WEBVTT

1
00:00:10.000 --> 00:01:31.000
And we're live. There we go. Can we get on screen? Uh, hey, guys. Happy Friday. If it's Friday in your time zone, for many of you, it is. And today is a q and A. We're going to take your questions from the live chat as I do every Friday at 01:00 p.m. approximately Pacific time, California time. And I take ten questions, trying to give you biblical answers, thoughtful answers, hopefully from scripture, to try to deal with your questions. And the first question up today, by the way, my name is Mike Winger, is from Jeremy from Texas, who says, considering John 322 and four two, it's about a supposed contradiction in the Bible. Did Jesus himself baptize others or not? Did Jesus baptize people or did he not? Which one is it? John seems to indicate both, is the question. And Jeremy, uh, from Texas, offers clarification that I think is very, very important. Very important. And this is why I thought this is a good question to start with. A Mormon brought this up to me, he says, and the only thing I could think of was that John 322 wasn't actually saying Jesus baptized, perhaps only that he oversaw the baptisms. Any insight? Thanks so much for what you do. And then you spoke kindly of my ministry, and I'm grateful for that. Jeremy, let's look at these verses. This is a supposed contradiction, but what I want to focus on after I just look at the verses is, why would a Mormon bring this up? Doesn't Mormon theology teach that the Bible is God's word?

2
00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:57.000
Why would a Mormon go to a Christian and try to bring a supposed contradiction? To suggest that the Bible is contradictory? What is the motive there? And that is where there is a gold nugget here that we all need to absorb. And I'm going to apply this to Mormonism, M. Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, progressive Christianity, Roman Catholicism, and then we'll talk about how Jesus handled these things. Anyways, you will get there. We will get there together. It'll be a wonderful little journey. Here's John 322.

3
00:01:57.000 --> 00:02:07.000
After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the, into the judean countryside. This is after Jesus is baptized. And he remained there with them and was baptizing.

4
00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:41.000
So Jesus was baptizing people. It says here, but if you look down a little further and we go to John four two, the question mentioned this verse. It says, although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples. Now, if you take John 322 and John four two and you cram them together, you go, says Jesus baptized. And here it says, Jesus did not baptize contradiction. Here's why this is not a contradiction. First off, what we have to recognize is that the authors of texts are usually intelligent people. They're not like, mindless fools.

5
00:02:41.000 --> 00:03:09.000
This is actually really important that I bring this up, okay? I'm not. This is not sarcasm. This is just wisdom. In reading anything you ever read. A lot of people don't read the Bible like the way they read any other book. It's inspired. You should read it like it's God's word, but you should read it the way you read any book, in the sense that you just look for things in context. You let the author clarify his points. Um, the phrase, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. You could call that a contradiction. But if you read this book carefully, you go, no, no, no. He's saying both of those things are true.

6
00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:24.000
Now, Jesus is being discussed in John three, and if we think the author is not a fool, we say, it says, jesus baptized, and then later he clarifies. It wasn't him specifically doing the baptisms physically. It was his disciples doing it.

7
00:03:24.000 --> 00:04:05.000
There's no contradiction. This seems like the easiest contradiction to resolve in the world. It's also in the same book, like the same author wrote both. To give him an ounce of intelligence would be to suggest that he knows he's not contradicting himself. He's trying to teach us something else, giving us more details. But if you look at John four one, you'll see that even here, in the same, like, sentence, he says it. When Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, here, the author of John is like, hey, I'm going to affirm again that Jesus was baptizing people. But now let me go ahead and clarify in verse two, although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples.

8
00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:23.000
Okay, so we have the clarity. Jesus, the baptism was under the authority of Jesus. It was under the method of Jesus. It was into the preaching and teaching and belief of the things that Jesus was saying, that he was. They were. So Jesus was baptized with his authority. His disciples were doing it in his name, so to speak.

9
00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:39.000
But he wasn't physically baptizing people. Very interesting thing. Uh, maybe to avoid later division, later people claiming that they had certain authority. Claims because they were. I was baptized by Jesus directly, that kind of thing. But at any rate, that's an easy, easy, easy contradiction to resolve.

10
00:04:39.000 --> 00:05:17.000
You totally hit on it, Jeremy from Texas. You totally hit on it. You nailed it right away. You just read it in context. The Mormon who you're talking about has not read it in context. They probably just be real. They probably googled Bible contradictions and then they saw that one. They grabbed those verses and threw them up. They didn't read John and go, I found a contradiction. Because no reasonable person, let's be real here, no reasonable individual would read John and think that that was a contradiction. This is actually very common in the ancient world and it's also common today as well. If I. If we say, uh, Bush invaded Iraq, President Bush invaded Iraq. We don't mean he was on the ground.

11
00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:30.000
You could clarify in parentheses. Not he himself, but the military that he is the head of did that. Right? Because he. Because the, you know, the president of the US is in charge of the military of the US.

12
00:05:30.000 --> 00:06:21.000
Don't forget to hydrate, y'all. Um, that's normal in modern language, too. We do this all the time. Um, you know, we speak of, say, YouTube is, you know, the CEO of YouTube does something. We'll say, uh, before it was Susan something, I don't remember her name. We would say she did this, but actually she told other people to do it, to make these changes or make these alterations and stuff like that. We give the people in charge credit. The Bible does this, too. It says Herod slaughtered the babies in Bethlehem. Do you think Herod went to Bethlehem? No, of course not. This is him being in control of and issuing an order that other people, you know, went and did in his name. All right, but why? Why would a Mormon bring up this verse? Why would a Mormon try to. Why would a Mormon who believes that the Bible is God's holy word, at least this is something they claim to believe.

13
00:06:21.000 --> 00:06:26.000
Why would they then bring up a supposed contradiction when talking to a Christian?

14
00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:35.000
Because this is, uh, clearly an attempt to get out from underneath all of those verses of the Bible that refute their theology.

15
00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:47.000
There's lots of scripture that refutes their theology. The idea that you can become as God, the idea that you had a pre existence, the idea that Jesus is your older brother and not the God from all eternity.

16
00:06:47.000 --> 00:08:00.000
All those types of things. The definition and doctrine, the way they describe the Trinity is not a biblical thing. There's all these verses that go against their views, the way that they combine works and faith in their doctrine of salvation in a way that actually undermines faith. Romans eleven six. Hey, if you combine works into faith, it's no longer grace. You're being saved by. You're rejecting grace. This is a very dangerous spiritually dangerous practice. But if you can say, well, romans eleven six maybe was translated wrong, romans eleven six is unreliable. Romans eleven six, I don't have to, you know, I don't have to trust your interpretation of it for whatever reason. If you can say these things, you can get out from underneath all of these verses that are proving you wrong. This is not just a Mormon thing. So Mormons do it, Jehovah's Witnesses do it, Islam does it, progressive christians do it. Roman Catholicism does a different version of it. I'll specify in a second. Um, and Jesus never did this, the apostles never did this. We can look real quick. I'll just briefly sketch an example of how the Bible refutes this treatment of the Bible, because, and this is the cool thing, the fact that we have an Old and a New Testament, we can see how the New Testament treats the old, and we can realize that that's how we should treat the new and the old as well. It's, uh, giving us a good example of how to handle and deal with the word of God.

17
00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:48.000
So Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Islam, progressive Christians, Roman Catholics, how do they handle these things? So mormonism says the Bible is God's word quote so far as it is translated correctly. So they'll say, oh, yeah, but it hasn't really been translated right. There's been some distortions and corruptions. And so, you know, wherever, uh, where is the Bible translated wrong? Well, basically, wherever mormonism is, is in disagreement with the Bible. Therefore, the Bible must have been translated wrong. It's a very convenient thing. Oddly enough, Joseph Smith tried to produce his own version of the Bible. It's called the JST, the Joseph Smith translation. It was. It may or may not have ever been completed. He didn't translate the whole Bible. He took the king James and he kept making changes. He did things like adding a bunch of extra verses at the end of Genesis, a bunch to prophesy about himself.

18
00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:56.000
It's the most obvious fraud in the world. I don't know how I could be straight faced and be Mormon after seeing that. Um, I couldn't.

19
00:08:56.000 --> 00:09:31.000
Joseph, uh, Smith said that his translation of the Bible was the most perfect one. And the claim is that he did it under the power of the Holy Spirit, so that his claim to be a prophet is tied to his translation of the Bible. Now, the Mormons don't actually print and use the Joseph Smith translation. They'll quote bits of it here and there, they'll reference it here and there, but they don't actually hand it out to their congregants, and they don't teach from it when they do talk about the Bible generally. So, uh, there's just a lot. There's lots of weird things going on there. Basically, they don't appeal to that, even though it's supposedly the most perfect, according to Joseph Smith, maybe not according to Mormons.

20
00:09:31.000 --> 00:10:48.000
And, um, which is another irony and odd thing that's going on there, but the Bible is basically subservient to Mormon doctrine. Wherever the Bible disagrees with current Mormon theology, that's where you're either misunderstanding it or you. It's been translated incorrectly or whatever. So therefore, they'll point to contradictions, supposed contradictions, to undermine the reliability of the Bible, to increase the authority of the mormon church. They'll do that. Jehovah's Witnesses do this as well. Jehovah's Witnesses teach a number of things about Jesus, that he is merely an archangel. He's Michael the archangel, and he's merely an archangel. And they also teach that, um, uh, Jesus death, physically, he died, and his physical body never rose again. Now, the Bible, those are just two examples. The Bible disagrees with both of those vehemently. The identity of Jesus as Yahweh, as God almighty. The Bible refutes Jehovah's Witness theology. So then they say, hey, where the Bible disagrees with us, it wasn't translated. Right? So they've made their own translation of the Bible, the new World translation. Now, some might say, but, Mike, you have your own translations of the Bible. Maybe you're using the ESV on screen, or maybe you're using the Niv or the NLT or the King James or the new King James or a number of others, the NASB, whatever.

