WEBVTT 1 00:00:09.000 --> 00:01:30.000 Andrew Tate. Andrew Tate. If you haven't heard of him, the big question today is simply, is Andrew Tate a good bible teacher? Um, no. Uh, but it's kind of important because Andrew Tate is. And by the way, I got to throw out a parent warning. Uh, this part is not for kids. Not remotely, please. If you've got young kids watching this, this, uh, they shouldn't. Not this video, at least not this part of this video. If they want to watch later on, click to question two or something like that. But not this part. Um, but Andrew Tate is incredibly popular. The guy's got almost 9 million followers on X, formerly known as Twitter, and, uh, has a very, very large reach. Reportedly, he's got more Google searches than almost anybody on the planet. And I don't know if that's true or if that's part of a scheme he's done, because he is a scammer and schemer and that is his main thing. That is his number one character quality is manipulator. But is he a good bible teacher? We're going to look at some specific clips from Andrew Tate and we're going to ask the question, did he represent scripture accurately? Um, let me show you, though, why a lot of people really like Andrew Tate. Here's a short clip of sort of moral Tate, the moral face of Andrew Tate. So you can understand why some people go, hey, I like this guy. He's helped me, he's encouraged me. He's saved me in some ways in my life because he says things like this. 2 00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:38.000 My content existed because I tried my very hardest to be an absolute and utter realist, especially with uncomfortable truths. I was pointing out that. Very uncomfortable. 3 00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:39.000 Is that a truth? 4 00:01:39.000 --> 00:02:51.000 It's an uncomfortable truth in many parts of the world. It's not a truth that I'm happy about. I don't want to be seen as a negative influence in the world. I know that there's a whole bunch of men. I get thousands of emails a week from men whose lives I've saved. I get thousands of emails a week from men who are on the verge of suicide and I've saved their lives. I believe in protecting and providing. I've been misunderstood. I don't want anybody to be offended by anything I say. I want to be a positive force in the world. I don't want anybody to hear what I say and make them feel bad about themselves. I want all people to live righteous and good, whether they're male or female. I think righteous is living true to your heart and knowing that you're doing good by people, not snaking anybody, not lying to anybody. I know I live a very righteous life. Should young men aspire to work very hard, have no criminal record, become multimillionaires, protect and provide for the women close to them, uh, be sovereign so they can stand up and have their own points of view in face of cancellation, be able to not be mentally intimidated when they go on national TV and there's traps set up for them. Yeah, I believe that confident, strong men who stand up and protect and provide for women are a good thing for the world and a good force for the world. And I don't think that I put a magic spell on anybody. I think there's a whole bunch of men in the world who understands my value. And if men grow up to be like me, you're going to have a whole bunch of people with no criminal record, dedicated athletes who protect and provide for the people close to them. 5 00:02:51.000 --> 00:05:01.000 Sounds a lot of it sounds good. A lot of that sounds pretty good. And Saul and you're like, wow. He also encourages. A lot of guys would say, uh, Andrew tate is the guy that got me out of my rut. Um, the scores of men who rightly feel marginalized and erased by modern society, in some ways, rightly, in some ways wrongly, some ways are just being lazy or whatever, but in some ways they feel like they've been erased by modern society. Uh, they look to him as a guide, and he teaches responsibility, he teaches manliness, ambition, um, which can be, is a two edged sword. But no ambition of any kind at all is bad. You just don't want to have carnal, selfish ambitions. You want to have ambitions to seek first God's kingdom, to be a good member of society and those types of things. Um, uh, he also teaches realism, and he's totally unashamed of his views, which honestly, a lot of people find that attractive, even if they find it annoying. People who are just unashamed of their views. Um, he tells people to do hard things, you should be doing hard things, do hard stuff, go work out, go get really good at something, that kind of thing, which is just generally good advice to people. Don't waste your life and then complain about it like a passive victim. That's actually good advice, I think a large part of it. Um, but he also really forgive my language here. He also really sucks. Andrew Tate really sucks. And, uh, I actually ran a poll, uh, on x, and I asked the question, hey, Christians who happen to follow me or see this poll, is it permissible for us to be taught by Andrew Tate. Now, some people don't know him or they're not a Christian. Um, about, well, let's just say the vast majority, the vast majority of Christians were like, no, it is not okay. I would wager a lot of the 12% there that voted that it was okay thought, a lot of them probably thought taught means, can I learn something from that guy? Like when you watch a video of somebody who gets hurt doing something dumb and you go, I can learn from that. Which doesn't really mean anything, but why do they feel this way? Well, here's a quote of him explaining how the Bible supports his view that women are the property of their husbands. And we're going to ask, is Andrew Tate a good Bible teacher? Do you think that women are property? 6 00:05:01.000 --> 00:05:13.000 Sure. So I think my sister is her husband's property. Yes. When a bride is walking down the aisle to marry the groom, the father walks next to her and gives her away. True or false? 7 00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:14.000 That is something that happens, yes. 8 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:20.000 So you're giving her away? Correct. Does that not, uh, sound, at least in some way semi related to property. 9 00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:22.000 At some degree, some form of ownership? 10 00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:26.000 Yes, form of ownership. Does the Bible say the woman owns the husband owns the woman? 11 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:27.000 I believe it does. 12 00:05:27.000 --> 00:05:30.000 Does the Quran say that the man owns the woman? 13 00:05:30.000 --> 00:12:55.000 Yes. So he's got three arguments there for the idea that a woman is the property, uh, of her husband. And this is something that I think most Christians would rightly be like. That's not right. But he offers three arguments. The first one is the giving away of the bride. The giving away of the bride. I've performed weddings. I've been in my own wedding, but I've been in many other weddings. And I've done weddings, a number of them. The giving away of the bride is usually, we typically, at least in the weddings I've done, it's usually the father says, I ask, um, as the pastor, I would have asked, um, um, who gives away this bride? And then the dad, who's standing there with his daughter, says, her mother and I do. And that was the line because you had to get the dad to remember the one line and he'd forget it all the time. So all the way leading up to the wedding, every time I saw the dad, I'd be like, what's your line? Her mother and I do, what's your line? Her mother and I do it because otherwise they get nervous. But, uh, yeah, it's actually both of them. So then you would have to then think that she's also the property of the mother. Anyway, that's typically how we would do the weddings. Um, at any rate, it's a family endorsement. This is where the Bible says that the husband rather leaves his mother and father and is joined to his wife. So he's leaving them and joined to her. You're leaving one family and starting a new family. So the family you come from is endorsing that by doing the giving away of the bride. Um, it's not a property thing. There's no ownership that's being instilled there. And people don't generally think of it that way. To say that is just playing games with words. I won't give it a lot more time. Let's talk about the Bible question. He goes, doesn't the Bible say that the wife is the property of the husband? And then the interviewer is like, yeah, sure, that sounds good. Because he doesn't know the Bible. He doesn't really know Christianity. He's just like, sure, why not? Why not say that? That's exactly what it says here. Let me increase my lighting here. And, um, where in the Bible does it say that Andrew Tate, you don't know? You don't read the Bible, you don't have a clue. I mean, I've watched enough of Andrew Tate to know this. I'm not just speaking out of turn here. The man really doesn't know scripture. If I asked him to locate the book of Hosea, he wouldn't know whether to start in the old or New Testament. So he doesn't know this stuff. Um, the Bible does say a few things, though, that I would say push back on this view that a husband is the owner of his wife, um, or that she is his property in any real legitimate sense. Now, I'm complimentarian. I do think that there's such thing as male headship. Scripture says this very clearly. One Corinthians eleven, Ephesians five. We have teaching about male headship. Husbands, uh, that wives are to yield to their husbands, that. Does this make them property, though? Does this mean they have no authority in the relationship? No, that's absolutely not true. And I've got lots of teaching on that. I won't go over it all today, but I'll say a few things. So when the man and woman are joined together, they become one flesh. That's genesis. We're talking old school Bible stuff here. They become one flesh. That is not the language of property. That's the language of a shared identity. But it's not property. You don't become one flesh with your cup of water. There's nothing. That's your property that you become one with. That's not the language. In one Corinthians seven, we have this really interesting idea. One Corinthians chapter seven, verse four. And we're going to get a lot more of Andrew Tate today. I want to just honestly, because there's a lot of Christians who follow me who actually are aware of him, and maybe you're gleaning from his videos and think I can get some good stuff out of that. I do want you to understand that he's a dangerous false teacher, um, in regards to the Bible, but more importantly, or I shouldn't say more importantly, because that's super important, but more relevant to most of what he says is he's just a total scam artist who's playing you like he's playing you with all of his content. It's all a game to get him more money and attention and all that stuff. So I'd like to expose that, uh, for your sakes, because I think it's something people aren't realizing in some cases. Um, so first Corinthians seven, four, the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. That's the verse people quote. Oh, see, property. Well, if that means property, what does the next verse, part of the verse mean? And likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. There's a shared sense of authority that they have over each other's bodies. This is in relation. Uh, you don't want to expand this to every aspect of life because that's not what Paul's talking about. We don't want to do what's called ICE Jesus or taking the bible out of context. But in this verse, the wife has sexual claims, like sexual fidelity claims over her husband, and he has those same claims over his wife, meaning, of course, that he can't cheat on her. He can't go and be a polygamist. That's not a biblical view. We'll talk about that in a second. What Andrew Tate says about the polygamy in the, um. So this verse right here shows that he doesn't just treat her as property. She has a very high degree of authority in the life of her husband. He just has a higher degree, which is where the Bible comes in and talks about headship and a wife submit to your husband, but she's not an authorityless submitter. She's one with very high authority who yields to her husband, who has a degree higher authority based on scripture. So it's not what the feminist wants and it's not what Andrew Tate wants. It's going to be biblical. That's the view that we're looking for here. Is there headship? Uh, yes, like I said, Ephesians five, one Corinthians, eleven other passages. Is there leadership in the husband? Yes, but the wife is a co leader under his leadership. She's not a non leader. That's the difference. She has authority in the home. She has authority over her children. She has authority in relation to sexual fidelity with her husband. And those are important things. She's a co heir with Christ. There's no male or female as regards to her salvation. All those things. Uh, now, the