WEBVTT

1
00:00:02.000 --> 00:01:28.000
All right, well, it's been an eventful week over here, I'll tell you what. But today we're talking about bible contradictions. That's the first question. Uh, this question actually stumped me. You guys asked me this during a live stream last Friday, and I read the verse and I read it again, and I read it in another translation, and I was just kind of reaching for something to help me get clarity on it. And, um, eventually I just said, I give up. I don't know what the resolution is to this, off the top of my head, at least. And I've taught through this book before, and I still just. Nothing came to mind. It was a while ago, so I guess I forgot, or maybe I didn't have an answer and I just. I don't remember. So I dug into it in detail, and this is my answer. Three possible resolutions to the contradiction. Supposed contradiction in one Corinthians 14. Let me read to you the question that came in about this supposed bible contradiction that I could not answer last week. I've spent a number of hours on it. Now I'm going to share with you three possible answers, and you can try to work through what you think is the best. And I'll give you two bad answers as well. So get five. You get five for the price of none, because you didn't. You didn't pay nothing for this. All right, so from, uh, the questions from 23 ajrf and says, can you please explain? First Corinthians 1422 through 24, verse 22 states that tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophecy is for believers. But verses 23 and 24 then go on to seemingly describe the exact opposite.

2
00:01:28.000 --> 00:02:52.000
Thanks. Okay, so that's the question. Let's go through this methodically, which is my favorite style. Okay. One Corinthians 1422. Here it says, let's understand this opposed contradiction. Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers. That's tongues. While prophecy is a sign not for believers, but for. Not for unbelievers, but for believers. So each of these has their special sort of realm in which they are signs, tongues for non believers, prophecy for believers. But then verse 23 and 24 seems to give a, uh, contradictory explanation, at least at first glance, and even maybe second and third glance, if you're just glancing, not really carefully looking at it. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues and an outsider or unbelievers enter. Outsiders or unbelievers enter. Okay, so, hey, this should be great, right? Tongues are a sign for unbelievers. So this would be great. Will they not say that you are out of your minds? Wait a minute. What? So in other words, it would be bad. And this, in the context of one corinthians 14 is why Paul is like, hey, don't do that. Don't have everybody speaking in tongues all at once like that. That's chaos. So he's actually opposed to that. But if I'll prophesy and an unbeliever or outsiders, uh, enters, he is convicted by all he's called to account by all the secrets of his heart are disclosed and so falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

3
00:02:52.000 --> 00:03:12.000
In other words, prophecy seems to be good for unbelievers and tongues. Witnessing tongues actually bad for unbelievers. They'll think you're crazy. They'll think christians are crazy. If this is an important thing for churches to recognize and many ignore this, sadly, if everyone's out there trying to speak in tongues, at the same time, people will think you're crazy.

4
00:03:12.000 --> 00:05:08.000
That's a biblical teaching. That is not just unspiritual people throwing shade at you. So it's good to know. Um, yeah. So is this. Is this actually legitimate contradiction? Now, here's. Here's three possible explanations for it, but let me just, um, make sure I've unpacked the problem properly. I want to do this methodically so that we can understand it. Well, you guys are loading your questions in the chat. I take nine from the chat. I have one that I have prepared when I start, but the other nine, many people ask me this, you know, do I know those questions ahead of time? No, you're literally loading them. I can't even read the chat. Uh, my assistant Sarah, grabs them, sends them over to me. I read them for the first time on the air in front of you, which is why you need to take my answers. With that knowledge of knowing, I'm literally off the cuff trying to give you the best answer. Work through these things with you live. I find that that doesn't give the best possible answer, but it does something else really beneficial. It teaches you to think biblically about things because you're privy to the behind the scenes kind of like thought processes that we use to think biblically about stuff. And so then you're going with me on that journey of working through it. Even if you come up with a different answer than me, that's not actually the biggest issue. It's the process that's really valuable. So, okay. Here we go. Let's talk about that process now in more detail with the first question. So, tongues, according to first corinthians 14, earlier in the chapter, tongues, he talks about it throughout the whole chapter. The whole chapter is about tongues. We don't want to lose that context. And in, uh, verse two, he says, for one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, but to God, for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the spirit. Like tongues without interpretation, is just between you and God. It's not really for anybody in that sense. It's not really a sign for unbelievers in that sense. It's not communicating something to them based, uh, upon what he says here. So then you're wondering, how is it a sign for unbelievers? Later on in verse four, you go down a little bit more. It says, the one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

5
00:05:08.000 --> 00:06:33.000
Now, later on, he says, prophecies assigned not for, um, unbelievers, but for believers. That would seem to be consistent with this. But the tongues part, tongues builds up himself. How is that a sign for, uh, unbelievers? That wouldn't be consistent either. In fact, the whole flow of the chapter doesn't seem consistent with the idea that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, tongues that are, in this case, uninterpreted. That's the context. You'll see as we read on. So prophecy is different than tongues. Uh, because. And he goes in verse three and four, he talks about this, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. And in verse four, he says, the one who prophesies builds up the church. So it's different than tongues. This is where Paul's making a big case. In one corinthians 14, prophecy is better than tongues in the sense that it benefits people more than tongues does. Tongues tends to be edifying, uh, to yourself, prophecy. Now, you may say, Mike, tongues have ceased. Look, you still have to do Bible study. Even if you think that there's no such thing as tongues in the church today, you still gotta study and understand what scripture has revealed. It wouldn't change how we interpret the passage in one iota. And so tongues here is helpful to the person, but without interpretation, prophecy is way better because it's actually communicating something that builds up others and blesses them. Paul's teaching the, you know, one corinthians 13, that love chapter. He's teaching how to apply the love stuff in the spiritual gifts realm.

6
00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:36.000
So there is an exception, however.

7
00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:46.000
Um, the one who prophesies, in verse five, it says, the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless one interprets.

8
00:06:46.000 --> 00:07:49.000
If somebody interprets so that the church may be built up, now they're kind of even par tongues with interpretation, real interpretation. Holy Spirit inspired miraculous tongues with miraculous interpretation. Then boom. Or you could say maybe the tongues is like they're speaking in French and someone there speaks French and they're like, wow. I'm hearing in my own language that would be miraculous tongues with natural interpretation. But it would still be interpreting some clear revelation from God. Now it builds up the church. Now it benefits the body of Christ. That's the exception of the rule. Without interpretation, though, meh ah doesn't really help the body. So then Paul goes on and tells him, keep it to yourself. This is why, if you know you're going to speak in tongues and there's no interpretation, just stop. Stop. You have control of your body. Stop. And that is a biblical policy. You have control of your body, that God is not, uh, taking over your body to force you to speak in tongues, which is something I thought when I was younger, when I was really, really young, like teenager, just first introduced to the whole idea and I was like, what's going on here? Um, I could tell you stories.

9
00:07:49.000 --> 00:08:29.000
I was in a well known, uh, charismatic church at the time, visiting, and it was, um, a story for another time. Anyway, hate to tease you like that and then move on, but got a lot to talk about today, and I want to get to your questions. So, um, he does also say this in verse five, that, um, the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues. Unless someone interprets that, the church may be built up. And then in, uh, verse nine, follows it up with the following. So with yourselves. If your tongue. If with your tongue, you utter speech that is not intelligible, that no one understands, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air? There's no point. There's no point.

10
00:08:29.000 --> 00:10:14.000
So then when we get to verses 21 and 22, we go, okay, so tongues is actually lower than prophecy. Tongues doesn't help anybody unless there's interpretation. How do we then explain this idea of verse 21 and 22? Um, I'm sorry, verses 22 through 24, but it's going to be in this context. So I just, I just messed up your guys brains by saying that. Um, pause. Rewind. Okay, go back. In verses 21 and 22. He gives us context to understand what happens in verses 23, 24. Uh, moving on. So this is where we're going to start to, um, lay out our options. Okay, our options are number one, verse 21 and 22. Give us the scenario where the situation is reversed, where verses 21, through whatever the numbers are, I keep messing them up. But where the situation is reversed, we're no longer speaking about tongues uninterpreted, which isn't a sign for anybody. We're speaking about tongues that's interpreted. And so Paul seems like he's contradicting himself, but earlier he's like, uninterpreted tongues? Yeah, you're just blessing yourself. Now he's saying interpreted tongues, that's a sign to the unbeliever. They walk in like acts, they hear the tongue, they hear it in their own language, and they're like, wow, God is, God is among you. And now it's a sign for the unbeliever. So let's unpack this one. I don't actually think this is accurate, but it's one option in the law. It is written by people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners. I will speak to this people and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord, speaking of a prophetic statement in the Old Testament that is then applied to the concept of tongues or of God speaking to the Jews in languages. And here's the tricky part, that they don't understand.

11
00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:19.000
That's what it's being discussed here in languages that are ultimately foreign to them.