21
00:10:48.000 --> 00:11:59.000
None, um, of those are what are called sectarian translations. Okay, so the Joseph Smith translation was made to fit Joseph Smith. It does not connect to actual Hebrew or Greek. He was just altering and adding to and changing scripture. That's. That much is abundantly clear for those who study it. The new world translation is a very wooden translation that basically reads like a very stiff wooden translation, like a literal, even to a negative degree. Literal meaning, like directly. I'm just going to change this word to the English. Throughout the text of the, of the new world translation of the New Testament. Um, except where the Bible affirms, like, the deity of Christ, then they change it wherever it disagrees with their theology, that's where they change it. And the thing is, there's translations like ESV, uh, Niv, NASB, new King James these translations have widespread approval amongst large, uh, groups of scholars who all have different groups, different theology, new world translation everybody except the Jehovah's Witnesses knows that it's bunk. Joseph Smith translation everybody, including a lot of Mormons, know that it's bunk.

22
00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:04.000
So these are not, these are apples and oranges to compare these two things.

23
00:12:04.000 --> 00:13:13.000
So Jehovah's Witnesses, they will often say the Bible's got contradictions. The Bible's got problems because they're trying to get out from under the authority of scripture. Islam does this too. Islam affirms, uh, that the pentateuch of Moses and that the gospels, at least minimally, that Islam has enshrined in their theology that those things are from God and our scripture, but those things disagree with their theology. And so they'll say, yeah, but it's been corrupted over time and you can't trust it. And really, the Quran is the uncorruptible perfect word of God. And our basically, wherever the Bible appears to disagree with islamic theology, that's where it's wrong. Now can they actually go to the texts and show greek and Hebrew and track back to the original, like, meaning and reading, uh, of a text, of a verse, of a book and say, see, disagrees with Islam. Like it shows that it was, it was not Isaac, it was Ishmael. Like, can they do that? No, there's no text. There's no evidence. There's none of that. It's ultimately, when you chase it down, it's a claim that wherever the Bible disagrees with me, I'm right and the Bible's wrong. That's the Islam claim, that's the Jehovah's Witness claim, that's the Mormon claim. Progressive christians do it too.

24
00:13:13.000 --> 00:14:31.000
Progressive christians will, um, say they're christians, say they believe in God's word. And, and obviously not every progressive christian is the same. Speaking, uh, as a generality. The ones I've looked at, their stuff, I've examined Brandon Ross Robertson, people who self identify as progressive christians, some who don't, but who seem to lean that way, um, like Brian Zahn and stuff, they will often attack scripture, but theirs is different. They usually won't point out contradictions. They'll often point out what they see as moral flaws in scripture. Here they sound like the atheists that we see online. Um, the Bible and slavery is a problem. The Bible and patriarchalism, uh, is a problem. The Bible and hell, uh, is a problem. And because they think they want to be universalists and they have kind of like, woke ideology. And this is just the tendency. Okay, this is not across all progressive christians, but it certainly is a strong tendency, you know, that you can get progressive christians in a room and they won't agree on who Jesus is, but they will all agree that LGBTQ ideology is correct. Like, that's the. That's almost like a pillar doctrine. Um, I think the pillar doctrine. I have a video on progressive christians. I'll link it down below on what. What is the real core of their theology? I think the pillar doctrine is that I'm my own spiritual guide. My internal desires and my sense of self and my wants are my spiritual guide, more so than anything else, including scripture.

25
00:14:31.000 --> 00:15:21.000
So they'll undermine scripture with moral, uh, claims against the Bible. Again, this is a way of trying to stand on the word of God, but visually, you look like you're standing on it, but you're actually hacking out from underneath yourself scriptures because you want to actually lead towards something else. These groups, Jehovah's Witness, Islam, progressive Christianity, Mormonism, they're all clearly trying to take the authority of the Bible, but leave the details of what the Bible actually teaches and carry that authority over to their religious group, over to their religious thing. Then there's Roman Catholicism, which does this as well. Roman Catholics. It's very different, though. Don't get me wrong. Please catch the difference. Um, Roman Catholics will not generally be like, the Bible's in contradiction. You do not hear that from Mon Cal. Here's where we're going to, like, hold hands and agree. Me and a Roman Catholic be like, yeah, the Bible is God's holy word.

26
00:15:21.000 --> 00:18:01.000
That's end of story. It's not corrupted, it's not full of contradictions. It doesn't have immoral teachings in it, none of that. So Roman Catholicism is going to stand. We're going to be in agreement there. But this is a big but. The Roman Catholic Church will then claim, but we're the only ones who can interpret it correctly. So the Mormon claim is the Bible's God's word, as long as it's translated right. Well, the Roman catholic claim is the Bible is God's word. As long as you interpret it correctly, then you can rely on it. But guess what? Only the Roman Catholic church can officially and authoritatively interpret it. Now, as a Protestant, I don't think that there is authoritative interpreters. I think the Bible is authoritative in it in and of itself. But the moment you add a layer of. You need an interpreter who has authority. Now, you've cut me off from learning simply from scripture, from being able to maybe correct wrong theology amongst my leaders, to be able to bring reformation into the church, that you've corrected that ability because you are the authority. Oddly enough, the Roman Catholic Church, if you think about it this way, if they have the responsibility and authority to interpret the Bible correctly, then there should be some official commentary, right? Like you got John MacArthur's study Bible. There should be like the Roman catholic study Bible with all the official interpretations of all these passages. And that way I can really know the word of God. But they never have done this. In fact, there's very few scriptures that the Roman Catholic church has officially interpreted and said, this is the official meaning of this verse. And usually they have to do with their own authority. What of all the verses of the Bible, what do they officially interpret? Peter getting the keys. Ah, uh, that's the papacy. You have to submit to the pope. It's those types of things where you're like, yeah, this is, um, this is very self serving. So here, without denying scripture, right, like, Mormonism will actually deny scripture. Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, progressive Christians, Romans, Catholics, different. Without denying scripture, there will simply be a layer of our doctrines. Roman Catholic are impervious to your use of scripture because we have the authority to interpret it correctly. So how do you test whether you're getting the word of God right? You compare it to roman catholic teaching? Roman catholic teaching is the ultimate authority. In practicality, that's a concern. Um, so this is why sometimes catholic apologists will be asked a question like, show me the pope in the Bible and I'll become Catholic. This would be me. I become Catholic. Show me the pope in scripture and I will 100% become Catholic. I will come an apologist for Roman Catholicism. I will defend and support and preach Roman. Roman Catholic. Roman catholic views and theology. Show me the pope in the Bible.

27
00:18:01.000 --> 00:18:37.000
Um, that there is a pope, but Peter, he seemed to have a supremacy amongst, well, seemed to maybe sort of have, like, he was kind of like a spokesman in a sense, for them. Um, but no, there is no clear teaching that Peter had it, let alone that there was like this succession to other people who gained this authority, let alone this view of, like, this authority being regional to certain churches to then going to Rome and then becoming the roman authority. And then of course they had an argument, Constantinople. And there was a whole split that happened there. All this stuff doesn't come from scripture. And you're like, yeah, but I can quote church fathers. This is actually the point I'm making.

28
00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:49.000
The Roman Catholic who the smart Roman catholic apologist who's asked to defend the papacy with scripture will generally or least often respond by saying, I don't have to.

29
00:18:49.000 --> 00:19:03.000
This is what's deficient. You guys aren't respecting the authority of the church. And then they'll selectively quote church fathers, just the ones that agree with them, um, on different points, and they'll call that the authority of the church. And they'll say, see, I don't need the Bible to prove my point.

30
00:19:03.000 --> 00:19:12.000
You have to respect the authority of the church. So the authority of the church is proven using what, the selective authority claims of certain parts of the church.

31
00:19:12.000 --> 00:20:10.000
And then the authority of the church means roman catholic authority, not the body of Christ. Right. Because I'm not included in that. So it's all very much moving, um, away from the text of scripture. Now, how does Jesus handle this? So when Jesus comes to the visible jewish authorities of his time, kind of like Roman Catholics, or like what Jehovah's Witnesses will claim to be, or what the Mormon apostles will claim to be, those all have like their, you know, the Mormons have their quorum. This group of apostles that are alive today, the Jehovah's Witnesses witnesses have in New York, have got their governing body. This group of authoritative guys, the Roman Catholics, have their catholic magisterium, which boils down to, you have to agree with the pope, um, in, uh, Rome, Jesus, how did he handle those kinds of visible authorities? When he approached the sadducees, when he approached the Pharisees, he rebuked them. But he didn't just rebuke them on his own authority. This is interesting. He had authority to rebuke them, but he didn't just do that. He rebuked them with scripture.

32
00:20:10.000 --> 00:21:08.000
He says to the sadducees, you don't know the scripture or the power of God. Or with the Pharisees, he quotes the text of the Old Testament scripture to show that their use of the Sabbath was wrong, that the rules, that they, as the governing body of those who are kind of like using authority, that they were making bad rules. And he shows people using scripture. Then in the book of acts, we have the apostles who preached Jesus using what, the Old Testament scripture. They had to prove Jesus was the Messiah. With the scripture in acts, the Bereans, the people who. You guys know the story, right? The Bereans was this group of jewish people in Berea. And that's why they're Bereans, right? And they hear Paul preaching the gospel. I think it was Paul. If I remember? Right? And they go, hmm hm. Let's go back to our Old Testament books and examine those prophecies more carefully. And it says that these bereans, not that they rejected God's authority, it says that they were more fair minded than the rest because they searched the scriptures to see if these things were true.