weird thing here, though, is before we move on, the host affirms this. The host is like, yeah, sure, yeah, the Bible says that. Why not? There's large scale ignorance about the bible. This is why I want to equip you guys with these answers and with these specific verses and talking points, you might say, so that you can go out and go, uh, actually. Right. And show people that the Bible is better than they think. And they should not simply brush it aside as outdated, abusive masochism. Right. That's not what we're looking for. Um, uh, misogyny. That's the term I was looking for. I don't know why I mixed those up. Um, the third thing they said Andrew Tate said was the Quran. Doesn't the Quran support that the husband owns the wife? And I just want to say, muslims, you're on your own. I don't know if the Quran teaches that. I haven't seen that in the Quran, but I also don't know that it doesn't teach that. And I haven't studied enough to. And I don't really have any desire to defend Islam. Islam is a religion where, uh, Muhammad said he looked out, he had a vision where he saw hell and he looked and he saw that it was mostly populated by women. But that's not Christianity, man. You do your own thing. Um, so Andrew Tate treats, uh, the Bible the way he treats everything else. It's a tool he uses to manipulate other people, to give himself clout, to give himself, um, influence and ultimately control things. That's it. In the next clip, uh, Tate claims that men with God's approval can sleep with as many women as they want, while women, of course, cannot. So here's the clip. 14 00:12:55.000 --> 00:14:13.000 Okay, so this argument is one I've heard so many trillion times. They say, well, if you can do that? Why can't the woman do that? And I can answer it in so many different ways. Give your harshest way. My harshest way is that it goes against the will of God in nature. It goes against the way of man. For the longest period of human history, men had more than one woman. Every king, every sultan. Read the Bible, read the Quran. In most of the world today, men still have more than one woman. Never in history, in any book, ever, in any civilization since the dawn of human time, have promiscuous women been celebrated, ever. They have been frowned upon in every single society ever. So to come along and say a woman can do it too is disgusting. In the eyes of God, in the eyes of nature, you can come along with science and somehow then try and fix it and prove it up. God just wants the boys to just run through chicks. God wants the warriors. God's looking down right now and he's like, boys, I just want you to run through chicks. God wants the men, the masculine males of earth, to reproduce, create his warriors. God needs warriors. What parable is that in take 15? Okay, I'll search it up. Look it up. God needs warriors. New Testament, new and old. I'm everywhere, bro. I'm around. I'm around. Read the book, g. I'm in there somewhere. You'll see it and you go, that sounds like Tate. He probably wrote that one. 15 00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:14.000 Luke. 16 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:17.000 Nah, that wasn't Luke. That was Tate. That one. 17 00:14:17.000 --> 00:20:21.000 Oh, boy. I'm not going to comment too long about this clip, but let's go through some specifics of, uh, the things that maybe you wouldn't already know. Obviously, Andrew Tate doesn't care what's in the Bible. He's using the bible for his own purposes. He kind of goes off the cuff and makes claims about it. Um, and then they try to push him on it. Like, what passage? Would you give a verse for that? Or something? He's just like, no, I'm in the Bible. I'm all over the he. What he does is instead of giving evidence, he just makes an even bigger claim. This is an egomaniac on the loose, right? So, um, it's funny, but it's sad because he's really, it's not a skit on Saturday Night Live. Like, he's actually doing this. So every instance of polygamy in the Bible, uh, that you get any details about seems harmful, even from the very first one. They all seem like they're in a bad light. They're negative, they're harmful, they bring all kinds of damage and trauma and issues. Adam and Eve. God made Adam and Eve one couple. That is the standard Jesus. When he's asked about questions about divorce, remarriage, he appeals to Adam and Eve as the standard Adam. Notice God did not make Adam and Eve and Jeanette and Tricia and Bambi. He made one man and one woman. And that is the biblical model for marriage. That's what it means. The first Corinthians seven passage that only works if polygamy is off limits. If a wife has this sort of authority about sexual relations in relation to her husband, then he obviously can't be going around sleeping with other women. That would be a violation of that. They both have that shared claim on each other. And so his whole principle of like, it's unbalanced. Girls can't sleep around, but guys can. Now, what's weird is our modern culture wants to say girls can and guys can. And it's like, I don't know which one's worse, Andrew Tate or our modern culture. This is why some people like the guy, because at least he's pushing back on some of the problems of their culture. But they're both terrible. Um, modern culture is bad. Andrew Tate is not the solution. Uh, in addition to this, in scripture, God forbade know. He mentioned the kings of all had. They all had multiple wives. Obviously, this becomes like their ideal men because to Tate, if you're a ruler, you're more of an ideal man because you're powerful. Because power is something that he's very much in love with. At any rate, that's not how the scripture deals with these rulers. Neither shall he multiply wives for himself. This is something that God said about the kings of Israel is that they should not do. It's a tendency of rulers that God actually says, don't do this, this is a bad thing. So Tate's example backfires there. Solomon, we know when he had all these wives, he had 300 wives, and, um, he sinned because of it. It led his heart astray. He was told not to marry all these women. He did marry them, and then it led him into major sin, not only with the marriages themselves, but with idolatry and all the stuff that it brought with it. So Andrew Tate would think Solomon was like the chief example. Like, the guy's rich, the guy's famous, the guy's got all these women, and yet the women were like a major thorn in his flesh. It was a bad thing that he married all these ladies. Very bad thing. Did you know that in the New Testament, polygamy is even more clearly refuted in that polygamists are said, it's said, a polygamist, they cannot be in ministry. A, uh, polygamist can't be in ministry. A bishop or an elder, one of those types of people. Let me go to the ESV. I think that just to be consistent, um, an overseer must be above approach. The husband of one wife. Whatever else it means, it clearly refutes polygamy. You can't have twelve wives and be an elder, meaning that you're not the ideal man. When you have multiple women, you are disqualified for ministry, and not just eldership. You're disqualified for most ministry in the church. Doesn't mean you can't get saved as a polygamist. You can still get saved, but you've got major issues for sure, like many people do when they get saved. But one, Timothy 312, talks about deacons, and it says, let the deacons each be the husband of one wife. Now, a deacon is the catch all term for, like, everybody that's not an elder. But they're doing official ministry stuff. You just can't do official ministry if you're a polygamist. Oh, I married these three women, then I got saved. You know what? Your marriage life is so out of whack, you cannot be doing ministry. That's huge. This is huge commentary on the nature of these things. Um, one Corinthians seven two also says this. Check it out. Does this make sense? If polygamy is okay in the Bible, but because of temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. That only makes sense if that guy's only got the one wife, she gets him, too. It's the same concept. Uh, Jesus was opposed to polygamy, too. When he talks in, uh, Matthew nine nine, he says, if you marry another, if, uh, a man divorces his wife and m marries another, he's committed adultery with her. That doesn't make sense in a worldview that accepts polygamy as okay, right. Um, Matthew 19 nine. I wrote nine and nine in my notes, but I know it's not. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality and marries another, commits adultery. That is, if you can be married and marry another, and that's okay. What would be wrong with divorcing and marrying another? Nothing. There would be nothing wrong with it. It only makes sense in a worldview where polygamy is considered off limits. There's other stuff I could say about this, too, but we're going to look at the next one where andrew Tate talks about his PhD course. Um, again, there's, like, mild language warning here. I've bleeped out a lot of stuff that he says, but it's the nature of. I'm sorry for those who are bothered. I warned you. Um, this is not for you. If it's something you're sensitive about. Um, I'm doing this because there are people out there, especially men, who need to hear this as christians and go, um, Andrew Tate is an enemy of christianity. Just because he's an enemy of feminism does not make him my best friend or somebody I should learn from. He's just scamming me like he's scamming everyone else. I'm going to build my little case for that right now. So here's his PhD course. This is what he does. Um, to do his PhD test, he'll take a girl out, he'll sleep with her, then he'll ignore her to see if she's a weak woman so he can control her. Check it out on cobra tape. 18 00:20:21.000 --> 00:21:01.000 I have my PhD program, and that is, uh, PhD is a, uh, pimp and hose degree. Um, that teaches basically how I got girls, how I met girls, how I got girls to like me, how I got girls to fall in love with me, to work on webcam for me, because that's what I did. That was my mo, was find girls, make them love me, and make them work for me. And that's how I got rich. I knew some street pimps. I've known them for a long time. Straight street pimping is a completely, in fact, no, it's not a completely different game. The psychological aspect is the same of what we're going to do. The skill I'm going to teach you is exactly the same. I could easily translate mine to a street business, and you could easily street pimp. 19 00:21:01.000 --> 00:21:02.000 With the things I'm going to teach. 20 00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:18.000 You, you cannot get a girl to work for you. So the recruitment process is the same as the PhD course. You message them on Instagram. The PhD course is my recruitment system. 21 00:21:18.000 --> 00:22:45.000 His PhD is his recruitment system. Uh, what the PhD test is, right? He takes a woman out, he sleeps with her, then he ignores her, he doesn't talk to her for a bit of time. He sees how desperate she is to reconnect with him after this sort of, like, cold shoulder treatment. And if she's really desperate, then she's showing that she's, uh, manipulatable. What is the word I'm looking for? Here, she can easily be manipulated. And so then you go, uh, ah, I found myself a weak woman, right? Who's attractive. Now I can start the process of slowly working her through to become a cam girl, where she's on the camera and I'm getting the money, um, or at least most of the money. This is how he finds weak women. Now, listen to how he talks about being like God to these women. Um, okay, so in domestic violence counseling, which I did for years, this is what we call grooming. This is where domestically violent and domestic violence is not just physical violence. It's exactly the kind of stuff Andrew Tate's doing, too. So it's the type of manipulative, abusive behavior that's meant to control and get her under your thumb, so to speak. This is the grooming phase. This is the phase where he's testing to find out if she can be a good candidate for domestic violence, for this kind of control and manipulation. So he finds that girl. Look at how he talks about what he wants to do to them. M he's not looking for a healthy relationship. This is what he wants. Again, this is offensive content. Feel free to click off the video. I've got plenty of other stuff that has none of this garbage in it. 22 00:22:45.000 --> 00:23:20.000 This test was implemented, and she passed it. And years have passed where I haven't taken her, and I've kept a position of authority, and I've just become her idol in life. It's like trying to take God away from a Christian. They're like, well, if God doesn't exist, they'll eventually say, what's the point in being alive? What's the point in doing good? What's the point in doing bad without God? That's how your woman has to think of you. Without him. What's the point in doing anything? When you get to that point, you do what the you want, because she ain't going to leave. She ain't going to leave. She doesn't even cry about it anymore. I know you're going to do what you do. As long as you only love me. Of course I only love you. They're just stupid hosts. 