12
00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:36.000
So normally this interpretation would go, normally prophecy is better than tongues, but, um, and tongues uninterpreted is best done alone. But if it's interpreted, then guess what? Prophecy is now a sign for the unbelievers.

13
00:10:36.000 --> 00:11:51.000
Excuse me, tongues. Boy, I keep messing up all these words. I'm really such a bad teacher today. Thus, tongues are, um, assigned for the unbelievers. If they're interpreted, that would be the statement. Now, in the book of acts, this is sort of played out, right? You could say, hey, look at acts. Acts looks like this. In acts chapter two, tongues happens and they're speaking, and there's barbarians, Scythians, all these different people from different lands are hearing in their own language. They're hearing the glorious works of God from these Galileans and stuff who don't speak these other languages. And so a lot of people come to the Lord that day. So tongues was literally a sign, a positive sign, converting the nonbelievers into believers in the book of acts, chapter two. Now against this. Against this is that in the next verse, Paul seems to contradict the idea that prophecy is not a sign for unbelievers. See if you can follow. This is complicated stuff. But remember, it's not just about tongues. It's about what he says about prophecy. Prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers, but for believers. Now, in the next verse, even if you said that explains the tongues part, how do you explain the prophecy part? How does that fit with acts two? How does that fit with anything to say that prophecies assign not for unbelievers, but for believers?

14
00:11:51.000 --> 00:12:10.000
So he gives an example in the next couple verses, verses 24 and 25, ultimately of a non believer being in the room. People prophesy, and then the non believer ultimately looks like he gets saved. So prophecy here is then a sign for an unbeliever.

15
00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:50.000
So then the acts two connection doesn't really make sense because it seems like the signs are functioning in a way that they actually don't get people saved. Right. That's the verse that he uses here. Even then, they will not listen to me. So maybe in whatever sense it's a sign, it seems like it's not bringing them salvation. We'll come back to that later. So I set this one aside. I go, we, uh, can make sense of the tongues being assigned to unbelievers when it's interpreted. That's in acts two. But is that what he's talking about? One corinthians? I don't think so, because we can't make sense of the whole prophecy thing not being assigned to unbelievers. And then he demonstrates in the next verse that it is assigned unbelievers. It brings them salvation.

16
00:12:50.000 --> 00:13:10.000
That's confusing to me. I don't quite follow that one. So what's another option? There's the quotation refutation view. Now, this is actually. It, uh, sounds convenient. Maybe it is. It feels convenient. The idea is basically that Paul, in these verses that seem to be the contradiction, um, he's actually not saying this.

17
00:13:10.000 --> 00:14:25.000
He's actually quoting them in, in verse 22. And he says, hey, this is what you guys have been saying, and I'm going to show you that you're wrong. So this is why we call it quotation refutation. Paul does this in one corinthians. I'll show you another passage where he does this, where he quotes something that they say, and then he shows them where it's wrong. Usually he doesn't just go, ant, you're wrong. Usually he nuances it. He goes, I see your point here? But here's the right understanding of it, and he kind of brings correction. So here, is it possible he's like, hey, corinthians, you guys have been saying that tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers. So you want to do while have everybody speaking in tongues so that when the non believer shows up at your meeting, they hear you and they go, wow, look at these people. They're so spirit filled. And he goes, yeah, but you're wrong. You've been saying that prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers, but for believers. But I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you that that's not true. Because guess what? In verse 23, if the church comes together and speaks in tongues, unbelievers come. They think you're crazy. That's not a sign to them. And in, uh, verse 24, if everybody prophesies and they hear intelligible statements, then guess what? They get saved. Because prophecy does work for unbelievers. So this quotation refutation thing feels right. Like, it feels pretty good. I think this is what my. My old answer would have been years ago. I just honestly don't remember. As sad as that is, um, I think this would have been my old answer.

18
00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:41.000
And I've, um, been thinking about more and more the. The quotation refutation thing. I'll give you an example of it. In one Corinthians chapter six, pretty much everybody agrees it's happening in this verse right here. And this is why even translations will put it in quotes.

19
00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:56.000
First Corinthians 612 says, all things are lawful for me. And then that's in quotes. He's like, quoting the Corinthians. That's how most translators see it. It seems all things are lawful for me. That's what you Corinthians say. But I'm going to nuance that and let you know. Sure, yeah, but all things are not helpful.

20
00:14:56.000 --> 00:16:39.000
The Corinthians say, all things are lawful for me. Oh, yeah, okay. All things are lawful. You're in Christ. You fulfilled the law and all that. But I will. Here's Paul's addition. I will not be dominated by anything. I'm not going to be controlled by something. Just because, uh, God approves of me doing this doesn't mean it's going to control me. Food is meant for the stomach, and the stomach for food. He's quoting the Corinthians here. And God, Paul says, will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And he goes on. So Paul quotes them, and they're taking. The Corinthians took the extreme liberty route. There's some people who are, like, some people call them legalists. I save that term usually for people who try to say, works equal salvation. I think that's the proper use of the word legalist. But there are some people who are extra strict, right? They have strong convictions about everything. Like, there's people who not only do they think that, uh, gambling recklessly is bad, but they think that gambling is bad in general. All gambling is wrong. And they also think that because of that, even playing cards, like playing a game of hearts or a bridge without any gambling at all, just even playing cards themselves are wrong. Now, that person should follow their conscience, but sometimes they will put that conscience on others in that area of just, say, touching a deck of cards. That is too much. Okay? That's too much. Observe your conscience there, but don't put a burden on others. That's not just that you can't really establish with scripture. Um, then you've got the other side who's like, you know, christians like this, because there's christians in all camps, there's Christians who are just, like, super into the liberty side of things, where they almost, uh, never feel convicted about anything, it seems. And that's their answer. They're like, I mean, you say I shouldn't have done that, but I don't feel convicted. I think I'm fine.

21
00:16:39.000 --> 00:17:51.000
And the Corinthians were more like that. They were more like loose. They were more like liberty. They would be like, we're free in Christ, man. We're not even really sinners anymore, because Christ has made us not sinners. And so that, um, kind of thing where m sin is always minimized. You guys know there's christians like this, right? This is not news to you. Maybe some of you are christians like this. There's just statistically, it's got to be the case for those. For the. For the two strict people, scripture's like, hey, recognize where your convictions are just for you, and don't put them on others. For the too much liberty people, you have stuff like first corinthians six. All things are lawful for me. Sure. You would say that. You'd agree with that. Yeah. But not all things are helpful. Oh, I guess there should be some limits, some self imposed limits about what's. Why isn't helpful. All things are lawful for me. I can do what I want. Yeah, but. But I'll be dominated by anything. Is this thing controlling your life? That's a bad thing? You know, um, anyway, it goes on. So that's a quotation refutation example like that. That's pretty solid. Maybe that's what's happening in one corinthians, chapter 14. In, you know, one verse, verse 22, he quotes them. In the next verses. He shows how that's incorrect. That actually makes a lot of sense. Okay. Uh, this. This is potentially, this is the right answer.

22
00:17:51.000 --> 00:18:34.000
But against this pushing back on this particular option is a lot of people do not agree with that option. Okay. As you read commentaries, you don't generally see the quotation refutation even being brought up as an option in there. And so I'm not really sure why. Um, because they don't talk about it at all. So I don't know exactly why commentaries don't follow that one. Many of them don't talk about it, I should say. And it doesn't quite fit specifically because of verse 22. So, uh, let me take you there. First Corinthians 1422, verse 22 says, I'll put it in the middle of your screen there. Thus, tongues are assigned for not for believers, but for unbelievers. This is the verse that he'd be refuting. Why does he start it with thus?

23
00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:47.000
That's not how you start a quote, right? That's how you carry on an argument. Paul often builds these methodical cases where he's saying this and this and this, thus, this, therefore, this, therefore, that.

24
00:18:47.000 --> 00:18:53.000
The way it's written thus. Or like in New King James, it says, therefore, tongues.

25
00:18:53.000 --> 00:19:01.000
That, um, sounds like he's not quoting anybody, that he's actually just continuing his own case. Just that one word does seem to imply that.

26
00:19:01.000 --> 00:19:05.000
And then I'd also say, um, how does that tie in with verse 21?

27
00:19:05.000 --> 00:19:42.000
The verse 21 connection? Right. Verse 21 and 22 are deeply connected to each other, and the quotation refutation statement doesn't seem like it works easily with that idea. So, verse 21, Paul says, in the law, it is written by people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners. I will speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord. Thus tongues are assigned not for believers, but for unbelievers. Um, it doesn't sound like a quotation refutation. It sounds like he's saying that verse 22 is somehow a truth, that he's drawing from the quotation of the Old Testament in verse 21.

28
00:19:42.000 --> 00:19:48.000
Right? That's from Isaiah. Um, 20 811.

29
00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:50.000
The idea there.