33
00:21:08.000 --> 00:21:39.000
I think the scripture is the revival mechanism, is the theology correcting mechanism, is the prophet testing mechanism of God. It is the word of God written. That's what we use to test all things and hold fast to what is good. We use the scripture. All the groups that I've just named, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Islam, progressive Christians, Roman Catholic, sadly, they do not have that rule. Jesus had that rule. It seems the apostles had that rule, and scripture seems to be giving us that rule. Don't let anybody take the word of God out of your hands.

34
00:21:39.000 --> 00:22:15.000
All right, we're going to go to the next question. So that's. That's the first one. Jeremy from Texas. And next, uh, question comes from hot wax 93. Who says, did Jesus. Did Jesus's deity die on the cross? If not, then how could he be an atoning sacrifice for sin? If it died, then how could he be God without affirming the kenotic heresy? The, uh, canonic heresy is the idea that Jesus stopped being God while he was in the flesh. Um, so you couldn't really connect this to the canonic heresy. Let's just work through this a little bit and come back my way into it.

35
00:22:15.000 --> 00:22:29.000
Kenosis, this idea that when Jesus emptied himself Philippians two, that he actually stopped being God, that's, uh, definitely an unbiblical doctrine. Jesus is affirmed as God while walking the earth in that physical body. At no point did he stop being God.

36
00:22:29.000 --> 00:23:16.000
He's, uh, called Yahweh right then and there. Um, all sorts of other things there. So Jesus was God. Uh, but if the canonic teaching, if you take that as a logical. Let's try to work through it. If you say that Jesus wasn't God while he was walking the earth, then you want to affirm that his deity died. You can't, because he didn't have any deity when he was on the cross. If you embrace kenosis, he didn't have deity. So his deity didn't die. So you couldn't actually use kenosis to explain the death of the deity of Christ. But, uh, I also want to say this. Um, I think we're just talking over our heads a little bit here, at least. Over my head? Okay, maybe not yours, but at least mine. I'm just acknowledging it. The phrase does. Did the deity of Jesus die? I don't know what that means. Like, that sounds like an incoherent phrase to me.

37
00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:28.000
What does that mean? Deity, the nature of Jesus as God. Did his nature of deity, did that die?

38
00:23:28.000 --> 00:23:33.000
Explain with careful words what does that mean?

39
00:23:33.000 --> 00:23:49.000
Cause you could affirm that the deity of Jesus died. If you define it as Jesus is God, and he really went through a process of death, and he didn't separate himself from his deity at that time. He was still deity as he died.

40
00:23:49.000 --> 00:24:00.000
But it's different if you word it this way. Did the deity of Jesus experience a type of death? Then I could be like, well, yeah, a human death.

41
00:24:00.000 --> 00:24:19.000
But then if you go, but wait, did the deity die? Well, what do you mean by deity die? You mean cease existing? That's like, uh, logically incoherent, because God is impossible to disappear. You can't stop God from existing. He has divine aseity. He exists within himself.

42
00:24:19.000 --> 00:24:24.000
He is constant and unchangeably existent.

43
00:24:24.000 --> 00:25:06.000
So for deity to die is kind of like saying, did you get a square circle? Well, like. But no, but the definition of a circle includes the idea that it can't be square. So, no, you can't get a square circle. But that's because it's an incoherent concept. The deep God's essence, ceasing to exist, if that's what we mean, that's an incoherent concept, because his essence is such that he cannot cease to exist. Just like, yeah, he, death could not keep him because he has life in himself. Scripture says there's these qualities that jesus has. So did Jesus cease to exist on the cross? Did the deity of Christ stop existing? No, um, he went. He took on human form.

44
00:25:06.000 --> 00:25:27.000
Here's where I'll say some things that I'm just talking about the incoherence of some of this stuff. But Jesus took on humanity. I think if he had not taken on humanity, he could not have experienced any kind of death. He had to take on human form. He took on mortality so that he could die a mortal death. He could be in our place. He could represent us, just like Adam represents us all in the garden. Jesus represents us all on the cross.

45
00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:52.000
Jesus then dies physically on the cross. He dies the way any human dies. Whatever you go through when you die, jesus went through that. His deity is tied to his humanity there. So his deity goes through it. But it's the humanity that's dying. That's how I would couch it. Is that complicated? Perhaps. I mean, we're talking about the very nature of, like, the deity and humanity of Christ. I expect this to be challenging to my brain to conceive of.

46
00:25:52.000 --> 00:26:20.000
So the deity of Christ wasn't separated from his death like it. Like it was untouched, unfazed, unaware. And can you even talk about the deity of Christ as having awareness separate from the humanity? I feel like that's scary language. I don't want to go there. Um, it's easy, as you try to talk about these things, to unintentionally create new theology because you just said something that requires some precondition, some theological assumption that you just baked into a claim you made in. So I want to be careful with that.

47
00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:24.000
Um. So did God die on the cross?

48
00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:41.000
Yeah. Jesus is one person. He's not two persons of the Godhead, the deity Jesus and the human Jesus. And one of them died, the other one didn't. So God, he's God. God died on the cross, but because of. It's by virtue of his incarnation that he died. So his deity did not cease to be or something like that.

49
00:26:41.000 --> 00:26:49.000
That's how I would couch that. That's how I would try to understand that. And, um.

50
00:26:49.000 --> 00:27:07.000
Um, I think that would be consistent with scripture. Who's willing to call Jesus God? Uh, with us, who would say, like, the church of God, who he purchased with his own blood? Those types of statements there, that it was God who did in fact, die for us. There's only one person in Jesus. So you have to affirm that Christ genuinely died on the cross.

51
00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:13.000
Um, not the human Jesus died and the divine Jesus didn't. Like. There's two different ones now. There's only one.

52
00:27:13.000 --> 00:27:48.000
All right, let's go to question number three. This comes from Wesley Potts. And by the way, guys, um, that's all the questions for today. I've got all ten loaded up. So thank you guys for loading your questions. I know what it's like. You're trying to get questions in and you can't always get them in. That's not because we don't care about you or your questions. That's because I'm limited. I'm just one person. I hope you understand. So Wesley Potts says, hi, mike. I see in Jeremiah 33 that God extends his eternal covenant not only to the house of David as kings, but also Levi as priests. Who fulfills this promise? Does Jesus?

53
00:27:48.000 --> 00:28:36.000
That's, um, a great question. I will. Let's read Jeremiah 33. I don't know if I'll be able to answer it off the top of my head. But we'll at least read the scripture together and think about it. So, um, Jeremiah 33. The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah a. Ah, second time while he was still shut up in the court of the guard. Thus says the Lord who made the earth, the Lord who formed it to establish it. The Lord is his name. Call to me, and I will answer you. And will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known. For thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of the city and the houses of the kings of Judah that were torn down to make a defense against the siege mounds and against the sword. They are coming in to fight against the Chaldeans. Chaldeans. And to fill them with the dead bodies of the men whom I shall strike down in my anger and in my wrath.

54
00:28:36.000 --> 00:31:08.000
For I have hidden my face from the city because of all their evil. And, um, we'll get there eventually, guys. We'll talk about the covenant. Uh, behold, I will bring to it health and healing. And I will heal them and reveal to them an abundance of prosperity and security. I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel and rebuild them as they were at first. I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me. And I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. And this city shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and a glory. Before all the nations of the earth. Who shall hear of all the good that I do for them? They shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provide for it. Thus says the Lord. In this place of which you say it is a waste without man or beast. In the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate, without man or inhabitant or beast. There shall be heard again the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness. The voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride. The voices of those who sing as they bring thank offerings to, uh, the house of the Lord. Give thanks to the Lord of hosts, for the Lord is good. For his steadfast love endures forever. For I will restore the fortunes of the land. As at first says the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts. In this place that is waste without man or beast. And in all of its cities, there shall again be habitations of shepherds resting their flocks. In the cities of the hill country, in the cities of Shephalah and in the cities of Negeb, in the land of Benjamin the places about Jerusalem and in the cities of Judah, flocks shall again pass under the hands of the one who counts them, says the Lord. Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah in those days. At that time, I will cause a righteous branch to spring up for David. The branch, right. We're talking Jesus, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And, uh, this is the name by which it will be called. The Lord is our righteousness. I love this in light of the gospel, in light of the gospel that Jesus gives us his righteousness. My righteousness is actually God's righteousness. That's how I can be holy. Anyways, beautiful stuff. For thus says the Lord, David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel and the levitical priests. And I think this is where your question comes in. I, uh, shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.

55
00:31:08.000 --> 00:32:31.000
So let me read your question again, um, so we can get that fresh in our minds. Uh, this was question number three. Uh, you said God extends his eternal covenant not only to the house of David as kings, but also to Levi as priests who fulfills this promise. And so it's an understandable question. Uh, hey, if this is about some future thing, if Dave is never going to lack a man to sit on the throne and that man is Jesus, but then in verse 18, the levitical priesthood shall never lack a man to present offerings and burn grain offerings and make sacrifices forever, then who's that? Because the Bible, you could say Jesus is our high priest. He fulfills that. But then the question is. But it's also said it's not of the order of Levi but of the order of Melchizedek, as in Melchizedek is the model for the kind of priest Jesus is. Melchizedek, he's eternal. Um, I have a video on Mel Melchizedek. I'll link it below for those who have questions about it. It's a topic people are very interested in. So Melchizedek, he doesn't have a birth or death, he doesn't have a genealogy that is a hint at Jesus's immortality or eternality. Um, Melchizedek comes and he gets offered tithes from Abraham. And this is a picture of how Abraham is greater than Levi and he's tithing or giving to Melchizedek this is a picture of how Jesus is greater than the levitical priesthood.