23 00:23:20.000 --> 00:24:06.000 I'm sorry again for the content. I want to expose him because he's so influential. Um. Um. As long as you only love me. Of course I only love you. He says this is his conversation with this woman. This is the same conversation Tate has with all his women. No, you're the special one. You're the special one. I just tell her that to make her feel good, like you're the special one. He's found these weak women, and now they may be intelligent, they may be strong in some ways, but they're certainly weak in this way. He's found them and he's manipulated them and he's become like God to them. Listen to how, um, he explains how he pimps them online, how he takes them and turns them into cam. Girls from this stage of, okay, I did the PhD test on you. I found out you're a weak woman. I've got the upper hand on you. You're controlled. You're manipulated. I'm God to you. What's next? This is what's next. 24 00:24:06.000 --> 00:26:23.000 She passes the PhD test. Then you start saying things like, oh, yeah, but you're always working, and you're always working. Why don't you work for me so we spend more time together? Uh, worth you doing what, say, well, I have a webcam business. Oh, I don't want to do that. Okay, I know you don't want to do that, but listen, come, let's have a meeting. Let's just talk about it. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. Fine. In fact, I'll bring one of the girls who works for me. You're bought the new girl. You go out for dinner. Your bolton is the one who does the, uh, selling. You don't do the selling. The girl has to hear from a girl. My first girl was so good. It was easy. My girl would sit there, go, oh, my God, the. This. I was a waitress, and it was. And now I do this. I make so much money, and the guys all love me and they adore me, and on my birthday, they send me presents. I get so much money, blah, blah, blah. It's so much fun. And we stay at home and da da da. Martinis, martinis, martinis. Bang. Free some. Slam them both. Your boat nose. This girl's like, okay, well, I'll try it. Uh, put both girls on camera together the first day so the new girl can sit there and just sit with the other girl and get drunk. Give them a bottle of vodka, put on chatterbait, uh, 100 tokens per shot. The guys will spend loads of money to get the girls drunk because guys like drunk girls. Girls will sit there, get drunk, have a great time, and say, it's your new job now. You haven't got to work ever again. That's how you recruit girls. You do not recruit girls any other, uh, way. Most men look at a girl and they want to because she's beautiful. I will state with conviction. Besides James Bond and Andrew Tate, we're the last two people on the planet who will look at a beautiful woman and think, I have her so that she tells me what I want to know. I have to, so she obeys me. I don't give a about having sex with beautiful women. I them, so they listen to me so I can get what I actually want, which is not them. It's a means to an end. Every single bond girl was exploited. That's exactly what I do. When I watch a Bond film and I see him basically pimp a to me, that speaks to my heart. I've been there. I've done that. Anyone who's followed me long enough knows that I first made my million dollars with a webcam business. Um, I have met beautiful women with a good personality and thought, she will make me money. I have to this. I don't want to have sex with her. I just need the money. I am James Bond. 25 00:26:23.000 --> 00:28:10.000 Um, there's everything to hate about that. Um, there's plenty of people who still think, yeah, but man, he's got good content. He's helping me, he's teaching me. But listen, this guy takes women of weak moral character, turns them into a woman of even worse moral character, manipulates, controls them. They're partners in crime. He, of course, is the one who is the head in the worst sense, and then he puts them online. Now, you might be thinking, oh, so he scams women. He scams women. That's what he does. He scams women. Andrew Tate scams everybody. Everybody. The men who look to him and think, oh, I'm going to become more of a man or a better guy. I'm going to become stronger and more independent. He's scamming you too. Nothing's changed. Everybody is the scam. Everybody's to be manipulated. He seeks out weak men the same way he seeks out weak women. He just looks for different kinds of weaknesses in men. And so an example of this is that, uh, when he puts these women on the cam, girls that are taking their clothes off on cameras while people are donating money and stuff, he unplugs their keyboards. And then he's typing in the comments himself. At least he did initially. Then he hired other people to do it for him, which I imagine now he says he doesn't do it anymore. Do you believe him? I don't believe him. He'll later say, um, he makes millions a week. Do you think he quit his millions a week business? I think he just says he doesn't do it anymore. And he separated himself from it, at least on the surface level. Um, I think that seems to make the most sense. So I'd say allegedly, this is what I would say makes sense, um, from what I see. But he unplugs their keyboards, and then he's writing and scamming these men and making them feel that these women are falling in love with them so that they'll give m more money. This is the second to last clip. We're almost done with this section here, and then we'll get on to much more enjoyable stuff. 26 00:28:10.000 --> 00:28:22.000 And here's. Maybe this is a bit bad. Here's where the famous would start, so it'd be good. Like, I had a lot of girls who worked for me, and the best was, like, the Ukrainians or the Russians. It was amazing because they'd get some guy fall in love. They'd arranged the day to meet. Ah. I need a visa. 27 00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:23.000 Okay. 28 00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:36.000 Get a visa. I need money for a visa. Okay. How much is the visa? It's $900. Uh, no, but it's not $900, because I went to the embassy. They think I'm a risk, and I need a return flight there and back, and I need a hotel, and I need to have spending money in my bank account. They won't let me come or. How much you need? All right. Ten grand. 29 00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:37.000 Boom. 30 00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:50.000 Ten G's. Boom. Thanks. Wow. Go to the embassy. Take a picture outside the embassy. Boom. Come back. They rejected my visa. They said we have to wait two weeks. After two weeks, they'll give it to me. Okay, baby. Boom. Two more weeks of tips. Boom. Boom, boom, boom. Because now he thinks we get the girls. Now he's spending more than ever. Two weeks, two weeks, two weeks, two weeks. 31 00:28:50.000 --> 00:28:51.000 Come. 32 00:28:50.000 --> 00:30:09.000 Some other problem. Eventually, the girl, what she would do is she'd say, oh, I don't want to go embassy. She'd give a really lame excuse to try and provoke the man to get angry. So she'd say, the embassy want me to come back, but I have a headache. That was the one we'd use. He'd be like, I just sent you a million dollars. You promised you were going to come to make him mad on purpose, because that would annoy any man. And then that's what we needed. We need the little trigger, and we go, why are you being aggressive? I really like you, and I'm flying to the other side of the world by myself. And now you're being aggressive, and now I'm intimidated. And we'd flip it on him, saying, well, now you're being scary. I feel sick. And you don't even care. Female bull. Female. And flip it on him. Flip it on him. And he'd get furious because we were really good at poking him. Big beef, big argument. Big argument. But here's the thing. The guy would get pissed off, right? And leave. Stop tipping her, stop coming to her. But for these men, that's the only chick in the world, the only hot chick in the world who talks to him. Maybe it takes a week. Maybe it takes two weeks. Maybe it takes three weeks. He's in bed at night, alone, sitting there, going, maybe she was going to come. Maybe I just got too mad when she had a headache. Maybe I should have been a little bit more patient, and she would have been my girlfriend. And 100% of the time, in less than three months, they'd be back with an apology, a brand new pile of money. And the cycle would repeat. We killed the game. Millions of dollars a week. 33 00:30:09.000 --> 00:40:49.000 Millions of dollars a week. Uh, my point here is, you need to see the whole setup, right? Everybody's there to be manipulated. And the way that he looks at women as find the weak ones, control them. He looks at men the same way. Find the weak ones, control them. They're all tools to build his little empire, to build his pride, to build all that kind of stuff. Everybody is a source to be scammed. And there's another scam he's doing right now, which is to say, hey, men, go to my hustlers university website thing, and you can sign up, and then I'll teach you how to become as manly as me. And what's he doing? He's looking for desperate men who will pay him money to try to learn to be like him, learn to make money in all these different ways. And it's just another layer of scamming, in my opinion. It's just another layer of scamming the stuff. There's, uh, another YouTuber named Coffeezilla who did a whole report on this hustlers university says, look, it's just low quality teaching content you could find for free online. With this sort of empty promise that you're sort of getting Andrew Tate, but you don't really get interaction with him for the most part. Not that anybody should want that in the first place. Everybody. The way he scammed the women is the way he's scamming the men. The way he scammed the men through the women. That's the way he's scamming everybody. Still, this man is a master manipulator. That's his whole agenda. The Bible is just thrown in there because people look up to it, so it's a useful source to increase his clout and his sense of authority. Um, and if you're going to tell me, but, Mike, he's the only guy helping me be a man. And I'm going to say that makes it worse. That makes it worse. You're not going to become a real man. You're going to become this soulless entity that just looks around the world, seeing how you can use others to manipulate and control them so that you can get what you want from them. You're not going to become a real man. You're going to spend half your time telling yourself how great you are and the other half being a horrible person. Like, this is camera, calm down. He's, uh, playing all of you. He's playing all of you. Um, he's still texting behind a cam girl, except now he's putting himself up as this macho man. He's the cam girl, right? For the guys who are interested in becoming that kind of macho man. And then he's telling them what he thinks they want to hear. And others would say, but Mike, he's changed. I mean, look again at that first clip I showed you. This is the m moral tate. Look how he says he wants to protect women. Look how he says he wants to take care of and have no criminal record, even though he just got arrested again for sex, uh, trafficking charges. Um, all these things are going on, and he says. He says, protect women. I just want to be a man who lives righteously and protects women. This is a bold faced lie that he says because what? Because he's on Pierce Morgan. It's a popular audience. He's going to reach a bigger audience. He's going to tell them the things they want to hear. He's going to tell everybody everything so that finally they'll find a clip that speaks to them and go, hey, he's not so bad. I found that one clip. Yeah. Read proverbs. If you feel like you need to be a man, read the book of proverbs. Take it seriously. Um, I didn't have a dad around growing up, and the book of proverbs helped fill in a lot of those gaps for me about what it means to be a man. You need to be told not to be lazy. Yeah, proverbs has chapters on that. To not be a fool, to not joke around in ways that are dumb, that make you less of a person in a sense. Like, yeah, proverbs talks about that, too. Talks about being a man of your word. It talks about not being a man who's overly angry and who is easy to get angered. All these things that men do need to hear, that's in the book of proverbs. Uh, go to church, get in a small group, go find an actual man, a real man, not an influencer. I can't be your model because you don't know me. Not really. Not in person. You know pieces of me that you see online, but you don't really know the full me. You need to see me in traffic to know me better. You need to have conversations with me that aren't about any of this stuff I talk about online. To really get to find men to be a role model for you, they need to be people you know in real life. So that'd be my encouragement for you guys. Find real men, get involved in the church. The