>>19471139>There is nothing improper or sinful in briefly stating a general rule and then providing exceptions to that rule. Not for humans. God, however, being perfect, would not order sin.
>In one passage Christ says divorce is sin (Mark 10:11), but in another passage he allows the exception for fornication (Mt. 19:9). That is the complete rule, not the rule with an exception.
>Yet both these statements are beyond what God told Moses who freely allowed for divorce under the civil law (Dt 24:1).God allowed sin, rather than ordering it, as with the case of the angles.on the ark, under your interpretation.
> Another implied exception here:>>" For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him." 1 Corinthians 15:27>Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.This translation is more clear, and it's obviously not an exception, but a prerequisite.
>Making graven images and bowing down to them is a sin, and any exceptions God specifically authorized do not become excuses for others that break the general rule.God gave a specific and complete rule, and did not order the Israelites to
break.it in one or two instances. That would be irrational, and God is Logos and unchanging.
