The Hell Debate is Heating Up: 10 Qs with Mike Winger (Ep 67)

A lot of stuff today, but my view on hell and on the debate in particular, the debate that is currently broiling on hell. Sorry, the puns just automatically come out. I don't even like them. They just come out. Here's what happened. So here I'll go to question number one. What is my perspective on the topic of hell? Now, normally I would not ask a question like that and then answer it. Let me ask myself what my perspective is on something.

The rest of the questions all come from you guys today, but I have the first one I brought. But the reason I'm doing it is because there's been some confusion about my view on this, and let me get into it. Kirk Cameron. who is a brother in the Lord, who's done a lot for the kingdom in good ways. He came out with the video with him and his son on his podcast. Well, it was critical of the traditional doctrine of hell, and it was critical of it on a number of...

grounds and they were you could say they were just asking questions um that's not really actually what happened so just asking questions um

I don't think you can say that fairly if you are also bringing implications. If your questions involve implications, you're not just asking questions. You are making implications with...

with the tool of questions now that may be fair and that may be right or it might be wrong but we shouldn't pretend that the implications aren't there so there was there was a video that was done and i like to respond to it because um not so much to the video with kirk and his son or his follow-up video where he

uh elaborated on in more detail but the debate going on because here's what happened tons of people reacted to kirk cameron lots of videos were made lots of content was created i was being asked about this privately people were asking about it and the reason why

They were asking me is because along with videos about Kirk Cameron people were putting footage of me Mike winger saying I'm open to the non a non-traditional view of the topic of hell in particular the conditional immorality view or what some people call annihilationism so this is the idea and here's what he basically said hey maybe maybe we're wrong about hell

this is my interpretation of him maybe we're wrong about hell maybe it's actually you you get annihilated eventually in hell it doesn't mean you don't suffer but you eventually get annihilated and this sent off red flags in a lot of people's minds

And caused a lot of back and forth and debate and all of that stuff. Along with those debates, people played the clip of me from a Q&A some time ago. I don't remember how far. Where I was saying...

that I wanted to do at some point, and I never should have announced this because it looks like it's going to get pushed further and further back, like years back. But at some point, I'd like to do a study on the topic of hell, looking at the different views, studying it in great detail, and then offering...

a theological you know case for what i felt what i believe is the most biblical view where i analyze all sides that's something i would love to do in the future i'm not even going to put a time on it it might be 30 years from now when i'm just like laying on my deathbed and i'm recording from my deathbed who knows but what i wanted to get into today is

Clarity on what I said when I said I was open to the conditionalist view of hell and also a response to the arguments that are going on. Okay, so here we go. Here we go. The traditional view.

If you hold the traditional view, I have some thoughts for you. Then I'll share what do I mean when I'm open to the topic of health. All right, here we go. If you hold the traditionalist view, I want you to understand a few things about the conditionalist. perspective. The conditionalist perspective is not universalism. Universalism is something different. Universalism is the idea that everybody will end up being saved and that's separate from the topic of what is the nature of hell.

Now, there is a universalist view of hell where hell's temporary because everyone gets saved, even in hell, and then they go into heaven. And that's a completely different topic. That's actually not conditionalism because conditionalism would... would imply that they're, in fact, they're gone. They're annihilated. They cease to exist after the judgment is completed and held. It's not a trip to heaven. How are you doing, Kat? I heard you screaming.

All right, number one, it's not universalist. Number two, it's not a denial of hell's existence, actually. The conditionalist view does not deny the existence of hell. I saw people accusing Kirk Cameron of denying hell, denying hell's existence, saying there was no hell, that kind of thing. That's just not true.

Often progressives will deny hell or they'll relocate hell from this afterlife judgment experience to like a present type of reality. Like, well, if you believe that God punishes people, you're in hell right now. Ha ha, Brian Zahn style, like reinterpret the meanings of words and play word games. That goes on as well, but that's not what the conditionalist view is.

It's actually not a denial of judgment either. Now, I'm saying this to lower the temperature on the topic of hell right now. You can't flash your rear end to everybody. That's very rude. She just does it anyway.

She's just chilling on the arm of my chair. The view that conditionalism is a denial of God's judgment is not true. The conditionalists... They view God's judgment as coming down upon the person who is in hell in the form of suffering.

which they usually will say they're not sure how long that will last whether it's a minute or a day or a hundred years they don't know but that eventually their body and soul are destroyed and they cease to exist that is the judgment so that this is not a non-judgment thing It's a different judgment than the one you're thinking of because theirs is temporary. Or I should say the felt consequences of the judgment on behalf of the person are temporary.

