Here's the problem we have right now. The court system is corrupt. On every level. And we all break the law in small ways every day, with the number of laws we have right now. If someone is unrepentant, it is a major crime, and there is most likely evidence that they did it and will continue, then yes. Also if you're a mandatory reporter for particular crimes. Otherwise, you're risking breaking trust and having someone's life ruined for a one-time minor offense.

I'll tell you a story. When I was a kid, I was abused. One time (Mother's Day of all days), I was abused by my mom in front of a friend of mine (plus, witnessed by my brother whose 'fault' it really was) and there was also blood and physical evidence. I thought FINALLY a witness and evidence. My friend told her parents, but when my mom was confronted by them, it was glossed over. So the next time I went to church, I demanded to speak to the pastor and explained what happened. He refused to listen to me, glossed things over like my mom did, so I was stuck living in a horrible situation until I turned 18. Then I was pretty much left to fend for myself, and eventually officially disowned a few years ago. So all the abuse I took was for nothing.

Anyways, no, calling the police myself was not an option since there was only one phone in the house that was in hearing shot of most of the house. No cell phones were in existence (except for the huge, insanely expensive bricks). I was seriously afraid of being killed if my mom found that I tried to turn her in for hurting me, so police involvement directly was completely out of the question. Especially if they were to 'gloss things over' in the same way that had been done twice already.

Between the 2 situations, I would much prefer that the report by the victim needs to be made to police before a confession of a minor crime by a repentant person. Maybe focus first on reporting crimes where the victim comes forward. That might eliminate the need for this question, because the person needing/wanting to confess will already be legally taken care of.

Just my opinion based on life experience and nothing else.

by **keithareilly** on Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:47 am

MomOf3Boys,

Thank you, I will think about what you said for a while then respond.

Keith

by **GodsStudent** on Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:32 pm

What concerns me with your perspective is it does not provide church as a safe place where a person can be honest about their sins, seek help and peer pressure for change. It leaves people on their own without being able to get help for fear of being arrested and jailed. Such an environment, where a person cannot be honest and trust godly people, is an environment that promotes recidivism.

So, Keith, can you answer the question from the perspective of the person in the church receiving the information? If someone came to you and confessed to rape small children. As a child of God, what would your/the appropriate response be?

by **keithareilly** on Tue Jun 16, 2015 9:09 am

GodsStudent,

I cannot say that I would inform the authorities. Nor can I say that I would not alert the authorities.
It really would depend on a lot of factors.

Where I in the Duggar's shoes, I would not have taken Josh to the police as they did.
If an older man comes to me a says he has and continues to rape (intercourse or sodomy) children, It is probable I would tell him to turn himself in or I will do it for him. But, I am not certain only probable. I think about that I would do a lot of prayer first and then do as instructed.

These answers may not be popular. But, I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God first and citizen of this country, second.

Keith

by **keithareilly** on Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:44 am

Luke 14:21-23
21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. 22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. 23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

People who are from the streets and alleyways are going to bring with them problems. Highwaymen are thieves, murderers, and rapists.

Per scripture these are going to be gathered into the house of the Lord. And we are to do the gathering. How much more so are we to minister to such instead of tossing them from the house of God? And when it is these highwaymen to whom we are ministering, it is these highwaymen for whom we are held accountable. Scripture does not say, gather them up and turn them over to the authorities, it says bring them to the house of the Lord. Therefore, tossing them to the legal system is not necessarily the correct thing to do.

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Tue Jun 16, 2015 11:28 am

How much more so are we to minister to such instead of tossing them from the house of God?

Keith, have you never heard of a prison ministry?

Here's one such story that has blessed me beyond words several years ago. Saved from Hell in a Jail Cell at Cozumel

by **keithareilly** on Tue Jun 16, 2015 9:48 pm

Abiding wrote

Keith, have you never heard of a prison ministry?

Yes, But that is not the point. The example provided in this topic is not in prison.

The brother or sister who is confessing their sin are not hiding it. The are bringing it to light. They are not of those who refuse to come to the light. They are choosing light not darkness, even shining that light on themselves.

It seems to me people are more concerned with the victim than they are with saving the sinner.
Have all the righteous indignation you want over the sin. Have all the compassion you want for the victim. But being saved means being able to stop Sin from ruling (reigning) within us. A brother or sister who is caught up in sin needs our help. The idea that we must side with the victim against the sinner is not correct. We are about the salvation from God and that salvation means we are to help free the sinner from enslavement.

You might ask, can this not be accomplished after turning them over to the authorities? Maybe, but why should they, who brought their own sins into the light, listen to another Christian who preaches forgiveness after the first Christian betrays their trust by turning them over to the legal system, even after they themselves have proven they are of the light by shining it on themselves?