56
00:32:31.000 --> 00:33:16.000
This is what Hebrews says. It's interesting stuff. He's the king of righteousness, as Jesus is. He's also the king of Salem or the king of peace. Jesus is the king of righteousness and the king of peace. Really interesting stuff. But the correlation here is that, um, Jesus is greater than the levitical priesthood. And in a sense, his priesthood is before it. There's actually a psalm that talks about this. You know, he'll make you a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. So this is actually Old Testament prophecy. This isn't New Testament hijacking of the Old Testament. Like some people will say, interesting stuff. So then how can we say that there'll be levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burn offerings and burn grain offerings to make sacrifice forever.

57
00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:27.000
If Jesus is the fulfillment of David, how could Jesus be also the fulfillment of the priest? Well, he is the priest and the king. We get that he's called the king of kings, but he's also our great high priest.

58
00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:30.000
Okay, that's true.

59
00:33:30.000 --> 00:33:40.000
I think that the easiest resolution to this is just to say, um, Jesus is the fulfillment of the levitical priesthood as a whole.

60
00:33:40.000 --> 00:34:04.000
It doesn't mean that he is a levite, but that the levitical priests, they're the group, they're the group of the Old Testament, kind of like this umbrella group that has been given these, uh, sacrifices and practices, which in themselves are prophecies that Jesus fulfills. They don't lack a man.

61
00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:16.000
Do the levitical priests today have a man who offers sacrifice, offers, ultimately thanksgiving, um, offers himself as a continual presentation before God?

62
00:34:16.000 --> 00:35:57.000
Yeah, they would have that potentially in Jesus that he doesn't make him levite. He's a man who is there in fulfillment of the Levites. Does that make sense? So now I'm playing off a nuance here. The text doesn't say the man is a Levite. It says the Levites won't lack a man. Jesus could be the fulfillment of that man. That's how I would see that. And I would then lean on the fact that Jesus fulfills. So there's more than just the prophecy about Melchizedek. We read about that in Hebrews, but before that, we read about how Jesus is the greater priest, is, is not just a different kind of priest than the Levites, but he's like the fulfillment in Hebrews of all of the priests, the high priests, all the priesthood Jesus fulfills that where they lack, Jesus succeeds, right? They are always standing, always presenting more sacrifices. Jesus offers one offering that is a continual presentation to God, and that is probably how I would take it. Now, I say all that with a grain of salt because I would, of course, love to study Jeremiah more, read the passage more carefully, spend more time on it, maybe read more commentaries on it. Those are some thoughts for you guys to consider, trying to be fair with the text in context and say, yeah, well, David, definitely this is fulfilled in Jesus, the man that David needs. But of course, Jesus is greater than David. He's not just a descendant of David. He's much greater as well. Um, so Jesus is not just a descendant who is connected in, in ways to the priesthood. In. In some sense, he is rather the fulfillment of the levitical priesthood. All right, we'll go to question number four. Eclipsisonic says or eclipse. Sonic. I don't know.

63
00:35:57.000 --> 00:36:06.000
Does Jesus's words in Matthew 1037 to 39 give the impression that if we don't put him first in everything, that we're not saved?

64
00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:20.000
Does the phrase not worthy of me not refer to salvation? Um, that's a really good question and a challenging question because you read some of the statements in scripture and they can unsettle you. Um, and I think they're supposed to, to a degree.

65
00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:32.000
Um, I don't think it was a mistake that God put some scary verses in the text of scripture. We need to take them and be very straightforward with them. So let's look at this.

66
00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:58.000
Jesus says in matthew 1037, whoever loves the loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it. Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Here's a really interesting thing. I was looking at this verse the other day, but in the new king James, check this out.

67
00:36:58.000 --> 00:37:15.000
Uh oh. Not everyone think of something else. Just pretend I didn't say that. It's not awkward at all. Um, okay, so whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Um, if you don't take your cross, you're not worthy.

68
00:37:15.000 --> 00:37:19.000
Being not worthy of Jesus, does that mean you're not saved?

69
00:37:19.000 --> 00:38:05.000
Well, if nothing else, it means you're at least in danger. I'll put it that way. And this is. This is how I think the scripture often handles. Handles these things. We're often looking for black and white descriptions, uh, of who is saved and who isn't. And there are those black and white descriptions. But there is also this muddy middle where you have people who affirm the gospel and yet their lives live contrary to the gospel, and you're just not clear. Are they a christian that has issues, or are they a, uh, fake Christian? Which one are they? And I don't, I can't clear that up for you. I can't provide you with the clarity where in every situation you can, like, run out and label someone christian and not christian.

70
00:38:05.000 --> 00:38:21.000
Um, there are people who, rather than me telling them you are not a Christian, I would simply say if they did ask my counsel on it, if I was having an honest heart to heart with them, I would simply say, you should be seriously concerned about your salvation because of your lifestyle.

71
00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:49.000
Are you saying I'm not saved? No, I'm saying I can't tell. You're in that muddy middle. You're in that gray zone where you love father or mother more than Christ. It seems you're not worthy of him. Now, is that worth meaning? Am I righteous enough to follow Jesus? No. It means I haven't had that base level of commitment to Christ that seems to imply that I may not be saved. So, yeah. Uh, let me read your question again and then try to answer it. Very straightforward and simple.

72
00:38:49.000 --> 00:39:03.000
Um, you say in Matthew 10 37 39, um, do Jesus words give the impression that if we don't put him first in everything, we're not saved? Does the phrase not worthy of me not refer to salvation? I think it probably does imply salvation.

73
00:39:03.000 --> 00:39:14.000
Okay. Now, Jesus's words are general and blanket. Generally speaking, if you put others before Jesus, even your own life, right?

74
00:39:14.000 --> 00:39:47.000
Even taking your own cross, if you put yourself, your life before Jesus. And then there's, there's a. It seems like you're not saved, generally speaking. Now, here's where it gets complicated. Let's be real. Life is complicated, and Jesus's own words are not meant to be taken. As if there's no complexity in life. This doesn't mean he doesn't mean what he says. No, no, no. Like, let me give an example. Jesus says in Matthew, um, don't say to a man, you fool, or you'll be, you'll be subject to judgment later on. He calls the scribes and stuff, uh, the pharisees. He calls them blind fools.

75
00:39:47.000 --> 00:39:53.000
That was an appropriate use of the word fool. He was talking about inappropriate uses of the word fool. Ah. Uh, interesting.

76
00:39:53.000 --> 00:40:09.000
So Jesus says, like, don't resist an evil man. He says this in Matthew five. Do not resist an evil man. Don't even resist them. Yet he goes into the temple and he overturns the money changers tables and drives the ant, at least the animals, maybe the people out, too, with a whip.

77
00:40:09.000 --> 00:40:26.000
The m fact that he overturned their tables. This is not gentle. Right? Like, he's gently. Would you mind if I just excuse your arms there? I'm just going to push your table over. And it doesn't mean he was insanely crazy or something, but, but this is like a very big act. Okay. Was he resisting an evil person here? Absolutely, he was.

78
00:40:26.000 --> 00:40:52.000
So what I'm saying is you can't take, don't resist an evil person and expand it to the universe and act like you can never resist evil in any way whatsoever. Like, how could apollos debate jews in the synagogue and acts? He's resisting people doing evil. Yeah, but he's talking about, don't take personal vengeance, don't take personal slights and come back at people with attacks. Um, he's talking about personal issues here, not fighting the good fight as a Christian.

79
00:40:52.000 --> 00:41:57.000
So we have to take all this stuff and thoughtfully. Okay. Generally speaking, you love mother, father, sister, brother, children, self more than Christ. You, you, uh, prioritize your, your own, say, temporal, temporary, physical well being over obedience to Jesus. Say, by denying Christ that you won't be attacked or crucified, you're not saved. But does that mean that at every single moment of a person's life, they're always denying themselves at every single moment? I don't, I don't think that we're saying that, uh. Okay, christians do fail Christian. This is where we add some caution. There are times where I have this week prioritized myself over my obedience to Jesus, my desires over my obedience to Christ. There are times where I've done that this week. Does that mean that I'm one who doesn't take up my cross and follow Christ? I think it's, if you, if you extend that blanket over my life, do I in general follow Christ? And then you go, yeah, but now there's this muddy gray area where you don't know. Yeah, that's what I'm saying the whole time. I don't know what everybody's salvation is at. And I think that even Paul didn't. There's times where he says to the Corinthians, I'm in doubt about, like, I'm not sure. Or is it the Galatians? He goes, I'm not sure about you guys.

80
00:41:57.000 --> 00:42:12.000
He has rules. Like, yeah, you take on works to achieve your own salvation, you're not saved. And then he goes about them and he's like, yeah, but I don't even know about. You guys are in the muddy gray area now because I know this truth about salvation, and you seem to be muddying that.

81
00:42:12.000 --> 00:42:25.000
It's healthy for us to sometimes, sometimes to doubt your salvation. When your life is in great conflict with the claims that you have to follow Jesus, it is healthy.

82
00:42:25.000 --> 00:43:05.000
Don't stay there forever. There are those of you who, no matter how serious and committed you are to Jesus, you will always doubt your salvation because you're not looking at your life and seeing conflict there that's legitimately causing you to doubt. You're just doubting the grace of Christ. That's a different issue. And for those people, I say strengthen them, encourage them, give them confidence in Christ. But I have met way too many people who, no matter how rebellious they are against God every day, they think I'm a Christian. I said the Jesus thing. I will argue all day long that I'm a Christian, but I will not live it out. Um, I will not live it out when I deal with my pride, when I deal with how I handle my family, my business, my anger.

83
00:43:05.000 --> 00:43:10.000
Jesus is not lord of my life, but he's definitely my savior. He's just not my lord.

84
00:43:10.000 --> 00:43:12.000
And those people should fear.