church is the body. We're there to meet each other's needs, right? To fill each other's gaps. So go into the local church and do some actual work finding some men that you can look up to and you can learn from. They won't be perfect, but you can learn some things from them, and it'll be way better than Andrew Tate. All right, so I've got nine questions we're going to do today, and here's question number two. This question comes in from, uh, um, maya Kaz, pastoral chaplain. That's your YouTube name? There was, uh, Saul's hostility towards the jewish Christians based on his biblical beliefs, or was he really on a mission to achieve status considering his age prior to conversion and extreme actions? I got to read that question again to really get my head around it. But I'm going to remind you guys, for those who are, if it's your first time watching my content, my name is Mike Winger. I was a pastor for 14 years. Been doing ministry for 25 years now, approximately. Um, I have a goal to help people learn to think biblically about everything. So I unpack scripture and try to answer tough questions, like, I'm answering hard questions about the Bible. That's my agenda. So we'll do this question one more time here. Was Saul's hostility toward the jewish Christians? This is Saul from the New Testament. Saul, Paul, that guy based on his biblical beliefs? Or was he really on a mission to achieve status considering his age prior to conversion and extreme actions? Um, Saul, we have every reason to think that he was sincere. This isn't exactly your question, but I'll start here. So we have every reason to think that Saul was entirely sincere. Um, and part of this is because when he encountered Jesus, he 100% changed. So he really believed that Christianity was bad, that Jesus was false, and that the Christians had to be stopped. He then did measures that were extreme. He threw people in prison. He went into every house, hauling families away and trying to basically scare people out of being Christians and use intimidation. So that was one of the things he did. Uh, that being said, was, um, it based on his biblical beliefs? Well, no, I have to say it wasn't based on his biblical beliefs, because you gave me two options. Was it based on his biblical beliefs? No, because biblical beliefs, like Jesus said, if you believed Moses, you'd believe me. If you have really biblical beliefs, you encounter Jesus, you believe in him. If you have unbiblical beliefs, even though you believe the Bible, at least in principle, um, you encounter Jesus and you reject him. And that was what was going on. Uh, Saul was a Pharisee. He was part of a group of men who, according to Jesus, had added a whole bunch on to the word of God. They had their commentary of scripture held up like it was scripture. And so Paul had that whole group of things, the Bible, plus the commentary, the traditions of man that they taught as the commands of God. So he felt confident rejecting Jesus. When he encountered Jesus, he changed. But now the other option was, if it wasn't biblical beliefs, was he really on a mission to achieve status, considering his age prior to conversion and extreme actions? The other option is that he was trying to get status, that Saul's agenda was to lift himself up, like get fame, get attention. Um, the way Saul describes it, Saul, Paul describes it is that it was zeal. It was zeal. Um, let me see if I can find the passage. I don't know if I'll be able to find it this quick. Um. Okay. I guess I can. Okay. So he describes it as zeal. And so Paul gives his own reason on why he persecuted the church. It's Galatians one. He says, you've heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. Why did he do this? He says, and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries, in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. He did advance, right, like he was considered advancing in his obedience to their Judaism. But he didn't say that was his goal, his agenda, his motive, the source of the reason for why he did it. Was. He was ZEALOUS. EXCEEDINGLY ZEALOUS. Excited, committed, fully, fully in for the traditions of my fathers. For the WHAT? TRADITIONS of MY FATHERS. That is not just scripture, but the traditions that were also added to it. There are many people today who are in the same boat. I think they're EXTREMELY ZEALOUS. They have tons of zeal for their views. In some cases, there are certain Orthodox views, Eastern Orthodox Christians. There are certain, uh, Roman Catholic views that they're very zealous for. And that zeal leads them to interact online to try to dismantle and take apart those who aren't sharing those extra biblical traditions. And I'm not saying they're doing what Saul did, where he was taking people to prison and doing. No, I'm just saying there's a parallel here in that I think that, um, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic have these traditions that have come in over the course of time, which you can see if you look at the history of it. They really have developed doctrine over time that they consider to be core and irrefutable and original. So they're zealous for what ultimately is the traditions of their fathers. That was a mistake that Paul made. I, um, think that they would need. This is my application since we're bringing up this verse. Need to get back to scripture. Need to get back to, like. Like, in all reality, do I really believe that all this other stuff I'm saying is really first century? Do I really believe that? That when Vatican one says that everything that we're saying, the Catholic Church is believing about the sacraments and stuff, the seven sacraments is the unanimous views of the church fathers, and even more, that it was taught by Jesus and the apostles, so that it was always understood, like, this is demonstrably false claims about history. All right, I'm getting off track, so I'll move on. But I think that, uh, his zeal for the traditions of his fathers, even, like, okay, evangelical Christians can absolutely make the same mistake. We can have zeal for the traditions of our fathers. Right. There are evangelical circles where, say, drinking alcohol is considered sinful, even though the Bible shows it's permissible, but dangerous. Like, you got to have the two sides of the coin there, that it's permissible, something you can do in moderation and you can thank God for, but it's also extremely dangerous. It can ruin your life. If you're given to much wine. You can't even be in leadership. It's a huge deal. Huge, huge issue. But it's not just sinful. But there are some who are very zealous for this. So that if you even attend my church and you are going to go have a glass of wine or something, that. That's not allowed. You can't do that. That's where we don't realize we have our own accretions, our own development of doctrine that fits our culture that isn't necessarily always biblical. I find myself confronted with these things sometimes, and sometimes I feel like I used to be slower to come around and go, I guess that was wrong. 34 00:40:49.000 --> 00:40:50.000 I, huh. 35 00:40:49.000 --> 00:53:11.000 Think I've had to do that a few times now. And I'm a little more ready to test my own traditions with scripture. Um, and there's a number of things that, personally, I've shifted on, um, not major theology issues, right? Like the gospel, the doctrine of God, or how we're saved, soteriology or something like that. Um, but a number of these tradition things where I went, oh, I was really making too big of a thing about that. And I haven't generally made that issue online, I don't think, um, because I was a little bit older than that when I started teaching online. I did that before I got online, which should be a blessing to you guys. Anyway, question number three. This is from, uh, isa, who says, is it possible I lost, uh, it there for a Christian to become a reprobate? If so, can it still be undone? I don't know why God seems out of reach. Thank you, uh, isa. Okay, so when you say reprobate, some people use the term reprobate to mean, um, not only to mean someone who's not saved, but to mean someone who cannot ever be saved. So it's a permanence of unsavedness. Now, there's debate on this when you get to like, Hebrews chapter six, because Hebrews six seems to describe somebody who, it seems like to most of us who read it to describe someone who's a Christian, someone who's saved. They tasted of the Holy Spirit. They've partaken of the powers of the age to come. They've experienced all these things that partakers of the Holy Spirit is the part that you're like, wow, that seems like a Christian, right? And then it's like, it's impossible if they fall away, to renew them again, to repentance, implying that if that is a Christian who lose their salvation, then they probably can't be, um, now that Hebrew six, I will get into one day, whether it's in eight months or two years or whatever, I'm going to teach through Hebrews verse by verse. And I'll eventually get there. So I'll tackle that later and I'll go through all the options. But, um, let's hold that aside and go open questions about that passage from my perspective. Maybe you've got it figured out, and that's totally fair. I sometimes put things on the shelf briefly while I'm studying them, and then I come back and go, okay, here we go. Um, but let's look at other texts of scripture. Do we have any examples in scripture of somebody who commits a sin in the New Testament and they go, you're out, and you can never come. Smiggle said to Golem, he says, go away and never come back. I can't do the voice. I want to try. Go away and never come back. Is that what we're saying? Does that happen in the new testament, in acts? Does that happen somewhere? Right. Not that I'm aware of. In the epistles, does that happen somewhere? No. Even a guy who, like, he's sleeping with his father's wife. In one Corinthians five, major sin. Paul's like, kick him out of the church. And then he explains in two Corinthians, you're reading about the reason for these types of church discipline moments, and it says so that he deliver such a one over to Satan. Right? So that his soul may be saved, that even a person who's in gross sin, who gets kicked out of the church, we're still hopeful for their salvation. There's no teaching like that could never happen. You couldn't be saved. We're hopeful that maybe they were never saved or maybe they lost it. That's another debate I won't get into, because at this moment, where the person is like, horrible sin, you're kicked out of church, even. We're still hoping for your salvation. Right? Paul blasphemed Christ. Paul the apostle, he blasphemed Christ. He denied the work of the spirit in the church. He did all those things. He persecuted Christians, still got saved. I, for one, will never look at somebody and say, too late for you. Don't even bother. I think that that is a very, very dangerous thing. Um, there are so many examples of people who were in even horrible sin. I think if Judas had not hung himself, he might have still been able to be redeemed. Even at that point. There's so many examples of people who were horribly against God, and then later they come to Christ. Um, I could go on with more examples. Throughout the book of Acts, different people uh, even people who are doing horrible things, and then they're told to repent. They're like, I'm going to buy the power of the spirit from you. And then they're told, repent. Like, why are they told this? Because there's a hopefulness that they can be forgiven even for something so egregious as that. So always, always root for the repentance of people, including yourself. Root for the salvation of people, including yourself, and don't you dare for it. Please, please don't give into this mentality. Because there's a certain mentality, uh, Isa, there's a certain mentality I've seen in people who get hopeless and they give up on God and they stay in their sin. Any idea in your head that has you saying, I'll pick sin instead of God now is always a wrong idea. It's always a lie from the enemy. It's always an attack from your flesh trying to justify continuing sinning. Right? I should repent, but God wouldn't want me anyway, so why bother now? I can feel a little bit better, less guilty, less bad about continuing in my sin. These are all just complicated ways in which we lie to ourselves to justify doing things we shouldn't. Please, please don't do that. Read the Old Testament, right, where God says, all day, my hands are stretched out to an insolent and disobedient people. All day his hands are what? Stretched out like he's reaching for them all day long, right? And in Isaiah, he talks about how horrible and wicked they are. And then he's like, but come, let us reason together. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow. The message of scripture is that God is such a place of desiring your salvation and your repentance and willingness to receive you, that to ask whether he wants you or not is a moot point. He wants you. Turn to him. Trust in him. It's throughout scripture. Jesus on the cross, being crucified, cries out, what? Father, forgive them not. It's too late for these ones. They're real punks. They're real punks. You realize what they've done to me? I'll say the other ones who didn't do it, but not these ones, right? The centurion who's there at the cross killing Jesus, he says, wow, this really was the son of God. And the implication is that salvation came to that man at that very moment, a man who was just active in killing Christ. The redemption of Saul, right? This man is there as a testimony that him the worst of sinners, the chief of sinners, he calls himself. Why? Because he persecuted the church of God. He could be saved. So all of these things are telling me, whatever you think. Hebrews six means, do not dare give up on the grace and the love and the forgiveness that there is in God. Don't give yourself excuses to turn from this free offer. You turn now. Even Hebrews, what is it telling everybody who reads it? Make sure you do not spurn God's grace in Christ. Do not turn from it. Do not reject it. Embrace it. Let's go to question number four. Jay Towell says, hey, pastor Mike, why is the unforgivable sin described as blaspheming the Holy Spirit as opposed to blaspheming the Son or the father? Um, that's a good guess. And, uh, I do have a video on this, you guys. There's people who ask questions. I've had many questions about the blasphemy of the spirit. I did a video where I did a full teaching on it, including the opening of the video in the very beginning. I do a short summary. Here's what it is. Here's what I think it means. After all my study. I'll link that video down below, and maybe, mods, you can link my video on the blasphemy of the spirit in the, uh, comments in the live stream, comments as well, just so people can have it if they want to jump over there right now. But we'll ask, why is it specifically blaspheming the Holy Spirit as opposed to the son or the Father? Um, so the father has testified of the Son. That's through scripture, at least when Jesus, in the gospel of John, he talks about how the father has testified of the Son. There's a couple of ways. One of them is the Old Testament, right? Where he's like, hey, if you believe Moses, you would have believed me. My father draws those to me. And it's through the scripture that the Jews had that God was testifying of the Son. It's also through the baptism of Jesus, um, and perhaps through the miracles as well. But the son testifies because he's out there preaching. He's telling people like, um, here I am in the scroll of the prophet, it's written of me. And he reads Isaiah and he's like, hey, that's me. So Jesus is verbally telling people who he is. So if you blasphemed by the sense of rejecting the work of the Father or the right, that would be like, you ignored the Old Testament, or you ignored Jesus, that would definitely be, if you kept doing that forever, you would die in your sin. But how is blaspheming the spirit different than those two things? The Holy Spirit testifies in two specific ways in the New Testament. One is external and one's internal. One is external through the miracles. Jesus doing these miraculous works right in front of them was massive proof of who he was. And to deny those works, in the case of the Pharisees in that passage, saying that Jesus, what he was doing was really being done by the power of Satan to see these miracles that are clearly in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, this like sort of final stamp of approval, this is what the work of the spirit is, what ties together the Old Testament prophecies, the New Testament claims of Jesus. It's the miracles themselves where it's like, hey, who else has done these works? He's literally fulfilling what God has said. You're ignoring the final proof, the final proof, and that's the final nail in your coffin, so to speak. Um, but also the Holy Spirit testifies another way, not just miracles. So it's a different level of evidentiary proof, but also internally, the Holy Spirit is bringing conviction of sin, bringing awareness of the truth of the gospel to people. And so you're ignoring that as well. I think there's other stuff too. But if I said the father, it would imply Old Testament. If I said the Son, it would imply the teachings of Jesus and his claims on their own. But remember, he says in John, I don't bear witness of myself, meaning not alone, but there's others. There's more than just me bearing witness of me. And so you take everything on the testimony of two or three witnesses, right. So it would be too small of a claim, but to lay it on the Holy Spirit, you're tying all that together as the final message. I hope that makes sense. That's my opinion. Okay. You guys are welcome to think this through. I'm not, like, claiming that that's the opinion every Christian must hold on this view. Um, I think that's what I'm getting as I look through John, as I look through the work of the spirit in John, the way the father's witness is talked about in John, in, uh, John in particular, because that's where I feel like a lot of this stuff is fleshed out. Um, even though that's not necessarily where we're getting the blasphemy of the spirit passage. Um, I'll link my video down below. Some things for you to think about. All right. Um, I've got all my, uh, questions for today. Here's question number five. Aisha. Kara says. Or Kara says. Ah. Hi, Pastor Mike. Hi, Aisha. And, um, I don't think I'm technically a pastor anymore. I don't mind you calling me one. I just don't want people to think I'm claiming that, um, has Zechariah nine, one through eight already been fulfilled? If not, is it possible that it is in the process of being fulfilled today? Has Zechariah nine already been fulfilled? If not. Okay, so I'll read through the passage, and I might take a pass, depending on how fresh this is going to be in my mind. I don't want to mishandle scripture. I'd rather just skip answering something. But let's read through it, because there's always benefit in that. The, uh, burden of the word of the Lord against the land of Hadrak and Damascus, its resting place for the eyes of men. And all the tribes of Israel are on the Lord. Verse two. Also against Hamath, which borders on it, and against tyre and Sidon, though they are very wise. For tyre built herself a tower, heaped up silver like the dust, and gold like the mire of the streets. Behold, the lord will cast her out. He will destroy her power in the sea, and she will be devoured by fire. Ashkelon shall see it and fear Gaza shall also be very sorrowful. And Ekron, for he dried up her expectation. The king shall perish from Gaza. Uh, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited. A mixed race shall settle in Ashdod. And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. I will take away the blood from his mouth and the abominations from between his teeth. So these are speaking of. It sounds weird to you guys, but these are speaking of specific things they're doing that the original readers would have known about. They would have understood these issues, these cities, their dynamics, what was going on between them. 36 00:53:11.000 --> 00:53:12.000 Um. 37 00:53:11.000 --> 00:54:38.000 But he who remains, even he shall be for our God and shall be like a leader in Judah, and Ekron like a Jebusite. I will camp around my house because of the army, because of him who passes by and him who returns no more shall an oppressor pass through them. For now I have seen with my eyes. Um. It's been a while since I've looked through Zechariah, to be honest and straight with you about it. Um, the language about Tyre and Sidon reminds me of the Ezekiel passage. Um, and, uh, I think it's probably referring to the destruction of tyre, which happened way in the past. Alexander the Great, right? He goes into Tyre and he sieges the city. He destroys the city and he actually literally scrapes the city and pushes it into the ocean, like, as a way of shocking all of the nations around. I mean, after, after Alexander the Great did this, it so scared everybody else in, like the 300s BC, it scared everybody else so much that they said, great is Alexander, we yield. We're not going to fight you, we're going to welcome you in with a parade. So Alexander the Great made an example of tyre. When it says here, the Lord will cast her out, he will destroy her power in the sea and she will be devoured by fire. Uh, tyre was also a phoenician ocean power. Like they had military might in the ocean, they controlled trade, that sort of thing as well. And, uh, they were like a trade point. Like, if you. I'll try to do this reverse for you. It. I think it's reverse for you. 38 00:54:38.000 --> 00:54:39.000 Yeah. 39 00:54:39.000 --> 01:29:47.000 So if you're looking at a map and here's the, here's, here's know, right around here is tyre. Right? And then Tyre was like an entry point for all these ocean going vessels to come from North Africa or other places like in Europe. And then they would come in and then they would go inland from there into Syria and the different countries over there. So he's destroying her power in the sea, her ocean power, and she will be devoured by fire. Uh, one of the times that the biggest time that happened was Alexander the Great. This makes me think that Zechariah nine again, sorry, I don't remember enough off the top of my head is probably referring to that event also. Um, Ashkelon shall see it in fear that others would look upon it and then they would respond with specific fear. That did happen with Alexander as well. But I say all that with a grain of salt. Um, just because it's not fresh on my mind, um, I wish I did think clearly enough to know everything about every passage of scripture, but I hope that gives you some help. Um, often a simple study bible will help you navigate that kind of stuff. It's just a simple study bible. Have footnotes, they'll kind of guide you through those things, which are very helpful, especially in deeply historical contents in scripture. When you read, like, Daniel Eleven, the most historical packed survey, it's prophetic, but it's a prophetic survey of what will happen. And it has happened, um, but it's very complicated and you just won't get it without some help, to be honest, because you're not from that time. Um, anyway, question number six. Benji Ahuja says, is it right to call Jesus King since he has not yet set up his millennial kingdom on earth? Revelation 20, verses four through six. Interesting question. Let's check this out. Revelation 20, verses four through six. We'll consider this part first. Verse four. Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. And, uh, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God. The revelation here is speaking about the future. This is a future time, in my view, has not yet happened. We're talking about the reign of Christ that's going to come. Um, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands, they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection over such the second death has no power. But they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years. Is Jesus reigning now or not? That's the big question. Um, there's a future time where Jesus reigns. Does that mean he's not reigning now? Psalm 110 is the most commonly quoted psalm in the New Testament. It's the verse, uh, the scripture of the Old Testament that occurs more times in the New Testament than any other. Really amazing psalm. Look at what it says. The Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. This is the verse right here. The Lord said to my lord, because Jesus is God. Right? Jesus himself used that argument. He's like, if David calls him Lord right here, my lord, how is he his son? Or you might say, how is he just his son? At any rate, the deity of Christ is hinted at in this verse. But sit at my right hand. This is what Jesus does after his resurrection, according to the New Testament, until I make your enemies your footstool, implying that there's some future time where you're going to be reigning. But sitting at my right hand, isn't that a position of rulership and reigning? And the answer is yes, it's both. Um, this gets into debates between, um, premillennial and post millennial as well. But where the language of is Jesus ruling right now? And they want you to say yes or no, and I want to say yes, but okay, so the post mill says yes or no. If Jesus is reigning, then m we're in his kingdom right now. He's reigning right now. He's the king of the world right now. And the alternative, they would think, is, you say no, then Jesus is not reigning, and you're denying scripture that says Jesus is king. Um, my answer is no. It's yes. And okay, Jesus is reigning, and he will be reigning in a greater way in the future when his enemies are made his footstool, like Psalm 110, says, how is Jesus reigning? He's reigning. His kingdom persists of being in the hearts of those who call him king. See, this is where you get into the nitty gritty and people are going to think I'm playing games. I'm not, dude, if I'm playing games, Jesus is playing games first