Romans 7:15-20
15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

It is not the sinner who is the guilty party, but Sin that dwells within . To drive the point home, scripture says this truth twice.

How do we love both the victim and the sinner at the same time and how do we recognize and condem the Sin dwelling within instead of the sinner? I am not convinced jailing our brothers and sisters who are struggling with sin is the answer.

Keith

by **GodsStudent** on Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:05 am

I am not convinced jailing our brothers and sisters who are struggling with sin is the answer.

and I am not convinced that by going thru the appropriate channels, jail is the necessary outcome....but prosecution, and the resultant sentence, is. We report, God decides. I said that a long time ago....and no argument made to the contrary has changed my mind.

We will rule over angels in our new and perfected bodies and with our new and perfected minds....we aren't there, yet.
Right now, we have a legal system that identifies criminal behavior and dictates that these must be reported and dealt with in our criminal justice system and a bible that clearly tells us we need to follow the rules of the land. Unless and until our country is all under strict Christian rule, we cannot be of one mind where this reporting sin to the church thing is concerned. It won't happen this side of Christ returning, and the muslims are trying to get their sharia law underway, which proports to handle things in the same manner...report crimes to the muslim synagogues.........and they're further along in it....but the world can't agree to it.....certainly Christians won't submit to sharia law....so.....how do we expect that they will submit to Christian law.....and if the Christians do things this way, the muslims that, and everybody else do it under the political laws of the land...we will have one huge mess.

We have a local college (SC State College) that got into a LOT of trouble with SC Law Enforcement when they had various rapes and burglaries and other crimes happening on their campus and instead of reporting them to the authorities, tried to handle them in the campus police department. I do not advise Christians to try this in their churches, because the law of the land does trump the idea-ideals of people who think for this reason (or this scripture), it means we should override them and handle matters on our own....

didn't go well for the people at SC State and it won't go well in our churches, is my best guess.

by **Abiding in His Word** on Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:52 am

Maybe, but why should they, who brought their own sins into the light, listen to another Christian who preaches forgiveness after the first Christian betrays their trust by turning them over to the legal system, even after they themselves have proven they are of the light by shining it on themselves?

OK, let's take one or two examples and see how keeping the trust after a confession might play out. The member of a church is a new convert. He experiences the new birth and feels convicted of the three murders he committed 7-9 yrs. ago while high on drugs. He shares that with his pastor who provides scriptures that assure him He was forgiven the moment he admitted he was a sinner and made Jesus the Lord of His life.

A year later, the police have finally gathered enough evidence to arrest the man. He is arrested and is awaiting an arraignment and date for trial. He phones his pastor for support as he is spiritually at the lowest point since he became a Christian. The pastor shows up for a visit and demands he be released from prison stating forgiveness as the reason for his dismissal from any legal prosecution. He states that the prisoner confessed his sin; scripture says he is forgiven; I forgave him; and Jesus forgave him.

The pastor was trustworthy and did not report the member but since his crime was illegal, he was apprehended in spite of the secret he divulged to the pastor. Do you think the prison officials or the judge will see it as a justifiable reason to let the murderer go free? Do you think perhaps the pastor might be complicit in withholding information pertinent to resolving the case?

According to your concerns about betraying trust, this situation meets all the criteria; confession, forgiveness, no legal prosecution necessary.

What say you?

by **keithareilly** on Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:44 pm

Abiding,

My concern is the betrayal of trust and its impact on our ability to help sinners, not the arrest for murder (or any other crime for that matter). I do not propose the criminal be released because he has been forgiven. The pastor, having kept the new converts confidence, is still in a position to offer guidance because he/she has not betrayed confidence and so therefore are other Christians.

I am not concerned about the complicitness with regards to past crimes, however, future crimes which might be committed by this new convert are a concern and they do come into play when weighing what to do. Why do I think this? Because I cannot change what has already occurred, but, I am responsible for the consequences of my choices should they lead to future crimes.

Keith

by **keithareilly** on Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:52 pm

GodsStudent,

You know, those are really good arguments.

Makes me wonder if the church should have national programs like Alcoholics Anonymous for other sins whereby successes will prove an alternative to jail and be supported by the legal system.

Keith

by **GodsStudent** on Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:02 pm

Actually, Keith, I know that some churches do have just that. The Calvary Chapel churches have a program called UTURN FOR CHRIST. While they do accept alcoholics and drug addicts, they also as readily accept porn addicts and uh...you know....whatever you want to fill in the blank.....people struggling.....and they address the underlying issues at hand....and they don't necessarily call it "addiction" (this is the world's word, by the way)......