30
00:19:50.000 --> 00:20:00.000
It just makes it hard. That's a weakness in the quotation refutation view. So here's the third option, and I'll share two bad ones at the end. Before I take your guys questions, the third option is this.

31
00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:43.000
Tongues, um, are a sign. Paul is teaching that tongues are, in fact, a sign to unbelievers, and they're a sign of judgment. They're a bad sign, they're a negative sign. They're a sign of God's judgment upon them. Here's how Warren Wearsby puts it. However, tongues did have a message for the lost Jews in particular. And this is in the context of Paul saying, hey, tongues, you're saying nothing to people. And the unbeliever comes in, they're gonna think you're crazy. But there is a message there. But it's not really the message you want to be sending as the church. But. But anyway. Wiersby put it this way. However, tongues did have a message for the lost Jews in particular. They were a sign of God's judgment. Paul quoted isaiah 20 811 and twelve, a reference to the invading assyrian army, whose barbaric language the Jews would not understand.

32
00:20:43.000 --> 00:21:03.000
The Isaiah quote is tongues being used as a sign of judgment to a people in rebellion against God. Tongues, meaning not the supernatural use of tongues. Isaiah is not about that. Actually, Isaiah is about foreign languages. God speaking, uh, placing foreign languages in front of his people as a sign of their judgment.

33
00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:16.000
So Paul then wouldn't be contradicting. I'll put that verse back up for you to look at Paul then would not be contradicting, uh, anything that is happening. There's no contradiction anywhere in here. It's just continued nuance and information.

34
00:21:16.000 --> 00:21:21.000
Here's how Paul goes through his argument. He's like tongues without interpretation.

35
00:21:21.000 --> 00:21:34.000
That doesn't help anybody. And then he goes on and says, and it's assigned to unbelievers of their unbelief. It's sort of showing them that they're on the outside, that they do not know Christ. It's just confirming this sort of.

36
00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:55.000
You guys are out perspective. And that's not actually something we want. It could even cause others to reject the church because it puts up their blindness in front of their own eyes. So they walk away thinking you're crazy. And now they discount the church entirely. Paul's not encouraging using tongues to unbelievers. He's discouraging it because it leads towards their judgment and not towards their salvation.

37
00:21:55.000 --> 00:22:29.000
Catch that? It leads towards their judgment, not to their salvation. Prophecy in regards to signs of judgment in verse 22, how is prophecy not for unbelievers? Even though in verses 23 and 24 an unbeliever, um, can get saved through prophecy, it's not a sign to them in regards to judgment. It's not a sign thusly, right tongues is a sign of judgment. Prophecy is not meant to be a sign of judgment in that sense. It's meant to be an invitation into salvation. In that sense, it all works. Everything harmonizes really well.

38
00:22:29.000 --> 00:23:08.000
Now, let's talk about possible options or reasons to go against this view. Um, so prophecy is still kind of like a weak link here. If prophecy is not a sign of judgment to unbelievers, that works with this interpretation. But how does it work that it's assigned to believers in that context? Verse 22, prophecies for believers. Well, it's not assignment of judgment for believers. So that genuinely, I'm not sure. Okay, I throw my hands up. I don't know. I'm trying to understand what Paul wrote here. Peter says that Paul wrote some things that are very hard to understand. Some people think that the clarity, the perspicuity of scripture, the fact that scripture is clear, means every single thing in scripture is clear. No. Scripture even says there's some things in scripture that are hard to understand.

39
00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:19.000
I'm fully okay with that. So I don't know. I'll point that out because it's a weakness of that view. I'm, uh, not really sure what to say about that. I'm sure there's answers. I just don't know them.

40
00:23:19.000 --> 00:23:36.000
So that kind of breaks the consistency. Right. Um, if the phrase sign means sign of judgment, then how is prophecy treated as a sign to believers in that context? It's not the kind of sign this interpretation postulates that tongues is. It breaks the consistency of the use of the terms.

41
00:23:36.000 --> 00:23:42.000
If it's a proper sign of judgment, why does Paul warn against them doing it without interpretation? Here's one question.

42
00:23:42.000 --> 00:24:04.000
Um, I think that the answer here is, if you follow my question, uh, is to say, Paul says, hey, don't use tongues. They're going to think you're crazy. And the fact that it's a proper sign of judgment, it's not that it's wrong for unbelievers to have their unbelief exposed and even to be driven away by the darkness that's in them as they see the light. But the church's mission is evangelism.

43
00:24:04.000 --> 00:24:17.000
Our message to the world is come, get saved, not just look at us. Let's make sure that we're as confusing and offensive as possible. Like, we're not trying to do that. We want people to come to Christ and get saved. That's the agenda. That's the goal.

44
00:24:17.000 --> 00:25:01.000
Jesus wants them saved. So it does seem a little confusing to me. Um, maybe Paul is saying, in effect, to summarize, tongues without interpretation do nothing for the believer and actually drive the unbeliever closer to damnation because they walk into the church and they think we're all crazy. Prophecy doesn't have that impact. It edifies the believer and ultimately evangelizes the non believer. So focus on that. Focus on speaking intelligible things and not looking like crazy. People who do things that you say are spiritual, that a nonbeliever would walk in and think, looks crazy to me. I think this is a great word for churches today. As you all know. Some of you who've had life experiences like I've had, especially when I was much younger, um, you know.

45
00:25:01.000 --> 00:25:52.000
So verse 20 says, um, in summary, he starts, oh, I should point this out, verse 20, he kind of lets you know he's about to tell you something that's hard to understand. Brothers, do not be children. In your thinking, be infants and evil, but in your thinking, be mature. When you preface something you're saying with, hey, think a little deeper, guys. I need you to think deeply about things. Then you explain something that obviously requires deep thought. Paul knew this was challenging, and he asked us to carefully think about it. Verse 21 then says, tongues without good interpretation or sign of judgment, they're not something good. Uh, verse 22. Thus, or in this way, uninterpreted tongues are a sign, but prophecy is a more positive thing. It helps. So, if our goal is to bring judgment, just use tongues for unbelievers and prophecy for believers. We'll edify the church, but we'll reject the world in that sense. But the church wants to evangelize, not speak rejection to those who enter it.

46
00:25:52.000 --> 00:26:02.000
Um, the two bad interpretations I'll quickly mention are one, there's, uh, commentaries who just go, well, Paul obviously didn't make sense here. He just doesn't make any sense. He's contradicting himself.

47
00:26:02.000 --> 00:27:10.000
If you study Paul carefully, you'll realize he's a lot smarter than that. You should harmonize. You should seek harmonization. That's how to interpret people and get their nuance and understand their full meaning on things. You should not assume people contradict when there's a possible harmonization. This is not just a bible rule. This is a rule about people in general, just a rule about people in general. Um, mom, you told me to be home by dinnertime, but then you also told me that I could go out and stay over at my friend's house. Which is it, mom, you contradict yourself. Well, the nuance would be. The general rule is be home at dinner time. Today's an exception. Go sleep at, you know, your friend's house. That's just how you interpret human beings to not be, like, annoying and accusing them of contradiction wrongly. Uh, another one that doesn't work is the view that Paul never really wrote that. That doesn't even belong in the Bible. There's no credibility to that statement at all. If you're thinking maybe it doesn't belong, uh, do some research on it. Don't just say that like you need manuscript evidence to show that a verse wasn't original and you don't have that in this case. Nobody even presents it as an option, to my knowledge. So we will go to your guys questions. That was a long one.

48
00:27:10.000 --> 00:27:47.000
Question number two, and this is angelwvm, who says, how should we understand John's rejection of being Elijah and a prophet John 121, while Jesus affirming it. I think this is another one of those examples of where we find nuance instead of assuming contradiction. Um, actually, it's pretty cool to me, especially as a premillennial. Right, the guy. You guys can look up my video on different views of the end times. I'll link it down below. Since I mentioned it. Um, you can understand my view there, whether you agree with it or not. At least you can understand it. So verse 21 of John one, it says here.

49
00:27:47.000 --> 00:28:28.000
And they asked him, what then? Are you Elijah speaking to John? He said, I am not. Are you the prophet? That's the prophet prophesied in deuteronomy. There would be a prophet like Moses who would come, and you'll hear him. They'll be like, sort of the second Moses. Jesus. Is that Jesus? Is that second Moses? Not. Not John? Why does he say he's not Elijah? Well, he's not Elijah. He's John. He's not Elijah. He's not a reincarnation of Elijah. He isn't the person of Elijah. Come back. John was born. We know his mom's Elizabeth. We know he's a cousin of Jesus. He's not Elijah. So, yeah, he says, he's not Elijah.