Even though they might say the judgment is eternal. It's a word salad thing. I don't want to get it. Okay. So the other thing is it's not Jehovah's Witnesses. If you're a conditionalist and you think that a person is...

Inherently, when God made us, he made us where we don't live forever. You guys look at my new mug. My wife's parents gave this to me. Game boy. The conditionalist view is that a person as I understand it is that a person's The person like Adam and Eve when they were made God did not make them with eternal life already in them They had to eat of the this is not my view. Okay, but this is

as I understand of their view. They had to eat of the fruit in order to remain alive in any sense. Like physically, spiritually, all of the above. And that mankind was not given eternal existence. They would say eternal life. It was not given eternal existence as part of their design. I do not think that that's correct, but that is their view. Then, when you go to judgment in hell, you're like, well, if you die and you get destroyed in fire, you're...

You're just gone. That's the nature of that destruction. That's not a Jehovah's Witness belief, right? Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in annihilationism, but annihilationism is not inherently a Jehovah's Witness belief. I just want to stress this because...

Even me when I was younger and I first heard someone holding this view, I was then shocked to find out that some like significant people in church history have held it. Even recently, someone like John Stott, like I'm reading his commentary on a book I'm teaching.

for the youth ministry or something years ago. And I find out that Stott actually takes the conditionalist view. And I was like, what? This guy I've been reading, he has all these Orthodox doctrines, but then he's got this wrong view here. What I'm saying is, even if you think it's a wrong view,

It is an in-house discussion that Christians can have. It is not a heretical view. a heretic as in you've turned your back upon christ and you were unsaved and you're outside the christian faith if you hold the conditionalist view and it's important that we treat it like an in-house debate so for the traditionalists just be aware of that the last thing i'll say to the traditionalist is this um

The conditionalist arguments are not without merit. They're not just these really bad arguments. Let me parallel this to the egalitarian arguments. I did a thorough, thorough study on egalitarian views. Generally speaking, egalitarian arguments are just not good. They're just not good. And what I think props them up oftentimes is this sense that there's a scholarly basis behind them that makes it more substantiated.

But I dug into the scholarly basis and I was like, these are not good arguments. I think this is a very obviously wrong view, both on the surface and when you go into it in detail. That's what I think is the case.

Situation with conditional immortality, that is different. This view has stronger arguments than, say, egalitarians can bring for their positions. And I don't... agree with the view but it really does have some arguments where you go oh that's an interesting argument you're right that that's a compelling point you just made now i don't think those compelling points win the day but they do exist and so it's fair to have a discussion where we talk about those things and not act like

It's purely the most obvious doctrine in the world. Now, looking back at church history, traditionally, the view is very strongly present in church history as the overly dominant view of eternal conscious torment. That is the view. But it's not as though there aren't some scriptures that you're going to have to wrestle with that. So I just want to put that out there. It's okay to have the discussion. It's okay to talk about those things and not treat someone like a heretic because they...

are a conditionalist now i have some advice for the conditionalist okay you may feel like i've been beating on the traditional view even though that that is my view right um but i have some advice for the conditionalists as well this is what i think if you would take my

thoughts there's hopefully some element of wisdom being in here i would encourage you to avoid impugning god and i would say the same thing to kurt cameron and his son i do think that like i love you guys okay this is totally brotherly pushback okay but my brotherly pushback would be There's the danger of impugning God's justice and goodness in the way you talk about this topic. And it's pretty easy to do. It becomes very like...

useful, pragmatically useful. People change their minds because of the polemic arguments against hell. So you say something like, you commit sin for, let's say, 70 years of sin, but you're paying for it for... billions and billions and trillions and quadrillions, quintillions of years. Like when you've been there for a quintillion years, you're not even one second closer to the end of your punishment. And now that kind of rhetoric

is powerful it causes people to go wow i don't really i don't think i can defend hell it doesn't get them to think it's unbiblical it gets them to be unable to defend it now that is a dangerous thing actually in my opinion i'll explain why first of all i'll push back on the example i gave if

If I commit a lifetime of sin and I'm punished in hell for all eternity, there's two responses to explain how this could be just. One of them is you show that sin is far, far worse than the person realizes. And the other one is you show that sin is not over.