The malody...at it's base level....is derived from a lack of disconnect from Christ....and a lack of a fundamental understanding of the World, it's ways, and our roles as citizens in this world, as defined by scripture. We are simply like a car that is out of alignment when we are flailing around looking for love in all the wrong places ( :mrgreen:

)

These programs ground the lost and draw them to a functioning relationship with God, others and self....and the "drug of choice" is no longer needed....a clear path is set, and the lost are redirected.

I am not saying this is the "theme" of UTurn's program, or it's mission statement, I am simply saying that AA is the world's way of dealing with dysfunctions of all kinds, and Calvary, as well as possibly some others, have other programs which lead people to personal relationships with Christ, which in turn, eliminates the deficiencies.

Interestingly, people who immerse themselves in immersion type programs like NA and AA often substitute their drug of choice with the actual program and people in the program. They go to meetings every day (literally), fellowship with other "recovering addicts" very often, when they're not calling their sponsors or going to some NA/AA convention to hear speakers and special events.

I agree with you. The churches could/should, if they had enough salt and light......reach out, just like Calvary did....to the lost and losing....BUT ....

you said:

whereby successes will prove an alternative to jail and be supported by the legal system.

The legal system daily hears from those who have entered into the legal system and then some treatment program, turned their lives around, and we see and hear many miracle stories from those who "keep coming back" to those programs, turn their lives around, and end up not landing in jail for serious offenses that occurred during their "using" days. People praise and bless their "higher power" for the mighty work in their life...so God can and does work in those (imo) not the best programs. (I think the best programs are Christ based and more like what Calvary is doing, but that's just my opinion)....when addicts get into AA, and they have families and children, the addicts become immersed in those programs for long periods of time in an effort to stay clean, and the program is their new drug...and the families are still having an absent husband/wife, parent, etc.....so I don't like the structure they have set up.....many people being into this process for years, even decades.

The root of all of this is our sin and sinful nature and acquiescence to sin...and the cure is Christ, the Word, and knowing where to go, how to go there, who to see when we get there, and what to do, every day, in order to stay there, on that path.

Just my thoughts. Sorry so long winded.

by **keithareilly** on Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:01 pm

GodsStudent,

Yeah, I know individual churches have them. They do good locally. But locally does not effect the justice system except locally.

Curiously, as I understand it, the USA penal system was the first in the world to implement rehabilitation.
I suspect rehabilitation is part of this country's Christian legacy.
Personally, I suspect Christians forget that Christianity itself is a rehabilitation system.

As you said,

"The cure is Christ"

not incarceration.

Keith

by **GodsStudent** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:38 am

As you said,

"The cure is Christ"

not incarceration.

Keith: With love and respect, please don't put words in my mouth. I do know that Christ is the cure, but when reprehensible criminal activities took place and brought harm to another, it is NOT MY CALL to say "not incarceration." That completely ignores victims and victims rights, and I absolutely do not advocate for that kind of thinking.

drunk drivers kill daddys, mommas, children.....ie.

As YOU said....the US Penal system implemented rehabilitation.

I bake cookies a few times a year for a program IN the penal system called Kairos. These people are born again Christians who go into jails to preach and teach God's love. They meet the sinner where they are, which is in jail, because of crimes they committed which landed them there.

I know Abiding made reference to prison ministries that are Christian.....they have Christian witnessing and rehabilitation for the incarcerated.

by **GodsStudent** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:46 am

One more thing....this bleeding heart stuff about people in jails for their crimes really annoys me on some levels. Americans in general have horrible lifestyles which has led to a breakdown in the family, which leads to a breakdown in the community, and finally to the country. WE must start as individuals to take back our lives, our families, our cities....BEFORE the crimes are committed...and we can see a reduction in our criminal system. BUT CERTAINLY...that won't happen until and unless we get our priorities straight and turn off our cell phones, our televisions....and rearrange our priorities as families and people.

There are worse punishments for crimes in the world at large. There are plenty who do "eye for eye" type justice...these folks don't go to jail, because they are "dealt with" in much harsher ways. Death style penalties are common place in quite a few countries.

AND...one more thing. I once had a police officer tell me "You would not sleep at night if you knew who and what all was going on out there in our community." I appreciate the "known" criminals being given a cot and three so that I don't have to sit guard during sleeping hours at my house.

We need prisons, because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Many times, people don't seek help until they are in trouble with the law...it's their "bottom."

Christ said ...see Matthew 9: 12 But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.

by **keithareilly** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:13 am

GodsStudent,

I did not put words in your mouth. I only quoted you saying "The cure is Christ". It is clear in the post the rest are my words.

Also, If you read my response to Abiding, you will see I do not have a problem with incarceration, my problem is with betraying trust. That is the question of this topic: Betrayal of the trust granted through confession of sins.

I have a huge problem with Christian betraying trust. The idea that is OK to betray trust tells the world at large we are not trustworthy. If we as God's representatives cannot be trusted, why should anyone listen to what we have to say? You discussed the breakdown of society and families. What you are talking about is the lack of oneness.