50
00:28:28.000 --> 00:29:44.000
But when he says, who are you? He says, I'm the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord. As the prophet Isaiah said, so he is someone who was prophesied to come to be a forerunner for the messiah, ultimately to make straight those paths, to prepare the way for the messiah. Now, what did Jesus say about him? Let's look at this. On Matthew 1114, Jesus. Back up a little bit. He, um, says about John the baptizer, truly, I say to you, among those born of women, there has arisen no one greater than John the baptist or the baptizer. A, uh, Baptist is the way we typically do it in English. Um, he's John. The one who baptizes is really what he's saying. Because John was known for doing, telling even Jews they had to be baptized, this one singular baptism where they repent, and then he promised them forgiveness. This is side notes, just the coolest thing ever. I think people miss it. I missed it for years. So, um, John offered people forgiveness through repentance, the washing of their sins. And this was at the Jordan river, far from the temple. It's not through the temple. It wasn't through a sacrifice. It wasn't through anything. And so it leaves this big question, like, John, who do you think you are, offering forgiveness outside the temple, outside the sacrifices, outside the priests?

51
00:29:44.000 --> 00:30:13.000
And then John answers this riddle when he sees Jesus the first time, and he says, behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. And John reveals that this whole thing is, it's not apart from the temple. It's in fulfillment of the temple. There is the greater sacrifice coming. There is the greater high priest coming. There is the one who will build the temple with his own hands. He will die, he will rise. He will create the body of Christ, who is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It's the fulfillment. It's the bigger picture of all that. It's amazing stuff, John.

52
00:30:13.000 --> 00:31:08.000
So Jesus says, yeah, John's like, among people, he's the best. Why? Because he's the very forerunner of Christ. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. What's coming? When you become indwelt by the spirit, when you get saved after the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, after his death and resurrection, the Holy Spirit seals you and indwells you. This is you greater than the greatest, uh, of all the prophets of the Old Testament, not because of your personal great. It's because of the Holy Spirit who is in you in a way that was not possible before. And, of course, the eternal life you have and all that. So then he goes on from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and the violent take it by force. There's a verse we could debate for a long, long time. Uh, for all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. What?

53
00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:21.000
John is Elijah who is to come. And it's just if I'm willing to accept it. And then he closes it with this enigmatic he who has ears to hear, let him hear.

54
00:31:21.000 --> 00:31:28.000
What? What is this? Okay, so all the. Let's unpack it. All the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

55
00:31:28.000 --> 00:32:10.000
John is the culmination, the pinnacle of the law and the prophets. And what does John do? He shows that Jesus is the fulfillment of it all. He's the one. He's the singular one, who, as you repent and believe in him, you will be washed of your sin, because he is the lamb of God. It's just. It's so amazing that God did this. This is, you know, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, well over a thousand years of text being written, this story of Jesus woven through the text of scripture and then culminating in John going, like, being the funnel, who's like, boop. The final, like, finger pointing to Jesus. And if you are willing to accept it, Jesus says he is Elijah who is to come.

56
00:32:10.000 --> 00:33:05.000
Let me give you the short answer I would give you here. Um, John comes in the spirit of Elijah. Not in Elijah's actual spirit, like Elijah's reincarnated. No, no, no. He comes in the spirit of Elijah, meaning that John shows up and does the kind of thing Elijah did and the kind of thing Elijah will do in the future, sort of in the name of Elijah. But he isn't actually Elijah. That's what you get when you combine these. John comes in the same sort of ministry as Elijah, according to the expectation that Elijah would be a forerunner for the messiah. Yet Elijah will, in the future, still show up. He still will come. And in that time, it will be probably actually Elijah. Not a reincarnation, but a reappearance of, like, a resurrected Elijah. I'm guessing that's my interpretation of, uh, it. Let's look at a verse that suggests it. Matthew 1710, 13.

57
00:33:05.000 --> 00:33:32.000
And the disciples asked him, then why did the scribes say that first Elijah must come? He answered, Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come. And they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the son of man will suffer, certainly suffer at their hands. Elijah. Okay. Jesus has two comings. His first coming to save us, and his second coming to take us to himself and take over the world.

58
00:33:32.000 --> 00:34:46.000
Elijah has two as well. One in the form of, uh, in represented in John the Baptist as he proclaims Christ. And is that pinnacle, that final funneling of the law and the prophets pointing to Jesus. Then there is this future time at the second coming when Elijah comes again. Is it literally Elijah or is it someone in the spirit of Elijah? I don't know for sure, okay. I'm not sure. God knows. Maybe, you know, I don't know the answer to that question. But you see how, uh, uh, it's nuanced. And so Jesus prefaces it with, like, if you can accept it, he is Elijah in that sense, who what? Who is to come. There's still a future coming of Elijah. So it's all of the above. That to me, is neat because it lays out, uh, here's what's cool. When you look at the gospels and you see that there are hints that even in the first coming, Jesus talks about his second coming. You realize that some of the, some of the critics are wrong, suggesting that Jesus failed. Jesus was supposed to establish everything in his first coming and it didn't work. And now Jesus himself talks about things like they're going to happen over a long course of time. Look at the parables. I hope that helps you. Question number three. Med says, hi, Mike.

59
00:34:46.000 --> 00:37:32.000
What do we do with some of the earliest listed Bible canons and church fathers that exclude Esther and include Sirach and wisdom of Solomon? I did some work on this a long time ago, Med. Um, and I talked about the jewish, how we got our Hebrew Old Testament or Jewish Old Testament. I will link that video below. I go into more detail on that. This is a complicated and difficult, challenging subject. Um, the fact is that what makes us uncomfortable a lot is in church history, there are debates over different books of the Bible. Even in the New Testament, there were people who debated the book of revelation in particular. They were like, is this scripture? Is it not scripture? And the church sort of settled on the New Testament we have. And on the Old Testament, that's common to Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, that Old Testament, that ultimately the Protestant Old Testament is what's common, generally speaking, to the church. It's also what's common to the jew. Like, that's the same as the Jewish Old Testament. But it's not. It's not. I make it sound simple. It's complicated. So you will see, like, what you're saying, um, church fathers that exclude Esther and include sirach or wisdom of Solomon. So then it gets complicated. So, like, you look at church fathers and you ask questions like, did this church father have the information to know were they in a. So maybe they affirmed. They exclude Esther because it doesn't include references to God. Okay. So people were like, you can see why they go, oh, that's kind of odd. Um, there's other things, too. Other reasons why Esther would be, like, challenged by some. Uh, but it is part of the jewish text of scripture. And, um, Jesus affirmed. I'm saying too many things at once from my own brain here. Jesus affirmed the same structure of the Old Testament as what the Jews had. Jesus affirmed that he actually used. He referred to scripture, he talked about the prophets and the writings, and he uses these special terminology, phrases that refer to sections of the Old Testament. We have the Pentateuch. Right? Now, imagine if Jesus says, in the Pentateuch, God spoke. Well, that would mean Jesus was affirming all of the first five books of the Old Testament. Um, so when he talks about the law and the prophets and the writings, he's affirming sections of scripture as being from God. Esther is in there. Uh, that's the short answer. But you get a, uh, church father who might say, exclude Esther and include, say, wisdom of Solomon. Well, we have a few pushbacks against that. A, did the church father have. Have the perspective where we should trust him on this issue? Did he know Hebrew? Was he familiar with the Hebrew Old Testament? Was he familiar with the jewish canon? There's times where a church father travels to Jerusalem to ask the Jews, what books do you say are scripture?

60
00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:38.000
Because it's not like they could just google it. It's okay. It's understandable for them to not all know everything.

61
00:37:38.000 --> 00:37:46.000
Um, the church fathers who seem to know the best affirm the same Old Testament that we have. Wisdom of Solomon, for instance.

62
00:37:46.000 --> 00:38:02.000
Uh, guaranteed, not written by Solomon, written much later than Solomon, and not included in the Jewish Bible. Now, some would say, well, the Jews took it out so that they could get rid of the christian stuff, read the wisdom of Solomon. That's not the case.

63
00:38:02.000 --> 00:38:05.000
It's not the case.

64
00:38:05.000 --> 00:38:42.000
That's a conspiratorial stuff, but you'd have to prove it. But all this to say my answer is completely insufficient. I'm just helping you dip your toes in it. This is a very long and complicated study because anytime you're looking at what did hundreds and hundreds of different ancient pieces of documents and stuff like that tell us about the nature of the Old Testament, that's challenging. It's an expansive study. It gets nuanced, it gets detailed. Those are some of the things I'd share with you. I feel confident that the Protestant Old Testament is accurate. Um, and even the early councils, people are a little deceptive about this.

65
00:38:42.000 --> 00:39:29.000
The early councils did not all agree on the exact, um, books that we should include in our Bible, so even the New Testament. And so the only time we have in history, the exact, say, Roman Catholic Old Testament, the exact Old Testament Testament, where they have the apocrypha included, the only time we have that in history is the council of, um, uh, Trent, I think it was, where they affirm it. I think it's Trent. Now, I'm just making. I want to make sure that I'm confident about that. I think it was Trent, but it was very, very late. I think it was Trent. Now, some would say, no, no, there were other councils, mike, you're ignoring other councils where they. If you look at the books, not just the names of the books, but what they meant by those names, you'll realize it doesn't actually match totally.