85
00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:59.000
Question number five. Jen s says hi, Pastor Mike. Um, just a reminder, you guys, I don't care if anybody calls me pastor. I just want to make it clear as I'm not functioning as a pastor in my local church. Um, I've said, the thing is, I've introduced myself as pastor so many times, I feel like I should say this a few times. Um, I'm still ordained. The ordination I got through hosanna is. Is lifelong. Um, it doesn't disappear. It doesn't time out. I'm ordained. Legally speaking, I'm ordained. I'm doing a pastoral type of thing online, but it's not really what the New Testament describes as an elder pastor functioning in the local church. My stuff I serve in the church here and there is not the same as me being on staff as a local pastor, or even not on staff, but just functioning as an elder. I don't currently do that. Whether I will in the future, I don't know. I don't have plans.

86
00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:20.000
I'm in full time ministry, but I don't call myself a pastor just because people are using the word pastor so widely nowadays. I, uh, think it should only be used to describe what the bible calls an elder or a bishop, synonymous terms. These are not different roles. They're the same in scripture. Later on in church history, they split them into different roles. That's a confusion that the scripture didn't have.

87
00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:26.000
Um, elder, pastor, bishop, presbyter, these should all mean the same thing.

88
00:44:26.000 --> 00:45:03.000
And I'm not doing that thing in the local church, so I don't call myself that, even though many of you are like, but, Mike, you're, like, doing pastoral things. Um, for me, good. I'm grateful for that. Let one of those pastoral things be that I help you stay biblical in the way you think about church roles. Okay. All right, so back to question number five. Jin ah s says, why do we assume that two corinthians four four is not about God, but presumably about Satan in chapters three and four in context? Well, let me read what you say after we read the verse. So let's look at two corinthians four four.

89
00:45:03.000 --> 00:45:16.000
In their case, the God. Put it on your screen. In their case, the God of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

90
00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:27.000
So your thought is like, hey, maybe the God of this world is talking about God. Um, there's certainly times in scripture where it says that God has blinded. He's given blindness in part to Israel.

91
00:45:27.000 --> 00:45:34.000
Why do we think that this is Satan instead of, like, God?

92
00:45:34.000 --> 00:46:00.000
Uh, here's the rest of your question. You say in chapters three and four in context, and also in other verses, we learn that God veils or blinds eyes. An example is John 1240, romans eleven eight. And. Yep, that romans eleven eight, talking about blindness in part, has happened to Israel. Uh, John 1240. I think the verse you're referring to there is where Jesus is saying, like, I'm speaking to them in parables lest they should see that there's, like, a blindness. But why the God of this world? Why is that talking about Satan?

93
00:46:00.000 --> 00:46:39.000
Um, it's the phrase of this world that gets you the phrase God of this world that implies that it is, in fact, Satan. So one scripture you can use to support this is John 1231. Let me see if I can bounce around a little bit. Now, this is the judgment of this world. Now, will the ruler of this world be cast out? Now, Jesus casts out Satan repeatedly when he casts out demons. This is a picture of how he is going to overcome the power of Satan. Now he's the ruler of this world. That would be Satan.

94
00:46:39.000 --> 00:47:05.000
Um, the, uh, Ephesians two, two, um, also talks about this. Ephesians 612 talks about this. I'm, uh, looking at foot. I don't have all the Bible memorized because I'm looking at some of the references that you can't see on your screen, but they're right here. Ephesians two, two. Ephesians 612. These talk about the prince of the power of the air. He's the one who's at work and the sons of disobedience that Satan's actively working there.

95
00:47:05.000 --> 00:47:16.000
Um, here, let's look at ephesians 612. We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places.

96
00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:27.000
These types of statements are to show that Satan is, in fact, when you say God, you're talking about God. When you say God of this world, you mean what Jesus was saying when he's talking about the ruler of this world.

97
00:47:27.000 --> 00:47:48.000
Um, there was another verse I wanted to share with you guys and see if I can find it.

98
00:47:48.000 --> 00:47:54.000
Hmm. M I m don't know. Maybe I'll think of it.

99
00:47:54.000 --> 00:48:13.000
I'm just thinking this is what it looks like when I were like, mike, you should stream videos of your study process. And I'm like, you would not enjoy my study process. It'd be this.

100
00:48:13.000 --> 00:48:28.000
It'd just be that for hours. Um. Uh, anyways, uh, yeah, so it's ultimately. It's the phrase of this world. Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world. Maybe that was the verse I was trying to think of. Now get distracted. Um, my kingdom is not of this world.

101
00:48:28.000 --> 00:49:08.000
The ruler of this world. These are phrases referring to ultimately Satan. And so that's why we should look at it that way. Now, how can you say that God has, like, brought blindness, but also the God of this world? Satan has brought blindness. Um, it has to do with God's sovereignty. I don't think it's God's meticulously causing everything to happen, but ultimately realizing that God, and this is language we don't use typically, uh, in modern times, the way that they do in the Bible, in the churches, at least that I've been in, is that ultimately God is the one in control even of the wicked things that are going on. This doesn't mean God is causally happening, hap.

102
00:49:08.000 --> 00:50:25.000
Causally causing all the wicked things to happen. Causally causing is kind of a tautology. Okay, no, I'm just being annoying. It, uh, doesn't mean God's making everything happen with, like, his control over, like, moments like where he goes, now I'm gonna force Satan to blind those people over there. So then you could say Satan did it, but I also did it rather. It's just that God's overarching power and control over everything means that there's a sovereign God is still in control. God is still working in this, that we can say in every situation, even when Satan's doing things. And that's an important thing. So we see this in the Old Testament when it says that God moved David to number Israel and then he punished them. He's doing this as judgment on them for their sins. But then we also read in scripture where it says Satan was working in David to number Israel. So then you look at it, you go, okay, so God, from God's ultimate sovereign perspective, saw the sin of Israel, and he allowed the circumstance to take place. He could have stopped it, could have put a hindrance on it, could have brought some sort of warning to David or something. But he allows this to happen, allows David, because of the sin that's going on, to yield to this temptation from Satan to number the people for vain reasons, and then he punishes them for it.

103
00:50:25.000 --> 00:50:41.000
Okay, so he's, he's sort of, um, uh, he's, he's sovereign ultimately, but he is not causing everything to happen meticulously. I think that that is a biblical view.

104
00:50:41.000 --> 00:50:58.000
I think, I think that holds together. Anyways, that's my answer there. Number six. Let's talk to Helene. Helene says, can you explain how an angel could have strengthened Jesus when Jesus is God? Okay, so Luke 22 43.

105
00:50:58.000 --> 00:51:35.000
Um, these are quite, so you guys, I'm like you. I ask these questions, too, and many of us, if you're like us, let's be real. Like a lot of us right now, people get irritated at you because you ask these hard questions and they don't have answers. And then they feel, let's be real. They feel maybe insecure or they feel like they're being challenged. Um, and so then they get pretty upset. Um, I'm grateful for your guys questions. I think that I assume they usually come from a very sincere place where you're just like, I just want to understand. Tell me how this works, Lord. You're just thinking carefully about this stuff, so I think it's exciting. Thank you for your question. Okay, let's look at this passage.

106
00:51:35.000 --> 00:51:39.000
Then, uh, an angel appeared to him from heaven, strengthening him.

107
00:51:39.000 --> 00:51:46.000
And being in agony, he prayed more earnestly. Then his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

108
00:51:46.000 --> 00:52:01.000
Um, let's back up and read a little bit more. So this is in the garden of Gethsemane, the garden of the olive press, which I think has some really interesting connotations to the very name in relation to Jesus and his being pressed there, his temptation, his final temptation, ultimately.

109
00:52:01.000 --> 00:52:18.000
Luke 22 39. So coming out, he went to the mount of olives, as he was accustomed, and his disciples also followed him. When he came to the place, he said, pray that you may not enter into temptation. Meaning this is. Look, hard times are about to come.

110
00:52:18.000 --> 00:52:28.000
And as he was withdrawn from them, about a stone's throw, he knelt down and prayed, saying, father, if it is your will, take this cup away from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done.

111
00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:58.000
There have been people who've done studies of death row inmates, like the night before they go, or people who've looked at, um, soldiers the day before. They're going off to battles that they think they may not survive. And the type of fear, terror that is natural for humans to feel, the type of anguish and angst and the desire to get out of it.

112
00:52:58.000 --> 00:53:01.000
I think Jesus was feeling some of that.

113
00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:03.000
I think he was feeling some of that.

114
00:53:03.000 --> 00:53:26.000
He actually says in scripture that he's. He is, um. What's the term he uses? Um, I talk about it in the mark series when I went through this section in the Gospel of Mark. I'll link that below as well today, the teachings through the gospel of Mark when he's in the garden. And the humanity of Jesus, the incredible suffering. I think the phrase is sorrowful to the point of death.

115
00:53:26.000 --> 00:53:31.000
Sorrowful to the point of death.

116
00:53:31.000 --> 00:54:31.000
That is not an exaggeration. This is like a particular kind of sorrow. It's like you can't really. You can't really say it in words if you've never gone through it, if you've never had so much anguish that you were. The capillaries in your face and stuff were breaking under the strain, the stress and emotional anguish that you were going through, that he sweats blood. This is something they've actually seen in prisoners and things like that who are about to be killed. This is an intense anguish thing. So he says, father, if it's your will, take this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done. He still always would submit to the father's will, but he absolutely went through all the anguish. Then an angel appeared. Why is an angel helping him? Because he's weak humanly. He's still dealing with human emotions. He's still dealing with human sensations, with the fact that he can be stabbed and he can be injured and he can be harmed with the fact that he was going to go through death, with the fact that he was going to bear the sin of all the world.

117
00:54:31.000 --> 00:54:47.000
To put it this way, more sin was judged in one moment on Jesus. More sin was judged and dealt with and punished in one moment on Jesus than in the entire flood of Noah.