because he says things like, my kingdom's not of this world. Right? Then he also says, the kingdom of God has arrived. Then he says, um, uh, that you're going to enter into the kingdom when you believe in him. But then he goes on, he says to Saul, to Saul, to Pilate, that, um, if his kingdom was of this world, his servants would fight. Then we read in the New Testament that Satan is the God of this age, and he's the one who's ruling over the kingdom of men. So it's got to be yes, and it's got to be both. It's got to be yes. Jesus is king. But what does that mean now and what does that mean later? Jesus is king in that, in this world that Satan is the God of the world. Not a real God, but he's the God of the world. In this world where he's got control. Jesus pulls people out of that control, and he makes them lights in the world in them consist his kingdom. It's not a political kingdom. It's not an army kingdom. It's a kingdom of people who live for the coming king. This kingdom exists in the hearts of men. And when you look at jesus'language about kings or, uh, kingdoms and the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, I think you have to determine that it refers to the internal relationship you have where you call Jesus king. Then when Jesus comes back and he makes his enemies his footstool, and he takes over all things and he's reigning, we will reign with him now in that more active sense in that coming kingdom. So Jesus is a king, but he's also the coming king. You might think of it like the old stories about King Richard, we get this. You watch these old, I don't know, Disney movie or something. Probably wasn't Disney. It was somebody else. But of like, uh, you know. And you get these movies where King Arthur's on a quest. He went off, probably do the crusades. I'm not trying to comment on all that here, but just get my analogy. It's pretty narrow. King Arthur's off, and then there's like, little John or whatever. Oh, yeah, it's Robin Hood that I'm thinking of. And little John, he's abusing his authority, and they're waiting on the king to come back. There are people who, while they're under the authority of little John, they're still loyal to the king, waiting for him to come back, trying to serve him the best they can. And then when he comes back, they're rejoicing. We're in that moment. The king is going to come back. And when he does, he'll reward those who have faithfully served him and saw that his authority was the real authority. We yielded in this world to certain things while we waited on that. I hope that helps. I like that analogy. I think it's a pretty good analogy. All right, question number seven. Um, okay, parent warning again. Question. Oh, that's number eight. Okay, parent warning for number eight. But number seven, myth. The beard king has a question. Hey, Mike, I've got a pagan friend. He believes that all the different gods exist, including the Abrahamic God, and that the Norse pantheon is most worthy of worship. Any advice on reaching him? Um, that's tough. I haven't interacted with pagans too much like real pagans. Pagans like that. I have interacted some, and, um, I remember an interaction I had. It's on video somewhere on the Internet. It's not on my channel. Uh, it got recorded somewhere. I honestly don't remember. It was many years ago. But I looked into the gods that they believe in. Um, and I tried an angle that ended up not. It kind of bothered them, but it didn't really work in the sense of showing them they had a problem. And I was showing them that their views that they ascribed to their God. And I don't remember the God now. It was years ago, but I looked into the actual original text. Like, I went and read source material on that God and what the ancient people believed about that false God. And I quoted it back to them to show them that the views that they were espousing. We have great principles and beliefs. And I go, those aren't the beliefs from your actual God? Those are new beliefs. You probably got those from Christianity when your religion started imitating Christianity. And, um, their response was interesting. They simply said, well, we don't have sacred texts like you do. And I thought, well, that's funny. They thought I was challenging them to say they're not being the equivalent of biblical. No, I wasn't challenging on that. I'm saying your fake God isn't even the source of your beliefs. It's probably Christianity that's the source of your beliefs. You're assigning it to this false God, which is kind of what paganism does in all cases. They assign things that belong to God, to others. Um, but it wasn't super effective and I wish we had been able to talk more about it or something, um, that they didn't really understand. The point was, uh, that the things they were lauding themselves for in their religious beliefs weren't even from where they thought they were from. But what would you do? What would you do for a pagan? Like, just let me brainstorm with you for a second. I guess what I always want to do with everybody is find out what parts of their beliefs are truly valuable, what are the things they care about. They're not going to ditch. They're not just going to toss away or reinterpret all of a sudden. Then I want to talk about those issues. So that would require some questions. You just start asking questions like what do you believe about this and why do you think that? And what's the most important part of your belief to you about these gods? Um, you start to poke and you start to prod, um, and that just gives you the data. Now you understand what matters. Other angles you could take that are maybe biblical. When Paul in the book of Acts is interacting with pagans, you got to think of this as very similar to what you're interacting with because pagans back then would have acknowledged the God of Israel was real. They just wouldn't have acknowledged what the Bible says about him is true because that would make him the only God. So when Paul's interacting with pagans, he goes to Athens and he's like, hey, I'm going to tell you about the gods. You don't know. God made us. In fact, look at the logic of Paul's argument that's there and see if you can borrow some of that and use that in your logic of reasoning with others. What this then can come to about how we shouldn't suppose that somebody with hands made those with hands that doesn't make sense. It doesn't really logically terminate at those gods. So what you're getting at there is a subtle way of saying that the arguments for the existence of God don't apply to pagan gods because they're fundamentally a different kind of being. The statement would be, ontologically, that is, the nature of existence that they have is so different from God. They're not just, here's God, here's a pagan God. No, it's more like, here's an eternal, omniscient being, uh, immeasurable, uh, which is self existent. Look up divine asaity. Right? That's an amazing idea in Christianity. And then you have, like, a finite, simply powerful being, which is, there's an infinite metaphysical difference between these two different things. So when you then trace back arguments like the uncaused cause or the first mover or something like that, or the argument from design, or you look at, like, say, the cosmological argument, uh, the kalam m cosmological argument, none of those would apply to these, like to Thor or Zeus or Mithra or something like that. None of them would apply to them because none of those beings have the trace or the qualities that could be an explanation for the things we're talking about. So philosophical arguments for God, they don't give you pagan gods. They give you a God like the God of the Bible, this sort of eternal God. Another way to push back another third angle you could take. And so one is you're digging to find out what they really believe and what's valuable to them, because that gives you what, you'll know what to talk about next. The next thing is you're giving evidence for God and demonstrating that that's not the same as evidence for their gods. They're going to think, oh, yeah, that proves my God, too. But not if you walk them through it. That doesn't prove your God. In fact, makes your God look kind of silly. The next thing you could do is ask them for evidence for their beliefs. And this is when all of a sudden I think the covers come off because you go, wait a minute. So I've got, say, evidence for God. I've got, say, scripture that has prophetic proofs in it, historical evidence to support it. What evidence do you have? And they go, well, and you find that they don't have any evidence. Christian apologetics is the only apologetics that has anything going for it. Uh, other religious groups, when they try to present a case for their beliefs, it pales in comparison. And that's good. To draw that out and say, bring me your. And always, always ask it this way. Bring me your best evidence. So when you bring them evidence, you bring them a really good example of fulfilled prophecy. Really good one. Then you ask them, bring me your best evidence. Then you're going to go research it a little. You come back and talk to them. But another angle you can take. That's all intellectual stuff. Another angle you could take is, hey, since you believe that my God is real, why don't you come to church with me? Why don't we read the bible, and you can find out about the God that you don't know about, and you can just sort of organically, relationally try to reach in that way. These are a bunch of different ideas. I pray God gives you wisdom. And, uh, yeah, I'd be interested to hear those conversations. All right. Okay. This is a parent warning. Parent warning on this question. You know what that means? That means that, um, Sarah, who put the question forward, I haven't read it yet. She thought, y'all parents should know before I even read the question that you want to skip it for your kids. Okay. Is it a sin to have marital relations during a menstrual cycle? In Leviticus 18, 1924 and 25, verses 24 and 25, it indicates that this is an abomination. But Leviticus 1524 puts it in the category of ritual uncleanness. Okay, let me share with you guys why this is actually a, uh, legitimate question that people can struggle with. So this Leviticus passage, Leviticus 18 is one of those passages that shows that homosexual relations are sinful. But when you track through it, people go, what? But that just ritually was a problem. Some people will say this, it was just ritual. It was just for Israel. Maybe it wasn't something that God puts on the world. It was just for Israel. It's hard to hold that when you read the whole section, um, which I'm going to read right now. So here's a quick primer on this passage, and you'll see why the know relations during menstrual cycle is a legitimate question. Um, okay. And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I'm the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan to which I'm bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules. If a person does them, he shall live by them. I am the Lord. None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. Okay, so no kind of like inappropriate sexual things with a close relative. Next rule. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness. Okay, so fathers and mothers, off limits, because incest was a common thing people were doing. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife. It is your father's nakedness. That's right. Even if he's married and it's someone that's not your mother, still can't do it. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter, or your mother's daughter. It could be half sister. It doesn't matter whether brought up in the family or in another home. It's the genetic relation that matters, not just the home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife brought up in your father's family, since she is your sister. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister. She is your father's relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness which means ultimately to, in this case, have relations with of your father's brother. That is, you shall not approach his wife. She is your aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter in law. It shows the depravity of the culture that these things had to be said. But it's the spread of Christianity that has made this stuff so off limits. Uh, in our culture, modern culture today, you naturally go, of course, I wouldn't do that. But you say that partly because of the influence of Christianity on culture, which we need to preserve, you shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter in law. She's your son's wife. You shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife. It is your brother's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter. And you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover their nakedness. Their relatives. It's depravity. You shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. All these things you just can't do. Um, are those ritual? Well, that's not ritual. This is just, like, stuff you just can't do, period. This isn't about temple stuff. This is just. Don't do it. You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she's in her menstrual uncleanness. Huh. There it is. How do I say that one's ritual when the ones above it are clearly not? They're clearly just sinful, uh, and depraved. Um, then you might say, well, the word uncleanness is there, so it's implying that it's simply an issue of cleanliness. But if we say that, look at verse 20, and you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife, so make yourself unclean with her. Oh, well, then cheating with your neighbor's wife is just a matter of cleanliness, too. Okay, so unclean doesn't necessarily mean only ceremonial unclean. All right, well, we could keep reading. It gets to even stronger things. It ramps up to stronger and stronger stuff as it goes. In Leviticus 18, you shall not give any of your children to offer them to molec, to profane the name of the Lord your God. That's where they would burn their kids with a ceremonial postnatal, uh, abortion. And so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. That's not ceremonial. This is where the progate theologians are like, oh, that's just ceremonial. Well, if we'll read on, we'll see why it's not and why God is definitely not just making ceremonial statements in this passage. You shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it. Neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it. Uh, it is perversion. It's not ceremonial, dude. That's bestiality. Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things. And then here is a key part for by all these, the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean and the land became unclean so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants by all of these things. And he seems to mean everything in Leviticus 18, the unjewish people who did not have the law of Moses, I judge them for that. The implication seems to be that as a large category, everything in Leviticus 18 is stuff God judges people for even if it has nothing to do with the law of Moses. That is the implication from what I read. And so I read that and I go, um, I legitimately am not sure how to take the one verse. Verse. Was it 19? Yeah. And pull that out and just say, uh, we're not going to do that. Now there are some legitimate debates. Um, I've heard about verse 19, um, about what is approaching while she's in her menstrual uncleanness. What does that mean specifically? And it may be more of a narrow meaning than what it appears to be. And I haven't vetted all that, so I don't know. Okay. But what I'm saying is whatever verse 19 is talking about, it seems like it's the kind of thing that no one's allowed to do at all, period. I don't like that. I want to say no. I think that's okay. Um, and it's just ceremonial because, and here's the reason. It's not just because of my modern impulses. It's also because, um, issues of blood, issues of cleanliness, that kind of category of uncleanness does feel very different in scripture from the uncleanness of sleeping with another man's wife. These feel like different kinds of things. And for instance, um, ah, a man who's bald and has like spots on his head, he could be unclean because of ceremonial purposes. But the scripture will specifically say he's not in sin. Effectively he's just bald. He's okay. He's just bald. So there can be these ceremonial things that don't reflect in a sinful way on a person that have to do with maybe symbolism and that kind of thing. But again, how could God judge them for those things? Uh, the unbelieving nations, is it one that just sits in there that he wasn't really judging them for, but it just related to, does menstrual uncleanness mean something different than what I'm thinking of? And I just haven't figured that out and haven't vetted that myself yet. Possibly. But your other verse he brought in was Leviticus 1524. And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean. Um, so this seems to be, um, an accidental situation. But there's no punishment, right? There's just uncleanness. Oh, you're unclean. You're ceremonial unclean. This would preserve them from spreading disease and things like, that this kind of ceremonial rules. And it would preserve God's point about ritual purity, implying the kind of moral purity that God requires of us and that Jesus fulfills. Okay, so, yeah, create separation with them and God on purpose to show that sin has separated us from God. This looks very much like just ritual uncleanness that we're unclean for seven days. Okay, because of this issue of blood. How do you deal with these things? I mean, you could say verse 20 here. I don't know for sure my answer on this. I've wrestled with this before and I'm not sure. And so I don't put it on anybody. I just go, I don't know. I can't fully justify my impulse to say that it's just ritual. But I also am open still because I haven't fully vetted the meaning of minstrel in Leviticus in that text and heard other opinions about it. So I'm kind of, like, a little bit on the fence. Um, but the verse 24 part, Leviticus 1524, seems to be implying. See what you guys think about this. Seems to be implying an accidental thing. A guy does this and her menstrual impurity comes upon him. This could be something that wasn't intentional. Oh, guess what? Now it's happened. Okay, you're unclean for seven days, but there's also a statement of, you can't deliberately do it during that time. Um, that seems to be the case. I'll admit that to modern sensibilities, this feels kind of archaic. Like, why? What's the problem with that? Um, and that may be because modern sensibilities, we're missing something. Or maybe because scripture is just telling us something true that we're ignoring. Um, or maybe that I just haven't fully understood leviticus 18, verse. What I can't do is dismiss verse 24 of leviticus 18, which seems to indicate God judges pagans for these things, too. So I want to look more into verse 19. I think it was and understand it better, but at least I can unpack for you guys. This is why. This is a legitimate question. Those who, off the cuff, I go, there's nothing wrong with that and just walk away. You can do that. I can't treat scripture that way. Um, I need to chase it down more, and I should do more work on that myself. Okay, let's look at question number nine. No parent warning on this one. Uh, okay. Eric says, thanks, mike, for what you're doing. I'm curious. And you're very welcome, Eric. I'm very very grateful I get to do this. I'm curious about how to handle two Samuel 21. This sounds very close to a form of human sacrifice to honor God. Um, second Samuel 21. Uh, this one comes up a lot, this passage. So let's read through two Samuel 21. I'm going to read a significant portion of scripture here and then we're going to ask just the one question. There's a lot of questions you can ask about this passage, and I have other videos on it and I'll link some in the description below after the stream, other videos where I talk about, ah, this section, if I'm remembering right, I have some other content. If I do, I'll link them down below. But we'll ask the one question. Is this human sacrifice to honor God? Is it like that? Um, why would we think that? Why shouldn't we think that? Okay. Now, there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year. And David sought the face of the Lord. And the Lord said, um, there is blood guilt on Saul and on his house because he put the Gibeonites to death. So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. Now, the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites. Although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had sought to strike them down in his zeal for the people of Israel and for Judah. So the context so far, uh, is they had made a covenant with the people, like, they made a covenant as Israel, as God's nation, we will not harm you. Remember, there's a whole story about them coming with this old bread and like, we traveled from far away and anyway, they could get kind of tricked, but they make a covenant. We will not harm you guys. So they had made a covenant and Saul had sought to strike them down in a zeal for the people of Israel and for Judah. Again, another verse that shows that zeal is not always a great guide. Zeal with knowledge, but not just zeal. And David said to the Gibeonites, what shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement that you may bless the heritage of the Lord? What's this atonement happening for? Um, there's blood guilt because they've killed the Gibeonites. They swore they would not kill the Gibeonites, said to him, it is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house. Neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel. And he said, what do you say that I shall do for you? They said to the king, the man who consumed us and planned to destroy us so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel. Uh, let seven of his sons be given to us so that we may hang them before the lord at Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the lord. And the king said, I will give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul's son Jonathan, because of the oath of the lord that was between them, between David and Jonathan, the son of Saul. The king took the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Ayah, whom she bore to Saul, Armani and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Mirab, the daughters of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel, the son of Barzalai. The Maholithite were right there. Let me scroll down. And he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them on the mountain before the lord. And the seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest. Then Rizpa, the daughter of Aya, took sackcloth and spread it for herself on the rock from the beginning of the harvest until the rain fell upon them from the heavens. And she did not allow the birds of the air to come upon them by day or the beasts of the field by night, implying that she's honoring them even though they've gone through that. When David was told what Rizpud, the daughter of Ayah, the concubine of Saul, had done, David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the men of Jebesh Gilead, who had stolen from them in the public square of Bethshan, where the Philistines hanged them on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Giboa, and he brought up the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan. They gathered the bones of those who were hanged, and they buried them, all of them together. Um, and then at the end of verse 14, it says, um, and after that, God responded to the plea for the land. Okay, this is a complex passage because you have on the bookends, it seems as though God is dealing with Israel because of the betrayal of the Gibeonites, because they're having famine because of it. Then David's like, David goes, not God. David goes. And he's like, hey, what will make it right? And then the gibeonites, are they godly? No. But they ask for the death of these seven guys. Then after it happens, God blesses Israel. Right. Then God responded, uh, to the plea for the land. Um, it's interesting that one thing happened in addition to all that, which is that Saul goes and he gets Jonathan and David's bones, and he gets the bones of these men and he offers them this honorable burial. And then God responds. So what are we to make of this? Um, I think that we have a few. Like, you might survey our options. This is going to sound like I'm dissecting things in an impersonal way, and I'm not trying to do that, but you can sort of survey our options, um, for the biblically faithful Christian, right, because the non believers are easy. They're like, oh, it was bad. That whole thing was messed up, all of it. God, David, all of them. It was all messed up. Um, but you could survey the options. One of them is, oh, God simply received that these men were paying for the sins, ultimately, of their father. Is that really allowed? Doesn't he specifically tell Israel, like, you won't kill the son for the things that the father did? Ah, yeah, it definitely says that. So that feels like it's not really a great option, but it's hard to take it completely off the table initially because God is punishing Israel with this famine, and then he blesses them after it's all done. Um, the next thing that you might say is, let's examine the passage more carefully and let's ask, what does the scriptures say that God is actually affirming here? He's affirming, it seems, by, um, the famine, that what Israel has done to the Gibeonites was wrong. They broke this vow and they're misrepresenting truth and their integrity and all these types of things. And obviously they need to make it right. Then there's this open space where a bunch of stuff happens between people. Does God affirm it? Does God ask for it? Does God say, go and kill the seven sons of Saul? No, God doesn't say that. That's what the gibeonites ask for. Are they being lifted up as, like, the wise ones who know the