66
00:39:29.000 --> 00:39:48.000
Yes, there's been debate over these issues. Um, that's not. It shouldn't be a surprise. People debate it still today. But I think we can be settled and confident about it personally. I'll link my video below where I talk about how we got our Old Testament. That's at least my effort to do that. Others, I'm sure, have done a better job at it. Um, but it's something I can give you for free.

67
00:39:48.000 --> 00:40:23.000
Number four, Irina says, I struggle reading word for word translations like the eSV. I love the NLT for its simple vocab and how easy it is to understand. Is it unwise to use the NLT to memorize and study? Ps, I've seen your vid on translations. Yeah. Um, I do not think it's unwise to use the new living translation. Um, especially for you, who says this is hard. Here's the thing. You want to go word for word more so you'll understand things better. But if for you, word for word makes you understand it less, it's backfiring. Like, this plan ain't working. Let me give you an example, an extreme example.

68
00:40:23.000 --> 00:40:27.000
The best way to study the Old Testament is just read the Hebrew.

69
00:40:27.000 --> 00:41:20.000
But that's going to backfire for me because I can't just read Hebrew. Just open up the Hebrews and read it and understand it. So the best way would actually be, for me, a very bad way. If you have a hard time understanding a given translation, do it get a different one, for sure. Go with NLT. Um, here's my what I would caution you, no translations, 100% perfect and stuff. The NLT does offer more interpretation in its translation than some others will. I tend to like it. I tend, as I'm reading ago, I affirm that interpretation. I think that was accurate. But you're still getting the more interpretation than you do with some other translations. All of them interpret to a degree. You have to. That's part of translating. But you want people to be transparent about ambiguities. And when a verse, it's unclear what it means. The NLT is probably gonna make it clear, even if it is a little unclear to others.

70
00:41:20.000 --> 00:41:33.000
So here's a couple of caveats. Um, if you come up with something that you think, whoa, that's an insight no one's had or I haven't heard before, and I don't know, it sounds like you're like, that's really cool and special and unique. Double check it with other translations.

71
00:41:33.000 --> 00:41:57.000
Anytime you question, I wonder if this is this translation or if I'm understanding you use others to supplement you. Double check. Check the ESV, check the net, check other translations. Um, that's a healthy thing to do. That's going to be bring benefit to you. So don't exclusively use the NLT, but from your situation, I'd say primarily using it probably sounds like a smart option for you.

72
00:41:57.000 --> 00:42:22.000
Number five, Gilwa says. Hi, Mike. Hi, Gilwa. Thoughts on one Corinthians 619. I hear people use the scripture to call anything they don't like, sin, tattoos, drugs, junk food, et cetera. But it seems it's mostly about sexual immorality. Let's dig into this. First Corinthians, chapter 619, I think it was. Yep. 619.

73
00:42:22.000 --> 00:42:31.000
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price, so glorify God in your body.

74
00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:38.000
Yeah, I've heard this used a lot, actually. I think I've never heard it quoted more than in reference to tattoos.

75
00:42:38.000 --> 00:42:41.000
M.

76
00:42:41.000 --> 00:42:51.000
I think I've heard it in reference to tattoos. You know, the great way to understand a verse like this is to just back up and read a bunch of this chapter.

77
00:42:51.000 --> 00:43:04.000
Let's start with verse one. Read the whole chapter here. And, uh, those of you who are, like, excited. Yeah, let's read the whole chapter. You're my people. That's right. We see eye to eye. All right, first Corinthians, chapter six, verse one.

78
00:43:04.000 --> 00:44:06.000
Um, this is just to get context. When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare to go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more than matters pertaining to this life? So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in your church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law. Law against brother. And that before unbelievers, to have lawsuits, uh, at all with one another is already a defeat for you? Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded, but you yourselves wrong and defraud even your own brothers? Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Before I go there, I'll mention this. Makes me think about the whole Benny Hinn situation I got going on. There's a chance that something will lead to a lawsuit. Not, uh, from me suing him, but from him trying to sue me. I would be. One of the first things I do is say, hey, let's see if we can find a believer to arbitrate this dispute and discuss it.

79
00:44:06.000 --> 00:44:19.000
I don't know if they would agree or if we. If we'd be able to find a legit, solid believer or if it would just be a binihan plant. I'm just being honest with you guys. Um, um, but I would be. I would prefer that option if. If it went to that point.

80
00:44:19.000 --> 00:44:40.000
We'll see. So, um, um, verse nine. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral. Now, here's a list that we should pay attention to. Sexually immoral. That's broad statement of sexual immorality. That's any kind of sex thing. That is not moral.

81
00:44:40.000 --> 00:45:15.000
That's a huge category. Nor idolaters, nor adulterers. Now there's this. Now, to prove that sexual immorality is a broad ranging idea. He specifically mentions adulterers separately, Norman, who practice homosexuality separately. So it's really a very broad idea there. Um, sexual sin is a huge issue in human nature. Our culture doesn't realize. We don't realize that, uh, sex is sacred. It's a. It's a wonderful beautiful, sacred, special thing. You don't do that with it. You don't do this with it. You just do what God designed it for, and then it's wonderful and to be celebrated and enjoyed and all that good stuff.

82
00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:21.000
Sorry. Getting a text from my assistant, which means something's probably wrong.

83
00:45:21.000 --> 00:45:24.000
She said verse 19.

84
00:45:24.000 --> 00:45:28.000
Yes, I'm getting there. Just getting there slowly.

85
00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:36.000
Um. Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor sweet swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

86
00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:38.000
All that stuff. Even greedy.

87
00:45:38.000 --> 00:46:00.000
Wow. And such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the spirit of our God. So these are sins that were, like, on you. The ick of these sins were on you, and you were washed, and you were sanctified. Remember this, because later we'll get to, like the verse in verse 19 that talks about glorifying God with your body. I think he's referring to these things.

88
00:46:00.000 --> 00:46:23.000
Glorify God with your body. You were washed, you were sanctified. So some of these things are probably included in that. Glorify God with your body. It's like, you're not going to do this stuff. That's like, all of the above tattoos is not on the list, by the way, verse twelve. Um, all things are lawful for me, you might say. It's funny that this question comes up and I just was talking about this in question one. But not all things are helpful.

89
00:46:23.000 --> 00:47:23.000
Yeah, you can do that stuff like drinking. Uh, is lawful for a Christian to do. But is it helpful? Is your drinking habit helpful? Is it bringing help to your life or harm to your life? Let's ask those questions, too, because it's not just about what I'm technically allowed to do, it's about honoring God with my body. All things are lawful for me, sure. But I won't be dominated by anything. Is the thing I'm doing becoming an addiction? There's people like, let's take tattoos, who are, like, addicted to tattoos, and they start, and it really is an unhealthy habit, whether I'm, um, supposed to say that or not, by culture standards, I don't care. Our culture standards are wrong. We should say the things that bother the culture sometimes, um, for their own sakes, to help them realize it. So, yeah, I don't want to be dominated by those things. It's not helpful. I've had kids ask me about getting tattoos, teens as a youth pastor, and my recommendation was, um, you know, if you do decide to get one. Get one where you can easily cover it up. Why would I say that? Because it, uh, may not be helpful.

90
00:47:23.000 --> 00:48:01.000
You're like, well, I don't. I don't. You're 18 and you're thinking, I don't care. I don't need it. I don't need the kind of job that doesn't want me to have a tattoo that's visible. I don't care about that job. And I'm like, no, you're just. You're just sort of short, short sighted. Most of us are doing things we didn't think we'd do when we were 18. Right. You know, at an older age, you're like, it's probably not helpful to do that. Well, my grandma hates tattoos. I'm gonna get anyway. She said she'll never talk to me again. Well, that doesn't seem very helpful to your life. It's not very helpful. There's a good reason not to. That has nothing to do with saying that they're inherently sinful. And, um, I have a video on tattoos I'll link below. I don't mean to talk too much about them. I'm just trying to find examples to apply. I'll link my video below that talks about it in more detail.

91
00:48:01.000 --> 00:48:20.000
Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food. That's the quote. And Paul's like, yeah, but God's going to destroy both one and the other. And so, yes, you don't just look at. I'm just going to be sort of a glutton because food. This is what food's for. It's meant to make me feel good and enjoy it. Yes, but you have a responsibility to God that trumps all those things. The body.

92
00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:51.000
Remember, honor God with your body. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord. And the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up, uh, by his power. This is like a deeply theological statement here about your body has theological importance. It's not just the. Okay. The Bible uses the word the flesh. It doesn't mean all your physical body is evil. The flesh refers to, like, our sinful desires that are associated with this world, with our unsaved state. That's what it means. It doesn't mean your physical body is bad.