118
00:54:47.000 --> 00:55:50.000
He's going through that. And so an angel appears and strengthens him. Maybe it was physical strength. Maybe it was because he was gonna. He was, like, on borderline heart attack, or maybe because he was physically weak and tired and he's going through anxiety and all these sorts of things. Jesus experienced these things, and he braved through it and he went through it, but he didn't go like some people will present Christ, uh, in Gethsemane as though he is. Um, there's two errors I've seen in presentations, like, you know, stories about Jesus and movies about Jesus, things that I would consider errors. And one is to present Jesus as though he's just totally fine. So we see this in old artwork. You'll see Jesus. He's. Maybe he's on the cross, and he has a total peaceful look, and he has, like, one drop of blood, and it's like, come on, man. This is like you're, um, sort of robbing Jesus of what he suffered for us. When you do that, when you present it like it was no big deal. This was an early gnostic heresy. They would even teach that Jesus didn't feel anything on the cross because they're teaching that his body and the soul are separate in such a way that.

119
00:55:50.000 --> 00:55:56.000
Anyway, the gnostic heresy. You guys are curious about this.

120
00:55:56.000 --> 00:56:40.000
Here's how they would do their footprints in the sand. There actually is a footprint in the sand story. You guys know the footprints in the sand? Like, that was when I carried you. Um, that kind of, like, heartwarming parable, uh, that people tell, well, the gnostic footprints in the sand was that Jesus and the disciples, like, walking along, and then a disciple looks back and they realize there's only one set of footprints. True story. That it's true that they say this story. It's not a true story. And he looks back, there's only one set of footprints. And the reason why is because Jesus doesn't really have a physical body, so he leaves no footprints, and so he doesn't suffer because of that as well. So that's not true. This is a heresy. This is part of why in one John, it's like, anyone that denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, that he actually came with a physical body, real body, that they're an antichrist.

121
00:56:40.000 --> 00:56:50.000
The other error people make in the garden of Gethsemane is to make jesus experience terror without confidence, terror without the sure knowledge of the will of God.

122
00:56:50.000 --> 00:57:26.000
Like fear about the cross, but without confidence about his mission. Like, he knew he had to go to the cross. And so sometimes they'll present it like Jesus is. Like, is there any other way? Like he doesn't know. Like, he's expressing his heart, he's expressing what he's going through, but he's not confused about what has to happen. He's the one that told, uh, Peter, I have to go to the cross. I must go. I must suffer. He said it three times in Mark. He's telling the disciples, I have to die. The son of man has to be crucified and rise again. This must happen. This is why I came. There's no questioning whether or not it is God's will.

123
00:57:26.000 --> 00:58:57.000
It's simply him expressing how he feels going through this hardship. So those are the two errors you see, um, people make Jesus so human, he lacks that confidence, um, and certainty about what's going to happen, his death and his resurrection. Jesus knew he would rise. There was no doubt about that. He's not doubting that. In the garden on the other side, they'll make it as though he didn't really suffer. So an angel appeared and helped him. I've answered a lot of things that you didn't entirely ask about. I think the answer is, sorry about that, Helene. Um, I think the answer is the angel helped him because he's going through such physical weakness and hardship at the time that literally, um, like you've ever experienced this. Maybe in a time of prayer when you're really. Your heart's just breaking, you're going through all kinds of struggles, and then you just feel sort of helped, uh, physically helped. You know, I think that there was. There was physical emotional support that was being brought there. An angel could have come and just said words of encouragement to him. Uh, an angel could have come and physically given him some energy to get through the night, go through the trial, go to the cross, that kind of thing. It's possible. Um, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how the strengthening happened, but it makes sense why it would be needed. All right, let's talk about Courtney Grace. Your question, mark 141 in the NIV says Jesus was indignant, but other translations don't. What up with that? Thanks. Alright. What up with that mark 141?

124
00:58:57.000 --> 00:59:21.000
Yeah. Okay. So here, let's, let's, let's just make sure we understand the context. Um, a leper is cleansed, right? The leper came to him, imploring him, kneeling down to him and saying to him, if you are willing, you can make me clean. Then Jesus moved with compassion, stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, I'm willing. Be cleansed. As soon as he'd spoken, immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.

125
00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:54.000
Uh, this is the word here, compassion. That's like, hmm. Hm. What is that? The NIV says, jesus was indignant. That same verse, indignant. And then it'll say in a footnote there, which I can't put on your screen, but I can see it myself with my special clicking magic. Uh, many manuscripts say Jesus was, quote, filled with compassion. But it's not just the Niv and the, and the King James or new King James. Um, the RSV, it says here, moved with pity. Pity.

126
00:59:54.000 --> 01:00:10.000
Now, pity implies something different than compassion. It's concern. But it's also like a worrisome concern in a sense. Right. Um, the King James says, well, it's, hold on, I don't have it tied in 141.

127
01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:12.000
Uh, Jesus, move with compassion.

128
01:00:12.000 --> 01:01:07.000
And that is, of course, new King James. And the ESV says, moved with pity. Um, if you see, this is what you guys can do. If you don't know Greek, you can't look up greek, and that's fine. You don't need, it's helpful to know language stuff and you can check things, and that's good. But we have lots of good english translations. And when you check multiple translations, you can sort of get an idea of what's going on behind the scenes. So the King James and the new King James, they agree compassion. But then you've got RSV, ESV. Uh, and they're going to say pity, which is a little different. It involves sort of like, um, there's a negative quality to pity. That's not just compassion, it's, oh, this is, there's something bothersome happening here. Then you have the Niv, which says indignant, which is purely just a negative thing. I'm just disapproving of something.

129
01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:59.000
What is most likely happening here, and I have studied this a long time ago, but what is most likely happening here is you've got M. The King James and new King James are based off of a certain group of manuscripts that they say these are probably the most reliable readings of these ancient documents. Right. Whether it says the word is compassion or if it's a word that could be translated indignant or pity, they're going to pick the new King James, and King, uh, James gonna pick the one that says, like, compassion. That's the manuscript we think is more accurate. But we have some manuscripts that maybe are a little older. There aren't as many of them, but they seem to be older. And the RSV, the, uh, Niv, the ESV, and most modern translations will say we think these are more reliable. They're the ones that are going to give you the word that's going to either be indignant or pity.

130
01:01:59.000 --> 01:03:27.000
I tend to lean towards the newer translations on this issue. I did spend a lot of time on this. I used to be very suspicious. I would always teach, for many, many years, I would teach out of the new King James version. And I was not King James only, but I was King James better and knew King James better because I thought that those manuscripts were right. Um, I remember hearing that the manuscripts that are older aren't better because they were basically like trash. They were found, like, in a trash pile. Someone told me, and I thought, oh, well, okay, so I'm not going to trust them. They were discarded. They only survived because they were just set in a pile and people ignored them like something lost in the back of a closet. Um, that's not really the reality of the situation. I studied a lot on this. I did three teaching videos on the topic of translations and manuscripts. And is the bible reliable and what's all going on there? In great detail, we talk about it. I'll link that three video series down below. Like, what about, like, how do. I'll just call it, like, how do we get our bible or something like that? How do we get these, these verses in the video description? I'll put that later. So, yes, um, if I actually go to mark 141 and we look up the term as it is in the more, why am I not able to do this right now?

131
01:03:27.000 --> 01:03:36.000
Oh, I'm sorry, but I'm just genuinely not able to look it up. That's really weird.

132
01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:39.000
How? Ooh.

133
01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:41.000
Okay, well, that.

134
01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:48.000
Yeah. Okay, so, um, I'll just leave it there for now then, because I'm not able to look it up for some reason at this moment.

135
01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:52.000
Yeah. Different manuscript errors, uh, manuscript traditions.

136
01:03:52.000 --> 01:04:17.000
Which one was the original reading? Was it compassionate or indignant? Compassionate or pity? Um, if he was indignant, it would be. He's indignant at the very fact that this man has leprosy. He's indignant about the leprosy. Jesus is against that thing. Pity seems like it makes more sense, but I. But I can't weigh out on it more than that. All right, let's go to Google user.

137
01:04:17.000 --> 01:05:25.000
Google user. It's glad to finally have a google user with us. Do you think real presence in the Lord's supper could be true? The fact that the disciples say this is a hard teaching and many of them leave makes me think it was more than symbolic. Okay, um, there's this. Okay, this is challenging. Um, John Six, where it talks about Jesus says, like, you know, my body is flesh is food. Ah, indeed. You know, my blood is drink, indeed. And all this. And he says, you have to eat my flesh, drink my blood to have eternal life. Um, there's plenty of people who take this as transubstantiation. That's one view of the eucharist of communion, that the physical bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus. So your physically actually eating Jesus then. This involves a philosophical view where you have things called accidents and substance. And these are two different qualities. The accidents is what it looks like. The substance is what it really is, whatever that means. Okay. This is deep, weird, confusing philosophy stuff that most people today don't believe in. But people did back when they were developing this doctrine in church history, when it was a new development.

138
01:05:25.000 --> 01:06:28.000
Um, so that's transubstantiation. Then there's the people who have what's often called a memorialization view, or that communion is. You're memorializing, you're remembering this is in honor of and representation of Christ. And that's more my view. Uh, this is usually characterized as you believe it's just symbolic. It's just symbolic, right? Like, as if the symbolism means nothing to say just symbolic is actually an insult to it, uh, to the idea of taking communion. Um, I believe you can be under judgment for taking communion wrongly. The temple was symbolic when, um, the sons of Aaron run in with strange fire into the temple, and they're going to offer incense on the altar and do it wrongly. That was all symbolic, but God struck them dead. So just saying it's symbolic doesn't mean it doesn't have value or isn't important. We're usually the people who believe in a memorial view, as I do, are often characterized as thinking, um, we're sort of making communion pathetic and weak and empty. This is just an empty talking point.

139
01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:49.000
Then there's another view a lot of people are not aware of, which is the sort of real presence view. So that it's still bread, it's still wine, it's still bread or still grape juice or whatever, but it's Christ's presence is somehow mystery here. Somehow his presence is really here in the elements.