The topic is betrayal of trust which destroys oneness like adultery betrays marital trust thus destroying marriages.

So far nobody wants to address betraying trust, nobody. Everyone wants to argue send the criminal to jail.

In the example Abiding provided, the preacher kept the confidence of the sinner; therefore there was still oneness between the sinner and the preacher, even after the criminal went to jail. For what you and Abiding are proponents, destroys oneness.

Keith

by **Exit40** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:54 am

To address the issue, Lisa you said this ...

We need prisons, because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

My answer ...

No, but you can help them realize they are thirsty.

I have seen this patiently, lovingly done, with actual horses by one of the most outstanding horsemen I have ever seen. Transpose the horseman with the Christian, you have Christ Himself. WE ... CANNOT ... DO ... ANYTHING ! Except lead to the Living Water, represented in Christ. The Holy Spirit does the work. The convicted confess on their own when they realize their thirst. Nutshell version, one foot in the world, the other in the Kingdom. Reality is we never leave the Kingdom, we just shift our balance from one foot to the other. My belief is, everyone wants to be a Christian in the truest sense, they just don't realize what that is, and what it entails. Personal responsibility to Christ, and then to others. This is really loaded, isn't it ?

God Bless

David

by **keithareilly** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:26 am

David,

Glad to finally hear from you. I've been waiting.

This is really loaded, isn't it ?

It is. It is where the rubber meets the road.

Do we follow the laws of the land and betray the trust of God's children destroying the oneness God wants for us?
Do we watch out for God's children because they are HIs own and risk imprisonment preserving that oneness?

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:47 am

The idea that is OK to betray trust tells the world at large we are not trustworthy. If we as God's representatives cannot be trusted, why should anyone listen to what we have to say?

How would the "world at large" possibly know what has transpired between two people? And how would the "world at large" trust us if we knowingly cover up crime?

First, I think the question about legal consequences and breaking or betrayal of trust is a far-fetched situation to begin with. Second, up thread somewhere I advised putting the verse about confessing sins/faults (of a spiritual nature) to one another in context of the surrounding verses to correctly interpret the meaning. The subject seems to be about sickness, prayer and the power of prayer, healing, and helping those who may be straying from the faith.

In this context, I do not see a recommendation for confessing crime and expecting the crime to be concealed. I also gave an example of how this could be handled properly in the unlikely event such a situation should occur. That would be for the person hearing of the crime to be up front with the one confessing that it requires involvement and reporting to law enforcement and then offers to accompany the perpetrator in support....support of the reporting to the proper authorities not in support of his crime.

And last, to expect an individual to conceal a crime is the equivalent of withholding evidence and is in itself subject to legal action. If, as you have speculated previously, the statute of limitations has passed, then reporting will determine the steps necessary or unnecessary as the result of the reporting. It's theirs to determine....not ours or the churches.

It's the difference between the spiritual and the legal or the church and the state imo.

by **Abiding in His Word** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:49 am

Do we follow the laws of the land and betray the trust of God's children destroying the oneness God wants for us?

Oneness in "spirit" NOT partners in crime, Keith. Big difference!

by **keithareilly** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:57 am

Abiding said:

It's the difference between the spiritual and the legal or the church and the state imo.

I am one. It is not a difference between church and state or spiritual and legal. It is a matter of how I, as one, am going to act. Do I as the hearer of confession alert Authorities and betray the trust of God's child? Do I as the hearer protect God's child and the bond of oneness God wants for us? These are the choice the hearer faces.

Do I want to turn God's child over to the authorities or not?
Do I want to be Judas or not?

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:51 am

keithareilly wrote: It is not a difference between church and state or spiritual and legal.

Well, it's obvious to me that you do not see the difference between those. So let me try another way.

Do I as the hearer of confession alert Authorities and betray the trust of God's child?

You must obey the law of the land. There is no scripture that teaches or commands believers to conceal crime under the guise of loyalty. If you know of one, please share it.

Do I as the hearer protect God's child and the bond of oneness God wants for us?

There is no scripture that I'm aware of that teaches or commands believers to become partners in crime in an effort to maintain oneness in the spirit. If you know of one, please share it.

These are the choice the hearer faces.

And the hearer can share the difficult choice he must make and assure the one confessing he will accompany him and support him....thus maintaining the "oneness" that you perceive as of paramount importance.

Do I want to turn God's child over to the authorities or not?

Needless to say, it depends on the nature of the confession. Whether it's a spiritual matter or legal matter is the determining factor.

Do I want to be Judas or not?

