Skip to main content

Spiritual Adultery - Isaiah 57

Isaiah 57:8

“Also behind the doors and their posts you have set up your remembrance; for you have uncovered yourself to those other than Me, and have gone up to them; you have enlarged your bed and made a covenant with them; you have loved their bed, where you saw their nudity.”

In comparing Israel’s worship of false gods and allegiance to worldly practices to adultery, God is saying that worship—of God or of the world—is as intimate an act as sexual intercourse. Indeed, more so, because worship deals with the soul and not the body only. Worship is a submission of self—soul and body—to a greater force, real or perceived. Mere existence requires the submission of your soul to an external force. In the simplest interactions of life with life, there are concessions to be made, choices of one thing over another, forces of will and thought behind every action. If the driving force behind these things is the law of God, we are in submission to God. If it is the law of the world, we are in submission to the world and are already spiritual adulterers (“If you are not for me, you are against me”). There is no in-between. God’s existence is preeminent—the benchmark for all existence. There is God, and there is not God. There is truth and there is untruth. There is good and there is evil. To be in submission to neither is to not exist, and to be in submission to an existence that is not God is condemnation. We are God’s, or we are condemned.

See also Is. 62:4-5, in which God promises to fully cleanse Israel of her spiritual adultery and make her pure and chaste, a virgin entering into the holy covenant of marriage. God redeems completely, not in half measures.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Brief Review of Descartes' Method

Over the Christmas break, I was finally able to finish Rene Descartes’ Discourse on Method . It’s a very short book and I have no excuse for taking half a semester to finish it, except that I usually tried to read it as I waited for my class to begin and was often interrupted or distracted. It was Descartes who first sparked my interest in philosophy as a teenager, and I was excited to finally read his most famous work in its entirety. I read an excerpt of it several years ago but was never able to find the complete work in any bookstores and never bothered to order it. Early last year, my favorite used bookstore added a philosophy section and I eagerly snatched up the only copy of Rene Descartes’ Discourse on Method and Related Writings. True to form, it wasn’t until much later in the year that I actually sat down to read it. I remembered the fascination that Descartes had held for me in high school and I wondered if this book would live up to my expectations, or if, as I was prone ...
2 comments
Read more

On Abortion

The essential question regarding the issue of abortion is this: can the unborn be properly considered human and are we therefore under an obligation to protect them? If this can be answered, we can begin to consider the social and political issues surrounding abortion. The Nature and Rights of the Unborn Human rights are contingent on being human—something that has always been implicit, but never fully defined except in the sphere of philosophy or in a strictly biological sense. In the past, a clear definition wasn’t necessary, because no one was thinking about existence before birth or what makes us different from machines and so forth. As science has progressed, however, we’ve been forced to consider our own humanity because of how deeply we understand our biology, including our development from a fertilized egg, and of how frequently in science the lines between material and abstract existence are blurred. Ethics in science aside, abortion is probably the most notable scenario...
4 comments
Read more
We expect a certain degree of accomplishment, of success, and of joy in life, and work for the same--but to what end? For there are some among us who do not believe in eternal consequences, or eternity of the individual at all. I read recently that "without the belief of immortality, virtue cannot exist." Presumably because, if there are no eternal consequences to an individual's actions, that individual might do as he/she pleases in the moment, and give no regard to the needs or desires of his/her fellow man. Virtue is contingent upon self-denial--it is not selective kindness, that is, doing good as long as it is convenient, but giving up oneself for the express goal of enriching another person. Without belief in immortality--that is, immortality of the soul--it would not matter if another person were enriched or not, since all must die in the end, and the virtuous person will receive no reward for his/her actions. That is the skeleton of the idea, anyway. I am not sayin...
1 comment
Read more