140
01:06:49.000 --> 01:07:19.000
Um, I don't think that that view is accurate, but what in my theology would change if I had to switch over to that view? Not much of anything. Uh, if I became convinced by scripture that the real presence view is accurate, this wouldn't change my theology. This wouldn't make me change the church I go to change. It wouldn't have a chain reaction of affecting other theological beliefs. I would just add that in addition to it being a memorial view, there's also the real presence of Christ.

141
01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:35.000
Uh, I mean, I think I, uh, have the real presence of Christ in me right now. I think when the church is gathered, Christ is with us, so we have his real presence there. If you add that into the elements of communion, it wouldn't significantly change those things to me.

142
01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:57.000
But I don't think it's the biblical view. Um, it is a strong view, historically speaking. I don't think it's biblical, though. The John six passage. Now this is why I said it was complicated. When you look at John six, I don't think John Six is teaching us about communion. I think John Six is teaching us about Jesus. And communion is also teaching us about Jesus.

143
01:07:57.000 --> 01:07:59.000
Right. The.

144
01:07:59.000 --> 01:08:05.000
The way in which you do this, Jesus specifies in John six. Here, let's, let's just look.

145
01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:08.000
Um, there's a lot here.

146
01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:33.000
Um, let's see if we can find a starting point. Um, let's just start with, okay, um, very truly, I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

147
01:08:33.000 --> 01:09:52.000
Okay? That's the condition of eternal life in John six. You have to believe. Then he goes on to explain this. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Now, interestingly, John, the gospel of John does not have a communion moment. The last Supper. The idea of Jesus saying, this is my body broken, all this, he doesn't do this in John. John does not appear to be focusing on that. He's talking about the nature of salvation, not the nature of the communion commemoration event that happens later. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, how can this man give us his flesh to eat. That's the question. How can he give us his flesh to eat? They're taking Jesus very literally here. But he just said, you have to believe to get saved. And then he offers himself as my body. I am the fulfillment, ultimately, of the mosaic manna. Uh, Jesus said to them, very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Let me ask you, did Abraham have eat the flesh and of the son of man and drink his blood? No.

148
01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:03.000
William would be like, well, Melchizedek offered him bread and wine. Okay, so then Jesus, somebody ate and consumed the sacrifice of Christ before the sacrifice was made.

149
01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:16.000
And there was no words of invocation. There was no details there. Abraham didn't understand that stuff. Did the thief on the cross eat the physical flesh and blood, or did he just trust in Christ?

150
01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:36.000
Let's read on. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Now, if you read this from, uh, uh, uh, say, a catholic, or even about communion perspective, you are then saying that communion is not only the real presence, but communion. Communion is necessary for salvation.

151
01:10:36.000 --> 01:11:14.000
That's what you. I think you'd have to say that, right? If you're going to tie this to communion and not belief in Christ, you're going to say, communion is how we partake of the flesh and blood of Christ, and it's necessary for salvation. Okay, so this is something people do say. I don't think it's biblical. I don't think it doesn't fit texts of scripture. People get saved before they ever have communion, right? In acts, chapter ten, they don't go preaching and giving communion to people. They preach. People get saved. Souls get saved, and they get baptized. In Cornelius, in acts ten, he gets saved when he just hears the message of the gospel. He just believes, and he has salvation. Peter affirms he has salvation. The Holy Spirit's entered the guy.

152
01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:32.000
You see, it doesn't really fit. Anyway, verse 57, Jesus will help us as we read on. Just as the living father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died. But whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

153
01:11:32.000 --> 01:12:09.000
Remember when Jesus said to them, destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days. And he was talking about the temple of his body here he says, eat my flesh and blood. But he's talking about something related to that that is not literally consuming his physical body. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it? Right? Cannibalism, that's definitely refuted eating of blood. Literally eating of blood is clearly against the law. It's even something that in the book of acts, they tell people, tell the gentiles, of all the debates that are going on. Jew, gentile, tell them. Acts 15. Abstain from blood.

154
01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:33.000
If communion was drinking the blood of Christ, they'd at least have to offer a caveat. Except if it's Jesus's blood. Right? Because they didn't think that. Let's read on and see how Jesus clarifies. Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this. Okay. He did the public teaching, which did breed some confusion. He spoke to them in parables that they might have blindness. Even John talks about this, the same book we're in.

155
01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:37.000
Then with the disciples, he brings more clarity.

156
01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:48.000
This is where he goes. Let me make sure you don't misunderstand. Does this offend you, then? What if you see the son of man, ascend to where he was before. The spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. What?

157
01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:57.000
You just said, if. Eat your flesh or I won't have life. And now you said, the flesh counts for nothing. Why is that?

158
01:12:57.000 --> 01:13:04.000
Because he didn't mean it literally. He meant it metaphorically. Just as you ate the bread.

159
01:13:04.000 --> 01:13:38.000
You must partake of my sacrifice. My body broken for you. My blood communion commemorates that, but it isn't the same as that. Um, the words I've spoken to you, they are full of the spirit. This is the Niv. Let me. Let me go to the ESV. It's a little bit less loose of a translation. Uh, do you take offense to this, then? What if you were to see the son of man ascending to heaven where he was before? It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh is no help at all. The words that I've spoken to you are spirit and life. What? Spirit and life. The spirit gives life. Right. And the spirit which gives life are the words that Jesus has spoken to you.

160
01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:50.000
He started with, you have to believe in me to be saved. Then he gave a bunch of teaching about his. His cross offering for us and then says, you have to believe this. And your words I've spoken, you believe them. You have life.

161
01:13:50.000 --> 01:14:43.000
Belief is how you receive the sacrifice of Christ. Yet he says, there are some of you who do not believe, right, then there's going to be the problem. And people, many of them, will leave and depart from him and all this sort of thing. Um, then Simon says, uh, lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed. This is often missed when people talk about John six. Is that Peter then gives, like, the conclusion, yes, it's your words that bring life, and you're offending them. Your blindness, in part, is happening to Israel, as they don't receive and don't understand and don't see the meaning of what you're saying. But it's your words that you've told us of your sacrifice. We believe those we do receive, we partake of you. Communion is in the commemoration of that. I don't think real presence is here.

162
01:14:43.000 --> 01:14:54.000
I don't think the phrase the spirit gives life is referring to a real presence, the spirit of Christ in communion. Because then, of course, this ties salvation to communion, which the Bible doesn't do.

163
01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:59.000
It doesn't. You're not. You don't have to do communion to be saved. That's not a biblical teaching.

164
01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:05.000
Um, he says it's the spirit that gives life. My words ultimately give you life.

165
01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:47.000
So it's not tied to any physical act. It's tied to trust and faith in Christ, ultimately. Um, more can be said about that. I hope that those who aren't going to now make videos about me will at least listen carefully what I said and not miss the point. I know they already will. I know. I've been doing this long enough to know they're already gonna make videos and be like, that's not what I said. You missed it. Okay, so let's go to the next question. Number nine. The invisible hand says, was it biblical for the man in Iowa to destroy the satanic temple display at the state capitol last December? How should christians respond to the public display of literal idols in our society?

166
01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:59.000
Um, that's a tough question for me to answer. Not because I'm afraid of offending anybody, but because, uh, I just feel like I don't have enough information. I. You guys would be surprised how much stuff I don't bother looking into.

167
01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:41.000
I'll spend my time researching something that others would think is not interesting. Um, and ignoring headlines like I recently, we've ton of headlines going on, are just so much going on our country right now. And I am one of the least informed at the moment because I'm just not spending time on that stuff. And I should spend more time on it. I'm just telling you, this is why I don't comment on everything, because I'm just not aware of everything. I tend to focus on the things I'm focusing on. I've been reading way too much about passive christian views of pacifism recently. This has been the main, major focus for me a long time now. Um, so, um, biblically, let's, let's talk engine in general. In general, can, um, I, as a Christian, destroy other people's idols?

168
01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:49.000
Um, do we have examples of this in acts of anybody ever destroying somebody else's idol?

169
01:16:49.000 --> 01:17:21.000
No, no examples there at least. We do have lots of examples of people burning magic books we see or destroying idols. But they're their own idols. They're their own books, so that's different. Me destroying my own ungodly thing, the thing that represents my rebellion against God is a good thing. Me going into someone else's situation and destroying it would be a little different. Now, some of you are thinking, well, Gideon. Gideon went and destroyed idols that weren't his. They were his father's idols.

170
01:17:21.000 --> 01:17:37.000
Uh, I agree with you there. He did. But there's two kind of differences that are there as we sort of just openly work through this. I don't have all the answers, but I'll just talk about it, try to gather all these biblical examples and sort of bring them together and harmonize our understanding of how to deal with stuff like this.

171
01:17:37.000 --> 01:17:58.000
Uh, Gideon, a, it was his father's household. So it'd be like you cleaning, doing something in your own home. Right. Is his father's household. He is the son. He has an authority that's there also. Um, b, Israel was the nation that had a covenant with God, a non negotiable commitment that they had made as a nation.

172
01:17:58.000 --> 01:18:02.000
Destroying idols in Israel is a command God made.

173
01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:08.000
Destroying idols outside is, uh, not something necessarily that was. It was given as a command.

174
01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:30.000
Israel was not told to go and make all the nations around subject to the God of Israel. No, no. They were to make Israel subject to the God, to the God of Israel, um, to preach to them, yeah, but not force. So it doesn't have that kind of islamic, uh, imperialist kind of like forced conversion at the sword. That's not an Israel thing. They don't go to other nations like that.

175
01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:33.000
So now let's tie this to America.

176
01:18:33.000 --> 01:18:54.000
Does America have a covenant with God such that we are required to clean our neighbor's house, so to speak, or go over to a state capitol and tear down an idol like that? Um, we definitely don't have any clear command to do something like that. I definitely don't see any commission that christians are just supposed to do this sort of thing.