I don't see the parallel at all. Jesus was sinless. Satan filled Judas and he was covetous of financial gain.

by **keithareilly** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:24 am

Matthew 12:1-14
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

A Man with a Withered Hand

9 He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10 And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

The disciples were breaking the law, Christ did so by healing on the Sabbath, scripture states this clearly.

Your arguments support this: The disciples should have been turned over to the Authorities and the Authorities should have decided their fate.

Keith

by **GodsStudent** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 11:35 am

Exit40 wrote:To address the issue, Lisa you said this ...

We need prisons, because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

My answer ...

No, but you can help them realize they are thirsty.

I have seen this patiently, lovingly done, with actual horses by one of the most outstanding horsemen I have ever seen. Transpose the horseman with the Christian, you have Christ Himself. WE ... CANNOT ... DO ... ANYTHING ! Except lead to the Living Water, represented in Christ. The Holy Spirit does the work. The convicted confess on their own when they realize their thirst. Nutshell version, one foot in the world, the other in the Kingdom. Reality is we never leave the Kingdom, we just shift our balance from one foot to the other. My belief is, everyone wants to be a Christian in the truest sense, they just don't realize what that is, and what it entails. Personal responsibility to Christ, and then to others. This is really loaded, isn't it ?

God Bless

David

Hi David: Actually, my point was that people typically don't seek resolution to the question of Christianity until their back is against the wall.....that's why I said this:

We need prisons, because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Many times, people don't seek help until they are in trouble with the law...it's their "bottom."

Christ said ...see Matthew 9: 12 But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.

Sometimes patience (such as the horsetrainer you described) works....but for some, they've rejected any and all forms of "leading to Christ" until they were out of their own favored options and facing hard times.

by **Abiding in His Word** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:34 pm

The disciples were breaking the law, Christ did so by healing on the Sabbath, scripture states this clearly.

Your arguments support this: The disciples should have been turned over to the Authorities and the Authorities should have decided their fate.

Keith, these are not violations of the law of the land. They are referencing the Mosaic law which was only binding on the Jews. But the Jews had added to the law of Moses and hence we have the what we know as the "Oral Law" which Jesus speaks of in the list of "Woe to you(s)" in Matthew 23 for while seating themselves as teachers of the law, have in the process laid heavy burdens as heartless taskmasters.

The scriptures that you posted are issues about the Sabbath which is a spiritual law to the Jews but does not apply to the gentiles, for example. The disciples were perfectly within the (Mosaic) law to gather grain when they were hungry. Deut. 23:25.

Those same Pharisees confronted Jesus when He healed on the Sabbath. But again, they were ignoring the law that required helping an injured animal (Deut. 22:4) but couldn't see how that applied to an injured human being.

Again, we cannot compare the Jewish laws to the governing agencies set in place for the purpose of executing justice and appropriate penalty for violations of the laws of the land.

What Jesus was trying to teach His disciples was that the Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath. This is an important distinction and one I fear we have done with marriage in the church. We have made it so cumbersome and legalistic that we think man was made for marriage rather than marriage for man. But that's a very different topic. :wink:

The best way I can compare the scriptures you have presented as violations of the law and Jesus evidently correcting the perceived violation, is this. It would be similar to a pastor preaching on Sunday that we must obey the laws of the Catholic church and the pope because after all, they have been handed down from Peter to today's priests to administer. Never mind that their laws/rules have been misinterpreted and added to as the Pharisees did, we must obey them. And in keeping with their laws, we must adhere to the privilege of confidentiality as the priests do in their role in the confessional and repent and say the penance issued to obtain forgiveness.

Makes no sense. Jesus never advocated breaking the law. He refuted the Pharisees who added to it and distorted it's purpose.

by **keithareilly** on Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:32 pm

Abiding,

The laws Christ and the disciples broke were the laws of the land. Just as county law is the law of the land in a state within the Union so too was Jewish Law within the Roman Empire the law of the land. Jurisdiction is immaterial. The Jews had their own laws, officers, and court with their own jurisdiction. As a county in the US cannot execute a person for lack of jurisdiction to carry out the sentence (it must be done by the state, federal government or military), so also the Jews did not have jurisdiction under Roman Law to execute Christ. They did however have Jurisdiction recognized by the Roman Government to make laws, have police, a court system, and mete out sentences.

John 18:31
Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.”

Pilot is telling the Jews to use their own jurisdiction, and try Christ within their jurisdiction according to their own laws using their own court. They respond: they cannot execute him, thus informing Pilate they already had tried and sentenced him to death and had brought Christ for Pilate to carry out their sentence.

Christ was arrested by officers of the Jews (and Romans), taken to trial by Jews, and condemned by Jews. The Jews could not carry out their sentence because Roman law did not grant them jurisdiction over executions hence they brought Him to Pilate who had jurisdiction to carry out a death sentence.