will of God? No, they're an angry, offended party. They ask for something extreme. David does it now it's considered, hey, we've, uh, made peace with the gibbonites. Even if it wasn't in an ideal fashion, even if it wasn't in a way that pleases God, we've made peace with them, and then that issue has come and gone. Uh, keep in mind, this is first and second Samuel, who also we're looking at, leads into the book of judges. These books are filled with these kinds of complicated issues where you have God doing something amidst the messiness of humankind. It's very common to see this sort of thing, I think, in these texts, especially the book of judges, when you get there, God active in the midst of the wickedness of man, it doesn't affirm all the actions of men when he is doing these things. You can say in a more broad sense, like, you reconcile with those for whom you'd broken a vow and committed murder. But does that mean that these sacrifices are like human sacrifices to appease God? I don't think so. I think we're drawing way too much out of the text. And more importantly, or more clearly, that would clearly contradict with specific statements where God's like, you will not offer me human sacrifices. All the pagans do it. The Israelites want to do it. I will not allow it. I will judge you if you try to offer me human sacrifices. Don't you dare. Um, God's whole thing with Abraham, here's your son. Stop. Nope. You won't be doing things that way. I'm not going to actually have you do it. When the time comes to offer your sons, what are you going to to. You're going to offer a lamb instead? You're not going to offer your kids to me. Um, that's actually a very clear teaching. God says he will judge the Israelites for those things. The strength of that, I think really, when you bring that context of the abomination of human sacrifice to God, um, and Jesus is the chief one, who is God himself, offering himself freely for our sakes, becoming the new Adam for us. This is, uh, not applicable to this rule because he's a whole different category of being. Um, but this context of the abomination of offering God human sacrifices, when you read that into the text, which you should, because it's the context of the Old Testament, then you go, okay, yeah, you guys betrayed Gibeah. Gibeah then asked this thing that wasn't exactly right, then you guys did it. But you give an honorable burial to these guys. It's the messiness of human life. Was it ideal? Was it even the right move? No, it was what happened. And it did bring reconciliation between the two communities and God then blessed Israel. That's how I would read it. Question number ten. Kaylee Whitten says you said egalitarians need to repent. I agree. That's her Kaylee agrees. But do we apply the same response to other secondary issues, such as Calvinism, that's higher on the list of secondary issues compared to egalitarianism versus complementarianism? Good question. So I've had tons of flak online because I said that I thought egalitarian should repent. Um, I'd encourage you guys to look at the whole video in context. Actually qualified it. So egalitarians who have been openly teaching in ways that are harmful to marriage and how the church is supposed to function in its leadership, who have been publicly going out and saying that the biblical view of marriage, that husband is the head of his wife, that he has a higher degree of authority, they both have authority, but she has a, uh, role to yield to his. That that is evil, that that is abusive, that that is wicked. They need to repent. Because Kaylee, in my view here, totally think about it. You make up your own mind. I wouldn't be offended at all if you disagreed. Not in one bit. So my understanding of it is this. When a Calvinist goes out there and I disagree with Calvinists and they describe regeneration preceding faith, my marriage is not affected. My church leadership is not now, uh, set into a structure that God has specifically said, do it this way, not that way. I think that this is the stakes on practical application. Calvinism is far lower stakes than egalitarianism when it comes to how it impacts people's lives. Um, some people think, well, Calvinists don't evangelize. I'm like, that's not true. Plenty of Calvinists do tons of evangelism. I don't believe that. So if I thought Calvinism killed evangelism and killed gospel outreach, then I would raise the stakes on how big of an issue as a secondary issue. But I would raise the stakes on how much of, like, I'm going to be like, whoa, you can't even be in that category, man. That's really going to hurt people. It's going to hurt the church. Um, but I don't think it has that effect. 40 01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:48.000 Now. 41 01:29:47.000 --> 01:37:25.000 Uh, are there Calvinists that are hyper Calvinists that do have issues? Yeah, but I don't think that that's the natural result of Calvinism. I think that that's maybe it has a weakness there. There's a bit more vulnerability in Calvinism towards that type of thing, but that doesn't mean that that just is the natural result. So I could say this to be fair. If a Calvinist is preaching that we don't need to evangelize because God knows his elect, then I'll say, you need to repent. But I don't think that's what Calvinism actually naturally teaches. Does that make sense? Um, egalitarians who go out there and preach that husbands, um, aren't really the biblical head of their wives, although use the word head. But they don't mean head, they mean source. And even that is really fishy as to what it means. So they're saying, effectively, Paul's like, hey, husbands are the head of their wives. Egalitarians. No, they're not. And they're teaching that to people. The structure of your marriage is super valuable. So important. So important. Yeah, you should actually repent, meaning turn from that, change your mind and openly tell people I was wrong. Uh, and here's the right view. I'm sorry that I went into your marriage and told you that you didn't have headship. When the Bible says you do, that you didn't have the authority the Bible says you do. I'm sorry that I went into your church and I convinced you to raise people into certain positions of leadership the Bible specifically says aren't for them. I affected so many things when I did that. That's something I should actually deal with now. I also, just for those who don't know, I called patriarchalists and complimentarians to repent. Um, I, ah, use the word repent of saying that women are in general just more easily deceived than men and that's why they're not supposed to be in certain roles. And I think that's wrong. And I gave a whole number of evidence cases for that. I haven't heard a good response. I've heard people scoffingly remark, but he just made up a bunch of stuff. But that's no, I gave a number of specific reasons, like line item after line item, why I believe that that is a harmful view and is an unbiblical view and because of the harm that it causes in relationships. When you teach all women are just more easily deceived, I think that's something to repent over. So I think, I'm just trying to be consistent here. An egalitarian who privately holds their beliefs and isn't going out there and influencing a church and influencing a marriage, it's not as big of an issue, right. But the ones who are, it's that impact that has to be repented of because marriage is really, uh, important. So in that sense, I would say it's higher on my list of secondary issues than Calvinism, egalitarianism, is because of the impact it has. Plenty will disagree. Mike, uh, you don't understand. It came from this really oppressive sort of Calvinist church and this and this and this, that church should repent then. But that doesn't mean that Calvinists are always like that and that all the Calvinist churches are like that. I don't think that's the case. And if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. That's my opinion and that's my reasoning. And you guys can make up your own minds, see what you think. I've offended a lot of people by saying that egalitarians should repent. Um, I qualified it. I didn't say that of every egalitarian. I said that I have specific kinds who do certain things to marriages and churches and their leadership, and I do believe they should repent. Um, that doesn't mean that they're unsaved. But I think Christians, I think repent just is a word that we're afraid to use in our culture because we think it's a special word only used for mass murderers and unsaved people. And I'm like, oh, no, I think it's a healthy word for Christians to be able to talk about. And maybe I should have used the word, you should openly apologize. But would they be less offended, really? I doubt it. The ones that are offended, there's plenty of egalitarians who are like, no, he's right. If we're wrong, we really should be repenting of it. But there's those who were all super hurt and offended. They were going to be offended no matter what, I think, most of them. So I'm not going to worry about it. And they were happy when I said it because they were like, now we can clip this and show it to people where Mike's finally being a bully. He's being a bull. See, we told you complimentarians are bullies. Um, that's a minority group among egalitarians, but they're very vocal and they look for anything they can use to say the other side are oppressors and bullies and meanie heads. And so now they've got what they want anyway. They're not the serious ones, um, who are open, but there are plenty and probably the majority who are more open and more like, hey, no, I just think it's biblical. I think they're wrong. And I'll build my case. And then after building my case, I'll be like, yeah, you got to actually repent. If you've been teaching people these things yep, that's about it. You guys, um, please don't follow Andrew Tate. Follow somebody else. Follow anybody else. You need a macho man. Do you need that for some reason? I don't know why you need that. That's kind of just, I need like a guy who's like, no, that ain't right. Who just talks like, fine, you need that. That's fine. You know, I like that. It doesn't bother me, but I don't know why anybody would need it. But if you need it, there's Christians who do that, right? Go watch some voti bakum. He's Calvinist, right? But there's a manly guy who, uh, isn't going to exploit women, right? Who's a stand up guy. As far as I know, you're better off with him than you are with Andrew Tate. All right? So God bless you guys. Really appreciate you guys. I hope that you've considered the things I've said, and I'm not just your source for everything Mike says. I agree with. I mean, if you find yourself agreeing with me because we just think alike, that's fine. As long as you're thinking, as long as you're working through it, as long as you're processing it and you're realizing that I, um, am oftentimes, in a quick way, I'm trying to build a case, a biblical case, like point A, point B, point C. .3. Put these things together. That is not how points work. But anyway, put these four points together, ABC and three, and stick them together, and you've got an actual case. That would have to be weighed and measured. Um, find a way to defeat it if you can. I'm doing that all day long with these types of videos. I hope that you find it helpful and fruitful. I move quickly so that I can get as much content out as I can here and answer questions. But the agenda is, again, to help you to think biblically about everything. That means you're processing your thoughts by going, I thought of this. Well, what scripture says about that? Are there other verses that refer to this? Is there other stories in the Bible that relate to the thing I'm talking about or thinking about going through and, uh, applying it that way? All right, let's pray. Lord, we thank you for your holy, holy word. We thank you that you have designed men and women in ways that are beautiful and complementary and wonderful, that you've given us dominion over the earth to both genders. You've given us authority in the home and even some authority towards each other. But we also thank you that you've structured the home so we have men as the head and women who are supporting, who are yielding to that leadership while still being leaders in their own right. And we pray that we could break the mold as Christians and be those who simultaneously honor male headship as well as honoring women's integrity and value and their status as children of God and their role and authority as well. We pray that you'd help us to be the people who demonstrate that it can be done. It is a real thing. And, um, we pray for those who've been following Andrew Tate. Um, he's a deviant and he's developing more deviants. He's spreading deviancy in the name of battling another version of deviancy we see in our culture today. We pray that those people would find good people, that your holy Spirit would convict them of truth, that they would see through his manipulations and they would run to, ah, christian good teaching. In Jesus name, amen.