177
01:18:54.000 --> 01:19:11.000
If in the case that you can find a law that's being violated now, maybe you'll say, well, constitutionally, this is against the law, and I'm just standing for the constitution. You're kind of being a bit of a bit of a, um, vigilante, so to speak. Maybe there's a case for it there.

178
01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:37.000
Um, it definitely was like a rallying cry for others, you know, and we live in volatile times, and I'm concerned that christians are going to go off the rails with this stuff because they're so sick of inaction that they'll just go for over the board action because it's better than doing nothing, which is what a lot of people have done so far. And I get that sensation, yeah, I'd rather have action than inaction.

179
01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:43.000
Um, and I would as well. I think christians need to be standing for something. We're just so sick of it.

180
01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:52.000
We'll take a brute who stands up and shouts Jesus and does. And I'm not saying this guy did, I'm just saying, forget this situation, which I don't know that much about.

181
01:19:52.000 --> 01:20:20.000
We will, though. Our culture, our community, the christian communities, even will take a arrogant, uh, and proud and reckless individual who charges forward and does something that at least is against the side that's clearly wrong, right. At least it's against the hyper progressive, like woke. Um, and those are fair terms to use. Um, the ideologies that are against God and against Christ, against family, against all those things. And so we're like, we cheer them on.

182
01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:25.000
Um, but just because you're coming against evil doesn't mean that you're right.

183
01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:29.000
I don't think I have a christian mandate to do something like that.

184
01:20:29.000 --> 01:20:33.000
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's elements to the story I don't understand.

185
01:20:33.000 --> 01:21:34.000
Totally open to change my mind. Don't mind offending anybody if I declare. I'm just saying in scripture, what we see as the primary tool of changing people in relation to their religious stuff, their idolatry, their worship of false idols, all that sort of thing is two things, I guess. One is evangelism, where we go and confront the false things and we stand up and we openly preach. And it's the power of the gospel, the power of the shameless preaching of the gospel of Christ. And two, cleaning the christian house. That is, um, church discipline, where there's actual. This is something we've left behind in many ways in modern western churches is church discipline. So church discipline, handled properly, handled rightly, where you say, uh, I love you, but no, you cannot do this and be part of this body of Christ. And so then we have a pure church whose their actions are consistent with the word of God. And they're. They're open and evangelical and preaching. You know, Paul went into where the idols were and there he preached and debated with people.

186
01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:36.000
That's a good thing.

187
01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:53.000
Um, actually destroying the idols, that sort of thing. I feel like that's outside the purview of my call as a Christian, unless I have some legal basis to which I can say, no. No, governmentally, this is actually what's required. But I doubt that the guy had that.

188
01:21:53.000 --> 01:22:02.000
We cheer these things on. Um, and maybe good will come of it, and some good probably did come of it, but you have to think of it as a principle.

189
01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:09.000
Can I go and, like, take an axe to the hindu temple down the street, too?

190
01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:22.000
Can everybody do it? Can every christian just do that? Can I go into the school library and steal all of the islamic books, burn them?

191
01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:24.000
What's the limit here?

192
01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:51.000
Um, I don't think I have a mandate to do that as a Christian. And furthermore, I think I'm creating an environment where it's just going to lead to my own persecution later on because people are just becoming violent and forceful in the name of God. And that is something I think that, as Christians, we're not supposed to do. You can bear the sword as a representative of the state, but not as a representative of the church. I don't think.

193
01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:59.000
Please share your thoughts. I'm very interested, actually, to see. So make a thoughtful video explaining where I'm wrong here. I'm all ears. All right. Number nine.

194
01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:11.000
The invisible hand says, was it biblical for the man in Iowa to destroy? That was number nine. I guess I didn't skip to number nine before. So number ten. Oh, no, I'm just looking at the delay.

195
01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:23.000
Sorry, I've got. I'm on three screens in front of me here. Um, okay, Dane has a question. Last question for today. Can us as christians really, truly live an upright and blameless life?

196
01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:28.000
Generally? Yes, entirely.

197
01:23:28.000 --> 01:23:29.000
Um.

198
01:23:29.000 --> 01:24:15.000
You will. You will. Um, I find this question a little challenging because I don't want to affirm that a Christian is incapable of resisting any sin, any particular sin, but I also. That's one error I don't want to make. I don't want to act like you couldn't help it. You had to sin like you had no choice. Here. First corinthians 1013, a verse I've committed to memory. And I'd encourage you to as well. Right. No temptations overtaking you except such as this common demand. But God is faithful. He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you're able, but with the temptation will provide a way of escape that you may be able to bear it. So if that's true, then I need to make sure, I affirm that in any given situation, a Christian could resist that temptation.

199
01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:31.000
But on the other side, there are some christians who say that they've achieved, like, a sinless state, a condition of sinlessness, where they've, like, plateaued on holiness and they simply never sin.

200
01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:54.000
And there's sort of, um, I'm opposed to any preaching that implies there is a, like a switch you flip where you enter into christian sinlessness. Like, I've reached the plateau of holiness. I am now riding on the wave of righteousness, and I never sin.

201
01:24:54.000 --> 01:25:20.000
This is in a very pragmatic way. Okay, just speaking humanly. This is a path to self delusion. The people who go around saying, I never sin, I never sin, or even I never knowingly sin. It's a path, usually to self delusion, where they will never admit their sin, they will never confess their sin, they will never confront their sin, and especially their family gets at the worst, because try living with someone who thinks they never sin.

202
01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:22.000
Um, I sin.

203
01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:25.000
I never have to sin, but I do still sin.

204
01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:46.000
I think it's gonna be that way as long as I live. That's not an excuse. There's no excuse for any sin I've ever committed. It's an expectation of, like, me still dealing with the fact that I am tempted continually. And maybe, maybe that's one thing you can test to see if a Christian is being weird or if they're being realistic. Isn't. If they say, I never sin, you could ask them, are you tempted?

205
01:25:46.000 --> 01:26:45.000
And if they resist telling you the fact that they are actually genuinely tempted with sinful things, then they're deceiving themselves. Because there's no text of scripture that suggests you're not tempted anymore. You are continually tempted as a Christian. Your flesh is with you. You must walk in the spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. But guess what? The flesh does lust against the spirit. I'm using sort of King James style language here. The flesh has desires that are. That you will feel a desire to do things carnal, do things sinful, and you will also have a desire to do things that are godly, and those desires will coexist in you until you get a new body, until you are resurrected or transformed, whichever comes first, into the new person that Christ is making you. Then you will not deal with that flesh anymore, and then you will walk in there. Then we'll be in our sinless state, our plateau of holiness. Right? When I'm rid of this flesh and I'm given an incorruptible body, then I will walk in holiness perfectly.

206
01:26:45.000 --> 01:26:50.000
If someone's like, I never sin, I just want to ask them, are you tempted?

207
01:26:50.000 --> 01:27:10.000
What temptations do you experience and do you never, ever fail? Like, in ten years, you've never failed to those things? You've never been lazy, harsh, wrongly harsh with somebody selfish, nothing, pride.

208
01:27:10.000 --> 01:27:37.000
Like, if I'm not, if I'm not extremely aware of my regular temptations, I will probably just walk in sin and deny it all day long. That's my fear. With someone who's like, can christians truly live an upright and blameless life? There's no sin you can't resist, but there is no moment where you're not, uh, no day where you're not going to be tempted, no season where you're going to, I have no temptations anymore. If you say that, it just means you're sinning and you're denying it. You don't even recognize that as temptation anymore. That's a self delusion thing.

209
01:27:37.000 --> 01:27:56.000
So, yeah, Galatians, the flesh continues to desire against the spirit. It continues to happen. It's an ongoing thing. As Christians, you have to die to yourself every day, every day, and you will fail. Most likely different points, no excuse for it, but it is what happens.

210
01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:25.000
And so you cling to grace and you're honest about it and you admit it and you move forward and you get back up and you rely upon Christ and you go forward and hopefully you do better. But there are, for most Christians that I've ever talked to who've been, I think, honest about this, they would say that, um, while there are some sins that they very much have overcome in a lot of ways, for most believers, I think they're going to say, um, I'm still tempted with the same thing right now that I was tempted with 20 years ago.

211
01:28:25.000 --> 01:29:09.000
Hasn't changed, right? Maybe I've got habits and practices that help me overcome that temptation. I've got like a history of saying no to it, but I'm still tempted with it. There's going to be temptations that you're going to be able to say that to. I'm regularly, ongoingly, continually tempted with this thing. That's just how the christian life is. And this keeps us relying upon Christ. This keeps us dying to yourself. This keeps us trying to follow Jesus just as he was tempted in all ways, as we are, yet was without sin anyway. All right, well, that's it. That's ten questions. I'll see you guys next Friday where we will tackle ten more and hopefully help you learn to think biblically about everything. That is the agenda, that is the goal. Let's pray. Lord, we thank you for your holy, holy word.

212
01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:48.000
It just over and over again, it just gives us guidance and answers our questions and gives us clarity in the midst of a world where everybody is tug of war, grabbing for the allegiance of everyone else, for their cause, for their side. And so often everyone's just about going against an enemy. Lord, we want to remember we are not of this world. We don't have no side, but we are on your side. And that informs how we deal with all of the issues that are going on in our politics, political, uh, parties, voting, all that stuff. It also deals with how we handle social media. We pray that you'd let us be evangelistic.

213
01:29:48.000 --> 01:30:40.000
Let us be those whose primary message above all else, is to point people to Jesus Christ and the salvation that comes through him, but also give us wisdom to navigate political things and our influence with our votes and, um, corruption in our government, which is rampant right now. We pray that we would be those who can navigate that as faithful christians who stand for truth and don't just go against one side. In Jesus name, amen.