Christ broke Jewish Law, the law of the land, found himself arrested, tried, sentenced to death, then transferred to another jurisdiction to be executed. You can't get any more law of the land than that.

Therefore, when the disciples picked grain on the Sabbath, they broke the law of the land and were supported by Christ himself when He tells the Pharisees if they understood the meaning of "I want mercy not sacrifice", they would not be condemning the guiltless. Christ is saying breaking the law of the land does not necessarily imply guilt. It is possible to break the law and still be guiltless. Both Christ and his disciples broke the law of the land and were guiltless after doing so.

The same is true today, when we label someone who hears a confession of a crime but does not turn the person over to authorities as "complicit" we are condemning the guiltless, for they have done nothing wrong themselves.

Shall I sacrifice my brother or sister who has confessed a crime, breaking their trust, destroying unity, turning them over to the law so that I am not "complicit" in breaking a law which condemns the guiltless.

Shall I have mercy on my brother or sister who has confessed a crime, refusing to betray their trust, preserving unity, and be condemned though I am guiltless even while breaking the law?

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:10 am

The laws Christ and the disciples broke were the laws of the land.

Keith,

Jesus made it perfectly clear that His Kingdom was not "of this world." In other words, the Kingdom of God is of a spiritual nature. That differentiates it from the "kingdoms of this world" in that one is governed by spiritual laws and the other governed by civil, state, and/or federal laws.

Just as county law is the law of the land in a state within the Union so too was Jewish Law within the Roman Empire the law of the land. Jurisdiction is immaterial. The Jews had their own laws, officers, and court with their own jurisdiction. As a county in the US cannot execute a person for lack of jurisdiction to carry out the sentence (it must be done by the state, federal government or military), so also the Jews did not have jurisdiction under Roman Law to execute Christ.

There is no need to discuss jurisdictions so far as civil, state, or federal is concerned. The only two entities that determine the parameters of our actions are spiritual (God's laws) and earthly (government laws). When Jesus announced that His Kingdom was not of this world, he made a clear distinction between the two types of kingdoms...again, one is spiritual in nature and the other of governmental (democracy, monarchy, republic, dictatorship, etc.) rule.

They did however have Jurisdiction recognized by the Roman Government to make laws, have police, a court system, and mete out sentences.

They did not need the authorization or permission by the Roman Government to make laws, have police, a court system, or to mete out sentences. These were established by God in the Mosaic Law. (not sure about the police aspect as we know it today.)

The Jews knew their rights and commands to obey the Mosaic Law and the Sanhedrin or Council was the spiritual entity that was based on the law:

Deu 17:8 "If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses.
Deu 17:9 "So you shall come to the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case.

The Sanhedrin system of government centered on the Jews; Paul knew the origin of this system.

The Roman government centered on governing Romans; Paul new the origin of this system since he was a Roman citizen. He recognizes both.

Rom 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

We no longer have or need a Sanhedrin to determine our guilt or innocence of a spiritual nature. We have the written Word and the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin. Our churches do not have legal authority to punish spiritual sin nor do they have legal authority to hold court system to determine guilt or innocence and resulting penalty as the Sanhedrin once did. This is the job of the "earthly" government.

One Kingdom and it's laws is spiritual; the other kingdom and it's laws is "earthly." Jesus and Paul recognized the necessity and difference of both.

So if a Christian confesses his sin to a trusted brother, he has obviously already been convicted by the Holy Spirit. Thus, he should be reminded that according to the spiritual laws given us in the Bible, he is forgiven providing he has confessed his sin to God.

If a Christian confesses his sin to a trusted brother, he has obviously already been convicted by the Holy Spirit. Thus he should be informed that not only has he transgressed a spiritual law, but also transgressed a law as determined by government.

The differences between the spiritual laws and the earthly laws has existed for all time. God warned His people to obey His laws as opposed to those of the surrounding nations who did not abide by the spiritual; only the earthly. One of the most famous "earthly" governments was the Code of Hammurabi which is similar to the Mosaic Law but does not reflect the Holy nature of a Holy God.

Lev 19:2 "Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, 'You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.

by **Abiding in His Word** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:28 am

Forgot to address your perception that Jesus and/or His disciples broke the law.

They were governed by the Mosaic Law which I posted references to above. Jesus was considered a threat to the Roman government since he referenced His Kingdom when He announced "the Kingdom of God is at hand."

Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
Matt: 3:2, Matt: 4:17, Mat: 10:7; Luke:10:9

As He began His public ministry and gained followers, the Roman governors were threatened by his popularity as they did not understand it was a spiritual kingdom.

So, I stand firm on the fact that Jesus and His disciples were abiding by the Law of Moses and Jesus would never advocate or encourage breaking the law. He just refuted the Pharisees Oral law or the Talmud which had added to the law of Moses.

by **keithareilly** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:54 am

Abiding,

The reality is:
Christ broke the law governing men, was arrested by men, tried by men, sentenced by men, and executed by men.