93
00:48:51.000 --> 00:49:22.000
It's corrupted, but its corruption will be. It'll be remade. And so this is super neat because the body is something that God has made, that he made to be good. It became corrupted, and he's going to raise it up raise up your body just like he raised up Jesus's body. This. This body will be remade, but it will be this body. And I will serve and live for the Lord, for eternity in this body. So I want to live out all that I do in the things I say, in the places I go and the things I touch, in the stuff I do with my body. I want to honor God. I want to honor God.

94
00:49:22.000 --> 00:52:36.000
So it's bigger than tattoos and, um, verse 14. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Look, the importance of the body, of the human body is big. In church history, they've often devalued the human body. They've often thought it was pious to like to think less of human bodies. The, uh, Bible teaches us to think more of the human body. Not to think that your body's inherently holy. No. Like I said, it has corruption. But to think very highly of its value and of its importance. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? When you. When you sleep with the prostitute, you're taking the body that belongs to Jesus, and you're doing that with it. That. That's the context. Never. Or do you not know that he who's joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For as it is written, the two will become one flesh? This is the theology of the physical body. It's actually really important stuff we missed today. But he who's joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits, uh, is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Then verse 19. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you whom you have from God? You are not your own. You were bought with a price. Imagine the price Jesus paid for you. So glorify God in your body. The primary application is sexual immorality in this verse. All that being said, sexual immorality is the number one application of honoring God with your body. There's other applications. He mentioned earlier. Greed and drunkenness and all that stuff. It's all those things. That's the major application. So back to your question right here. Gilwa, you said, I hear people use the scripture to call anything they don't like sin. Tattoos, drugs, junk food, etcetera. Junk food, in moderation, is not sin. But excess, gluttony, abuse is not helpful for me. It's harmful to my health. It's, um. It's got me under its power because that's the gluttony thing. Um, nope, not. Okay. Honor God with your body. Could apply to junk food, depending, uh, drugs. Inherently, you lose sobriety when you take certain drugs. Drugs that inherit that cause you to lose a sober mind. Even drinking to the point of being intoxicated, those things are a loss of sobriety. That's something the Bible is very clear about. That's where you're under its power, and it's not healthy for you, as I said earlier in first corinthians six, so it can apply to those things. Tattoos, I think, are in the same category. They're not inherently bad, just like alcohol is not inherently bad, just like drugs are not inherently bad. Now, you might be thinking, so I can do some cocaine. No, no, no. I didn't say cocaine. I said drugs. You. You could take a headache medicine, or you could even go under anesthesia in these certain circumstances. Anesthesia. Talk about not being sober minded. You're unconscious. But that's a healthy, understandable medical use. Real medical use, not a. My back hurts. I got a license for this. That's. Yeah, your fake medical stuff is not fooling anybody. Real medical stuff. Legitimate uses of drugs, um, non medicinal. Non legitimate uses of drugs that then get you intoxicated cause you lose your sobriety, are physically unhealthy for you or put you into bondage to that thing. That's all off the table for christians. So it can apply to those things. But it is number one about sexual immorality.

95
00:52:36.000 --> 00:53:01.000
Uh, number six, liberty. Lisa, can you explain genesis five one through three? Why is it different with the birth of Seth? Are we still God's image bearers? Thanks for all you do binged on your four hour video. Oh, cool. That was probably the Benny Hinn video given when your comments coming in here. Liberty. Lisa. So I'm glad you did. Let's look at genesis five one through three.

96
00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:19.000
This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God, male and female. He created them, and he blessed them and named them man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness after his image and named him Seth.

97
00:53:19.000 --> 00:54:04.000
Um, why is Seth said to be in the image of Adam and not in the image of God? I think it's, um. Let me read it to you. If it said it the other way around, if it said that Seth was in the image of God, let me read it to you that way and tell me how you, or at least think about how you think this would land with you. What theology would you be learning if the bible had written it differently? I'll just read it, and I'll just see if I can make up the verse in this alternate, wrong way, just for a thought exercise. So when God created man, he made him in the likeness of God, male and female. He created them, he blessed them and named them man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in the likeness of God after God's image and named him Seth.

98
00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:11.000
It would hit different, right? It would affirm that Seth was in God's image, but it would also affirm something, maybe more than that.

99
00:54:11.000 --> 00:54:22.000
It would almost affirm that Adam was actually God, that God had made another God called man, and that man had then made something that was also the same as God.

100
00:54:22.000 --> 00:54:52.000
And so that we're just sort of like God's duplicating himself, that would. It would be. We'd be open to that interpretation. Now, we know that in Genesis, God continues to affirm that even Seth and everyone who comes after Adam is still in the image of God. Let me see if I can find the verse. Um, while I'm scrolling fast, I don't want to make your eyes bleed. Um, in Genesis nine.

101
00:54:52.000 --> 00:55:44.000
Yeah. Um, so from verse five of Genesis nine, for your lifeblood, I will require a reckoning from every beast. I will require it. And from man, from his fellow man, I will require a reckoning for the life of a man. This is about the death penalty for people who commit murder. Whoever sheds the blood of man by man, his blood will be shed for God made man in his own image. So this man can't just be in reference to Adam. It has to be in reference to the. To the man whose blood was shed. Uh, otherwise, the verse doesn't make any sense. It uses the word man three times. It's the same kind of being every three. Every. All three times, man is still in the image of God. Even after the fall, even after the flood, man is still in the image of God, and it's the basis for the death penalty for people, uh, who commit murder.

102
00:55:44.000 --> 00:56:03.000
Um, so, yeah, Seth is definitely in God's image in the sense that Adam was. But when Adam reproduces Seth and Seth is in his own image, it sort of affirms a separation between Adam and God. Right. Adam's not a new God. He's a man who's made in God's image, and he produces another man, not a God being.

103
00:56:03.000 --> 00:56:10.000
I think that's how I would explain it. Um, and I hope that's right, you guys can think about it.

104
00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:14.000
Obese Koala has a question.

105
00:56:14.000 --> 00:56:29.000
Great YouTube name there. What are your thoughts on deja vu, and are there any examples in the Bible? What are your thoughts on deja vu, and are there any examples in the Bible? Did you see what I did there? I was just. I only entertained myself when I did that.

106
00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:39.000
I've definitely had times, obese koala says where I had the feeling of being somewhere before. When? Before when it was the first time being there.

107
00:56:39.000 --> 00:56:47.000
Yeah. Um, I can only speak to my own experience of deja vu in my life, what we call deja vu. And here's how it is for me.

108
00:56:47.000 --> 00:57:00.000
Um, I used to get it all the time. It's very rare now, for whatever reason. Um, but I used to have it all the time, especially when I was young. And I would get this really strong sense that everything that was happening was something that happened in the past.

109
00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:11.000
And I was a superstitious young guy, and I wasn't really grounded in scripture, I don't think, uh, was I saved. I don't remember how old I was. I was very young.

110
00:57:11.000 --> 00:57:33.000
And I remember I did an experiment because this is just the way my brain works. I did an experiment where I thought, when this happens, I want to know if I'm remembering. Like, am I predicting the future? Like, I know what's going to happen before it happens, or am I just, like, memories that are happening in the moment are getting, like, stuck in the wrong part of my brain, so they feel like not new memories, but they feel like old memories, and how would I know?

111
00:57:33.000 --> 00:58:15.000
So I did my little experiment, which was, the next time it happens, I'm going to try and predict what's about to happen. I'm going to try and in the moment, think, okay, I'm feeling that sense of deja vu. Uh, what's about to happen next? Is it a red car is going to drive by? Is it someone's going to come out and tell me to come in for dinner? What's going to happen? And I was never able to do that. I couldn't predict what would happen next, but whatever happened next, I felt like I already knew it was going to happen, even though I couldn't predict it. To me, this was confirmation that deja vu, at least in my case, was just like a memory getting stuck in the wrong spot, you know, something feeling old when it was really new. And that was enough for me. Um, there's people who I've heard say no. I can predict stuff. And, I mean, I admit I'm skeptical that you really can.

112
00:58:15.000 --> 00:58:25.000
I, um, like to see it happen. Maybe you could. It's possible. I'm just saying I'm skeptical, and my own experience makes me kind of skeptical about that, because my experience of what you're describing doesn't work that way.

113
00:58:25.000 --> 00:58:35.000
Deja vu is my guess is it's just a weird anomaly, something that happens with. With, uh, how we process our memories or something like that.

114
00:58:35.000 --> 00:59:14.000
Um, it could also be that you're remembering something happened that happened that was similar to this event. Something's happening that's reminding you of something from your past. And it's not the same, but it feels like a memory that could even be an explanation. I don't know. Is it prophetic? Is it from God? I don't think so. I don't believe so. I think that when prophecy happens and when something, God's revealing something, it's not like this sort of cutesy little, like, I knew that that tv was gonna turn off. I, uh, mean, it's not like that. You know what I mean? It's that seems kind of petty and weak and no reason to tie it to God. And people all around the world talk about it, so I wouldn't have a reason to think it was somehow connected to the work of the Holy Spirit.