Yes, they had their reasons, one of which he was teaching his disciples to follow the laws of the Kingdom of God instead of the laws of the land.

Edited to add:

The laws of the land are whatever the people in authority say they are. Thus when Christ healed a man on the Sabbath, he broke the laws of the land. Thus when a person refuses to cater a homosexual wedding, they are discriminating against homosexuals. The authorities ruled in Christ's time, they rule today.

I am not saying Christ broke God's law, that would be sin. He broke men's law which is not necessarily sin.

As the hearer of confession I am acting under the Kingdom of Heaven not the kingdoms of men. Shall I, as a representative of the Kingdom of God, turn over one, who found asylum in the Kingdom of God, to the kingdoms of men? As I am not to fear those who can destroy the body but Him who can destroy the soul, I choose the Kingdom of God at the cost of being found guilty by men's kingdoms.

Keith

by **Exit40** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:58 am

GodsStudent wrote:Hi David: Actually, my point was that people typically don't seek resolution to the question of Christianity until their back is against the wall.....that's why I said this:

We need prisons, because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Many times, people don't seek help until they are in trouble with the law...it's their "bottom."

Christ said ...see Matthew 9: 12 But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.

Sometimes patience (such as the horsetrainer you described) works....but for some, they've rejected any and all forms of "leading to Christ" until they were out of their own favored options and facing hard times.

I got ya Lisa. So this is a problem of the Church then, and subsequently every christian, determining if and when the Holy Spirit is actually at work in the confessor. Could one say, the confessor would be under conviction if they confessed before they were 'caught' ? Could one say, the confessor is really thirsty but does not know what or where the 'water' is ? Could one say, once the confessor has drank 'the spiritual water' they become responsible to Christ Himself ? And that is why I said ...

Personal responsibility to Christ, and then to others.

Personal responsibility to Christ does not remove personal responsibility to others, before or after the fact. In fact, the opposite is required by Christ Himself. We are to confess our sins to those we have offended. The true Christian forgives, seventy times, in fact as many times as there are times. Meaning, the sin is blotted out for the Christian, both offender and offended as if it never happened. There is no burden of guilt, it no longer dwells in us.

Sometimes patience (such as the horsetrainer you described) works....

The question becomes, how committed to being patient should the Christian be ? And in doing so, at what point does the Christian say, no more ? If we are to be like Christ, should we be as patient as He is with us ? When the truly thirsty have their backs against the wall, who will show them the water ?

God bless You

David

by **keithareilly** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:37 am

Abiding,

1 Corinthian 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Are you implying each and every one of the thieves (and any other criminals) listed in these verses had already been subjected to the legal systems of their time and if they had not that at some point the church turned them over to the authorities?

Keith

by **GodsStudent** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:44 am

Hi David: Enjoyed your post...wont copy and paste it again. As far as the patience to those we are witnessing to...I have been witnessing to someone now for a few years....so the answer to the question isn't how long I can be willing to witness, but how long it will take her to hear, and I can't stop until she makes me, or until she is truly converted.

She says she's prayed the sinners prayer and asked Christ into her life, she is going to churches for therapy and also deciding which one she will attend as a guest or future member, and every other word out of her mouth used to be a curse word, and now she deliberately is increasing her vocabulary, and I don't hear the curses anymore.....
but still my job as a witness to her isn't done. It may never be done.....she isn't "there" yet...(and honestly, neither am I)....we are in sanctification mode now....both of us. The proverbial "from milk to meat" as it's typified.

:grin:

by **keithareilly** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:41 am

Just a short interjection.

Thank you GodsStudent and Abiding. You are making me think and research.

Keith

by **keithareilly** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:59 am

Abiding wrote

So, I stand firm on the fact that Jesus and His disciples were abiding by the Law of Moses and Jesus would never advocate or encourage breaking the law. He just refuted the Pharisees Oral law or the Talmud which had added to the law of Moses.

Yes, Jesus refuted the authorities God placed in charge of the Jews, by immediately deliberately, knowingly, violating the law Himself by healing a man in front of their faces on the Sabbath. Christ deliberately and knowingly, violated the law as understood and enforced by those God placed in charge of the law of the land. Because Christ did this, those God placed in charge of the Jews arrested Christ, tried Him, sentenced Him, then executed Him.

Read the Verse again:
Matthew 12:13-14
13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

What was the response of the authorities God placed over the Jews to enforce the law when Christ deliberately, knowingly, broke the law as understood and enforced by those placed in authority to enforce it?
To conspire for Christ's destruction.

So, while you do not believe Christ would do such things, it is right their in scripture.