115
00:59:14.000 --> 00:59:51.000
In regards to, like, some gifting or some work of God, I think we should probably move away from the superstitious understanding of that. Okay. That's all my opinion. That's my two cent. What does scripture say about deja vu? It says specifically that God is the one who can predict the future. And that that is a divine attribute, a divine quality. This is actually a really big deal. In the book of Isaiah, when God talks about his ability to predict the future, I declare a thing that has not yet happened, and then it comes to pass. And then he's like, no one else can do this. Who? Who else can do this? Who among the gods, the false gods can do this? Nobody. I do this.

116
00:59:51.000 --> 01:00:30.000
True prophecy. True prophecy. Where? And by which I mean supernatural foreknowledge, not causation. Where I say I will stop the stream at, uh, 241, and then I stop the stream at 240. That's not prophecy. I'm just predicting what I'm going to do. But real prophecy, divine, supernatural prophecy. This seems to be something only God does. Like, Satan doesn't do it. He can try to orchestrate events. He could say something's gonna happen and then make it happen and it would look like prophecy, but it would be false. I'm talking about true prophecy where, where God is not just able to force an event to happen, but in full knowledge and control of all future events.

117
01:00:30.000 --> 01:00:38.000
I feel like I said that in a clumsy way, but I think you get the main point. I probably reword it to be more careful because I'm thinking of, well, actually I probably should said this anyway.

118
01:00:38.000 --> 01:01:00.000
That's a special thing that God does. So for people to walk around thinking, I just sort of know the future randomly and it's not God and it's sort of purposeless. This does not seem consistent with that biblical concept that prophecy is in the sense of future predicting is something that is divine.

119
01:01:00.000 --> 01:02:29.000
So I reject dejavu. All right, number eight. Uh, hey, Mike, this is from cell. Hey, Mike, could you talk a little on what is not gluttony? Is it just eating more than what you need? Or is there more involved eating challenges? Oh, that's interesting question because the Internet's blowing up with these eating challenges right now. Um, people eating massive quantities of food and then it gets complicated because some of them, I've seen these, okay, some of them. Anyways, um, some of these are these like, they call them mukbang or mukbang. I can't do the, the accent well, but Mukbang videos where somebody stuffs themselves and in many cases they're eating excessively for no reason, really bad food. Uh, many cases are just spitting the food out. It's fake. They're not really eating. You know, you don't actually see them, uh, swallowing and eating. And these videos are gross to me. But then there's like the sort of more on the more and the, I think, I don't know if girls like watching those videos more. I don't know why, but seems to be the case. And then guys like watching the videos where it's like competitive eaters going into like, restaurants. I have to eat a 7000 pound burger and doing that kind of stuff. And these guys, some of them are overweight and unhealthy and you're like, you're going to die of a heart attack. That would obviously be a, uh, sinful practice for them. What about the guy who like, fasts all the time and then he just has one giant meal and you're like, you sort of ate the same amount of food. You just did it in one sitting, made a video about it, put it online. You were able to make a career out of that, but you fasted and then feasted but it balanced out so that you're actually healthy.

120
01:02:29.000 --> 01:02:34.000
Okay. I wouldn't come against that personally. That wouldn't seem like gluttony to me.

121
01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:47.000
I also would say that, um, occasional, uh, overeating is not sin. And I think I have a biblical warrant for this, because in scripture, God tells the Israelites to. He gives them feasts.

122
01:02:47.000 --> 01:02:49.000
Feasts.

123
01:02:49.000 --> 01:03:26.000
And, uh, I say occasional overeating. I don't mean like, psycho binge eating where you eat so much, you're like, something's wrong inside my body. But I mean, you eat more than you need and you enjoy it, and you have a good time, and you have, like, a Thanksgiving meal, and you kind of get stuffed and you're sort of laying there, like, zoning out. But if you do this on a regular basis, then it's a habit of behavior that itself is unhealthy. So God gives the Israelites feasts. It seems as though they probably would eat pretty good portions in those moments, but that if they did it all the time, that gluttony, unlike drunkenness, like drunkenness, don't get drunk, period. Gluttony, it seems to me it's not just don't overeat ever.

124
01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:36.000
It seems as though it's more like don't overeat frequently. And let's say you eat a whole lot one day, then you'd eat less the next day. And you try to balance this out so that you're not getting obese.

125
01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:39.000
It's very unhealthy to be obese.

126
01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:45.000
Um, it will shorten your life. It will add to tons and tons of medical problems in your life.

127
01:03:45.000 --> 01:04:47.000
The physical shame. A lot of people, when they're overweight, they're upset about the appearance and the shame that they feel from others. I'm not really interested in casting a bunch of shame. It's kind of weird that being overweight is so somebody could be doing all kinds of sins in the closet that nobody would know about. But the person who's overweight, everywhere they go, everybody knows. And that's this weird imbalance. And so a, uh, spotlight seems to be on them in a way that's unhealthy, that's hurtful, that. All that stuff. But the practice itself of overeating and becoming very unhealthy and physically, like, super fat, to be honest, is definitely something that is a sinful, compromised thing. It's not the same as someone who beats their child. Okay, that's worse. But it is something that is, like, that's not godly, that's not healthy. And gluttony is called out as a specific sin in the Bible. Now, I have not done a full study on glutton. Here's what I'd like to do, and I don't know when on. Please don't take this as an announcement. It may not happen for years. I don't know. I have so many things I want to do. If I told you everything, you would. Your head would spin. Um, all the things I'd like to do.

128
01:04:47.000 --> 01:06:05.000
I'd love to do a study on gluttony where I go into the first century documents and the old, older stuff than that even. And look at where they use the word gluttony and how they describe it, so that I understand really in a robust fashion. What did the Bible mean when it said gluttony? What I've done here is I've just offered a few insights. The first corinthians six passage we referenced today, which, by God's grace, has come up multiple times. I can just refer to it now. Um, is this eating healthy? For me, not all things are helpful. Is this healthy? Are my eating habits healthy? That's important because the body does matter. Read all of one corinthians six again. The body really does matter. Is it healthy? Number two, is it bringing me under its power? Am I showing, uh, addictive food behaviors? Then I need to back off. And don't get discouraged. Don't you dare. That keeps you trapped in this stuff. You need to get encouraged in what the proper use of food is and know where proper enjoyment can be and proper restraint can be and work on that. Um, so the unhealthiness of it, the power that it can bring you under, the fact that the Bible really explicitly calls out gluttony as a specific sin, even in one corinthians six where it says, your body belongs to the Lord, that's a big deal. So there were things like roman feasts where people would, um, shove a bunch of food in their mouths, then throw up, binge and purge so they could eat more.

129
01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:42.000
That would seem to obviously be classed as gluttony. But someone who goes to Thanksgiving and they eat more than usual that day, and then, like, the next day, they're like, I'm going to lay off the calories today to try to balance things out. Like, I don't think that that is much of as much of an issue, unlike drunkenness, where you can't be like, I'll just get totally drunk Tuesday and Wednesday. I'll just be real sober all day, and that'll balance it out. Like, that's not how it works with alcohol, so. So, yeah. Um, more should be said on this. I know gluttony is a massive problem in the church, especially in the western world, where we have such free access to such unhealthy food and low, uh, nutrition, high calorie products.

130
01:06:42.000 --> 01:06:50.000
It's a big issue. Right. I'm just not capable of tackling every issue in the world. It needs to be addressed one day. I'd love to, um.

131
01:06:50.000 --> 01:06:54.000
I'm not afraid to talk about it. I just don't want to misspeak, so I don't want to say too much.

132
01:06:54.000 --> 01:08:24.000
Yeah, I hope that helps somewhat. All right. Bear oven says, how do I know when my competitiveness is sinful? I coach baseball and want to ensure. Oh, let me back up one more thing on gluttony. Scripture says, this is in the back of my head here. Scripture says multiple times. Things about God giving them, like, a land flowing with milk and honey. These are. These are sweets, right? Honey, that's just like, you don't need that nutritionally, really. This is like sugar. He's like, I'm giving you a land with sugar. Okay. It's not bad to enjoy sweets and good food. That's not what I'm saying. Um, he gives them all. There's all sorts of texts in scripture that talk about, like, good food and enjoyable things to eat. So food is meant to be enjoyable. It's meant to be something good. It just don't want it to turn into something sinful is all I'm m saying. Number nine. Bear oven. How do I know when my competitiveness is sinful? I coach baseball and want to ensure I'm providing the right model of competition for. For the players while also still being as competitive as possible. That's a big challenge. Bear oven. Um, that's a big challenge. Um, so I don't know if I have the right answer for you. I'll give you some things to think about. And, um, one of the things that occurs to me is love is the command for christians to always be thinking of. And if I lose the game, let's say here's a scenario. Here's how I know my competitiveness has gotten wrong. If I play my best, I competed at my highest level. They competed, and they beat me, and I'm bitter.

133
01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:28.000
Something sinful has happened in my heart.

134
01:08:28.000 --> 01:10:46.000
I understand feeling disappointed that my team will not continue to go forward. But if that disappointment is actually bitterness, anger, a sense of entitlement. That I deserve something I didn't get that kind of thing. Um, wrath at my other players, that kind of thing. That's when competitiveness seems to have gone too far. Because if. Here's the thing. If I love the other team, I can actually celebrate their victory while I'm also bummed out that I lost. And if I can't celebrate their victory, if I can't walk down and give them genuine handshake, hey, you know, congratulations, good job. Then, um, maybe that implies that my competitiveness has become selfish. I'm not just trying to do my best to perform because I have high standards and I'm trying to, like, learn good character and, uh, uh, just. There's something morally good about working as hard as you can to achieve something. It's not just that. It's. It's me wanting more. I'm more attention and more. More, like, higher in the ranks for myself, and it becomes this sort of narcissistic thing. Instead of I want to pull out of me all that I have to give, it's, I want to. I want to. I want to use my skills to draw to me attention and glory and fame and whatever. Whatever else I want. Uh, that sense of superiority over others, that's competitiveness. When. When competitiveness ruins my love for the people I'm competing with, that's when it's become a sinful problem, I think would be my. My short answer to that. Easier said than done. You know, I haven't coached. When in youth ministry, we play games, and if I had a team and we're doing games and my team would lose, I had another leader who was always like, let's change the teams up so that they're even, so that we can kind of have, like, win loss. And that would work. That wouldn't be wrong. My tendency, though, if I was on the losing team, was like, no, no, no, I'm going to teach them how to lose. Let's. Let's have fun losing. Let's work it. Do as hard as we can. Let's, you know, whatever game we're playing, zombie tag or something, let's do something and let's have as much fun. Let's just work hard at it, and let's enjoy even if we lose. And I thought that that was a super valuable life lesson, so it was worth, like, like, keeping the losing team together anyway. All right, question number ten. This is James Burns, who says, I heard that the word translated apostasy in two corinthians, two three can also be translated as departed as in the end will not come until the departing or the rapture comes first. Do you think this is true?

135
01:10:46.000 --> 01:11:14.000
Big question. For those of you who know, that's like a big question. A lot of stuff. Um, okay, I'm going to give you a few thoughts on this. I don't know, start off with a disappointing. I don't actually know the answer to this question, not for some. Some who watch me. And you're maybe a little more cynical. You. You're. You're perhaps thinking. Mike says, I don't know when he's afraid to give his answer. I never do that, ever.

136
01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:23.000
Um, if I don't want to give an answer because I don't like the impact it'll have, I'll tell people that I don't want to answer this question. I don't think it's gonna be helpful for people or something.

137
01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:35.000
Um, when I say I don't know, I literally mean I don't know. How could I possibly give an answer when I don't know the answer? That would be rude, arrogant, hurtful, um, to you. I would effectively be lying to you, pretending I know things I don't know.

138
01:11:35.000 --> 01:12:26.000
Second. Thessalonians two, three. Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day will not come. That day will not come until. Unless the rebellion comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. So that word here, ESV, has rebellion. Look at it here in the new King James. The falling away comes first. And the man of sin is revealed here in the NIv. That day will not come until the rebellion it uses again. Um, I'm curious what the revised standard version does. The revised standard is like. Some people consider it really good. It leans kind of liberal. Uh, that's a really heavy term, but it kind of like that in different ways. Uh, at any rate, leans kind of not modern. Woke us. I'm not like that. But anyway, um, unless the rebellion comes first. So, like, maybe rebellion is like a favored term for a lot of these translations.

139
01:12:26.000 --> 01:13:14.000
Um, there are some who would apply this to the rapture, and they would say it refers to something else. I wonder. This is really hazardous. I'm going to try it. If I could do a quick look at the Greek. I usually take a long time to look at this stuff. I have to be careful with it. Um, this is a, ah, resource called bdag. Uh, is basically considered a very reliable resource on Greek and for the New Testament in particular. So they study like, these terms used. So the word used in the Greek is apostasia. Apostasia as in apostate is our english word that we. That we kind of derive from this. It doesn't mean that apostasia means apostate. That's not what it means. But the word here in the Greek is apostasia.

140
01:13:14.000 --> 01:13:20.000
The one word in the New Testament, I would affirm is referring to an event where we're caught up in. In the air to be with the lord.

141
01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:35.000
Is not the word rapturous or rapture. It's the word harpazo in Greek. In Latin, it becomes rapturous, and then that comes into our English as rapture. Anyway, apostasia. Here, a form quotable since. And he, uh.

142
01:13:35.000 --> 01:13:42.000
I might have that book, is that Diodorus?

143
01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:51.000
Oh, I have, and it doesn't matter. Okay, sorry. This is what happens. I get distracted. Uh, defiance of established system or authority. Rebellion, abandonment, breach of faith. Faith.

144
01:13:51.000 --> 01:13:59.000
That is the general definition given. BdaG does not have a big entry here. It doesn't give, like, you know, use a, use b, use c, use d.

145
01:13:59.000 --> 01:16:03.000
But it does say this as the general definition of the term. And let's see if it refers to second thessalonians here, of the rebellion caused by the lawless one in the last days. Second thessalonians two, three, offering some context, suggesting that basically, because second thessalonians. We're back there now, second thessalonians, um, that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first, the apostasia comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, that the rebellion is associated with the man of lawlessness. Right? The man who's lawless, the Antichrist. Ultimately, he is leading a rebellion. And that's the context of the verse. Okay. While I don't know exactly what the falling away is or the apostasy is, it seems on a cursory examination, it's not likely referring to a rapture. I would have to have a really good case for this. Referring to the rapture, I have to admit this. The guy who's grown up with a. With. I say grown up. I didn't really. I, um, didn't really get introduced to the rapture theology and stuff. I was, like, 1920. But from that point on, you know, when I was really then heavily involved in church, um, and, uh, then I was being taught that theology. And I found, as many of you have found, that some of the verses that have been used to support the rapture, you look at it closely and you go, that's not about the rapture. It doesn't mean that the whole doctrine is wrong, but like, that's not about the rapture. That's not about the rapture. And that's happened to a number of those verses. And it's unsettled me on that doctrine to the point where I would say, I don't know what I would say is going to be, I'm on the fence on the topic. One day, probably 500 years from now, I'll do a video where I talk about it in detail and I have a whole little study project and I work on it and share everything. And then, um. And the thing is, I know that that would go like, viral if I did a video on the Rapture. I know it would. I don't care. Uh, I have a whole bunch of priorities in my mind that don't match everybody else's. Forgive me if I don't produce the content that you're thinking I should. I have to make. I have to juggle things and make decisions sometimes. I spend a lot of time on a video I know will not get that many views because I think it's important.

146
01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:08.000
And then I don't do the Rapture video, which I know would be viral instantly.

147
01:16:08.000 --> 01:16:27.000
At any rate, um, it's understandable why some people go, some of these verses that we've heard used for this don't seem wrong, don't seem right. At the same time, at the same time, that idea that we're caught up in the air to meet the Lord, that seems totally solid. And that's where I'm at on that. The timing of when it happens, completely on the fence on that.

148
01:16:27.000 --> 01:17:29.000
Maybe leaning slightly away from pre trib, to be honest. Okay, I said too much. Um. All right, you guys, thank you so much for being here. I'd like to close this in prayer. Uh, Father, I pray, um, for my brothers and sisters who care about eschatology and end times and the coming of Jesus and the timing of events, like being caught up in the air to be with the Lord. I pray that you'd help us to have a gracious attitude towards one another, that we would lovingly embrace each other in Christ. When we disagree on secondary tertiary things, that it's okay to talk about it, to even, even argue about it a little bit, but in a gracious way, we pray that you'd help us to be one. Despite some of our different views about when the second coming is, what the rapture is and when it happens, um, whether the tribulation is future or even sort of a past event. Um, we just pray that you'd help us to be loving and gracious, to exhibit the unity that Jesus Christ has given us on those issues in Jesus name. All right, y'all, thank you for joining. See you next week where I'll be tackling. Oh, check this out. Your preview.

149
01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:49.000
I hope next week to. For the first question, the Q and a analyze the question of what did jesus m mean when he said to get swords? He told the disciples to buy swords. What did he mean by that? I've been studying this a lot because I'm doing a little side project on pacifism for something that is not going to go online any time remotely soon. Um.

150
01:17:49.000 --> 01:18:30.000
But, uh. But I'm studying that and the two swords thing. I devoted like, a real study season for this. And, uh, I'm gonna share, hopefully next week I'll share some conclusions on that, some different options on that, and we'll talk about it. So, lord bless you. Have a good one.