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:28 am

keithareilly wrote:Yes, Jesus refuted the authorities God placed in charge of the Jews, by immediately deliberately, knowingly, violating the law Himself by healing a man in front of their faces on the Sabbath. Christ deliberately and knowingly, violated the law as understood and enforced by those God placed in charge of the law of the land.

Well, then Jesus wasn't sinless, was He?

by **keithareilly** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:15 pm

Yes,

He was sinless. He told the Pharisees the were condemning the guiltless (the disciples) when they accused the disciples of breaking the law. Breaking the laws of men is not synonymous with sin.

The sum of the law is love God with your all and your neighbor as yourself (Paraphrase). Thus Jesus asked the Pharisees is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath?

Mark 3:4-6English Standard Version (ESV)
4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

Healing on the Sabbath is loving God and your neighbor. Refusing to heal on the Sabbath is not.

Keith

by **Abiding in His Word** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:42 pm

keithareilly wrote:Yes,

He was sinless. He told the Pharisees the were condemning the guiltless (the disciples) when they accused the disciples of breaking the law. Breaking the laws of men is not synonymous with sin.

Keith, please clarify what exactly you mean by the "laws of men." Because while this is an important and very good discussion, we may need some clarification from time to time as I do now.

You said Jesus deliberately, knowingly violated the law. Are you saying Jesus deliberately, knowingly violated God's law/Mosaic Law or the Roman/government law. Because violating either would be sin and yet you post a verse that contains the word "guiltless" to prove your point (evidently) that one can break the law and still be innocent.

Mark 3:4-6English Standard Version (ESV)
4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

Healing on the Sabbath is loving God and your neighbor. Refusing to heal on the Sabbath is not.

Again, the focus and point of contention (according to the Pharisees) was the Sabbath!

verse 3:

Mar 3:2 They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him.

You have proven my point exactly! There is/was no law against healing on the Sabbath EXCEPT the one the Pharisees had MADE UP!! There was no such law...zip...zilch...nada for Jesus to violate.

Mat 12:10 And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse Him.

Mat_19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

Mat_22:17 "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"

Mar_3:4 And He *said to them, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?" But they kept silent.

Mar_12:14 They *came and *said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?

Luk_6:9 And Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?"

Luk_14:3 And Jesus answered and spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?"

Luk_20:22 "Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"

Act_22:25 But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?"

Jesus knew the law and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that his actions did not violate the law. He knew precisely why the Pharisees were questioning Him...so they could accuse Him of violating the law. In other words, Jesus was exposing their hypocrisy and their additions to the law! Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees; hypocrites; brood of vipers; serpents; full of lawlessness! His actions were in complete compliance with the Mosaic Law.

You can't violate the law and be guiltless! The whole point of Jesus' words and refutations was to prove that they had twisted the meaning of the law. He was confronting them with their erroneous additions especially about the Sabbath laws! They were guiltless because they were acting in complete accordance with the law and it's intent. It's intent is compassion not condemnation.

Read Acts 22-24 and you will see the same traps being set for Paul by the Jews. They stirred up crowds against him and were hostile just as they were against Jesus and the disciples.

Act 21:21 ....and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

So in closing this comment, may I ask you to clarify what you meant by "the laws of men?"

Breaking the laws of men is not synonymous with sin.

by **keithareilly** on Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:25 pm

Abiding,

Matthew 12:1-14
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

Sometimes you can be guiltless even when you break the law.
Whatever law Christ is talking about in these verses is the one to which He is referring.
I will let you work that one out for yourself as to whether Christ is talking about men's or God's laws.

Sin was in the world before Mosaic Law.
The Laws purpose is to show sin for what it is.
To uncover sin, which was already in the world before the Law.
The law does not create sin. Sin already exists.
But do not forget it is through the Law through which Sin gains power.
And Sin gains power through laws that label a person who practices mercy as guilty of "complicit" behavior.
This is the kind of interpretation of the law that Christ was refuting. laws regarding "complicitness" are designed to make the person who practices mercy guilty. Such laws encourage sacrificing another, ones brother or sister in Christ for example, out of fear from being arrested and going to jail. Such laws enslave not liberate.

Yes, we agree with regards to Christ exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.
Because the law of the Pharisees was the law of the authorities in charge, their law is no different than Roman law or United States law. But I think that is different than the Law Christ was talking about when referring to the priests who are "guiltless". I believe Christ is using a higher law, a law at the level to which Pharisees raised their own law, as an example.

So, when a brother or sister confesses to me their sin, I am no more compelled to turn them over to the legal system than Christ was compelled to turn His disciples over to the Pharisees legal system. While the legal system may label me "complicit" it is only a label of mans law.

In some respects, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a sanctuary city of old. As a citizen of that City I am not compelled to turn over one who takes refuge within.

Keith