When the person is in hell that they're still actively in rebellion against God and sinning There's a third option where you you try to bring complexity into their actual what is the nature of the suffering in hell and is it static throughout time and all this other stuff and i think that's what c.s lewis did with that but the bigger issue to me is is this is a dangerous method

When you impugn God, when you use caricatures, like you describe hell as torture. So God will torture you for all eternity. And I don't, Kirk and his son did not use that term. And I'm glad they didn't. I've just heard other people use it. Once they decide that they're no longer.

going to be on board with the topic or the doctrine of hell as it has historically been held um that is a problem this is a dangerous method we need scripture first not emotional appeals to human like perceptions of justice that is a dangerous path to follow and that is exactly where people who deny penal substitution not all of them okay some of them are faithful brothers and sisters who just are convinced because of exegetical arguments

But a lot of those who deny penal substitutionary atonement, which I think is an important doctrine, they use these sort of arguments. They're like, well, God, he's going to...

He doesn't hate his son. He's not going to, he's going to torture his own child, child sacrifice. He's killing his own son. Would you kill your own son to punish because you were mad at someone else? Like God's so mad at sin. He's just, he's just out of control and rage filled. He has to pour it out. All these arguments are. ignoring scripture and appealing to something in us that bypasses the study of the text. I don't think that they're wise.

So I would encourage all of the conditionalist guys to avoid those types of arguments. Stick to the exegetical stuff, avoid the other stuff. And I'll give you a couple more reasons why. But I'll just mention, the way I do this is the way I handle Calvinism, the topic of Calvinism. I really strongly want to fellowship with Calvinist brothers and sisters. I also want to openly be able to explain why I am not a Calvinist and I don't think that it's the right view.

I want to be able to do both of those things. And I have the same attitude towards my conditionalist brothers and sisters. I want to be able to fellowship together, not treat them as heretics and just say, I can fervently disagree. You can fervently disagree, but, but.

We're not gonna Use these sort of caricatures of your view as a polemic strategy to make your view look terrible so i bring up calvinism because sometimes people will come against calvinism because they'll say if calvinism is true that makes god the author of evil therefore the and then here's the phrase i i dread

The Calvinist God is an evil God. I would never say that. I would not sign off on that. I would say if Calvinism is true, then God is just and you are simply struggling to understand how and why. And one day you will. One day you'll get it. That's what I would say. If Calvinism is true, I'm not going to impugn God's very character because he is doing something that I can't wrap my head around or that feels unjust to me. I'm just not going to do that.

That's unwise. I will never shake my fist at the creator and say, if you don't do X, Y, Z, you are immoral and I stand in judgment of you. And that's the danger of the caricatures. Number two, so don't impugn God is my encouragement to the conditionalist. Don't impugn God. And you might think I'm not impugning God. It's just the wrong view of God. Let me tell you more about that in a minute. But I'd also say for all of us, this is good for just culture in general.

If all of us recognize that just asking questions is often not just asking questions, it's making implications. Now it's not wrong to ask questions that have implications, but it's strange to pretend they don't. So if I was to... go up to a muslim and be like so uh would you would you have given your daughter to muhammad at the age of six to marry would you give your daughter to some old man some old man with gray in his hair

Would you give your six-year-old daughter to that guy to marry? And then if the guy goes, you're impugning the integrity and holiness of Muhammad. And I responded by saying, I'm just asking questions. That wouldn't be true, right? He'd be like, you're right, I am. And I should. And it's good that we do. Muhammad's character should be impugned. And his holiness and his goodness should absolutely be impugned.

But those, those are not just questions. Those are implications. I'm actually, I'm actually arguing for something and I'm just using a question to do it. So let's just say we should just be open and honest about that. And number three, number three, the conditionalists often believe and, and there's a truth in this um that their view the conditionalist view about hell is better for evangelism it's better for evangelism i'm not so sure about that allow me to explain why um

There are, especially if you're a Western, especially if you're an online kind of Christian doing apologetics online or you're doing it amongst people where apologetics takes a real center stage, not just evangelism, but actually the debate about those types of things.

Yes, you will see that hell and objections to hell are a regular issue that you have to cover when you're on your college campus and you're witnessing, you're reaching out, when you're especially engaging with atheists, non-believers, especially atheists.

you're going to find the topic of hell is a big stumbling block for them. That's true. So there you might think, well, if I present conditionalism, that is such a less, let's be real, that's a less harsh experience in the afterlife. And so I feel like I can defend it better. And then...

I can evangelize this person more. And you may be very true in that circumstance. But if you zoom out and you look at church history, I don't think you will find that that's the case, that the conditionalist view is better for evangelism in like...

eighty percent of the cases or ninety percent of the cases there's a lot of people that have come to christ because of the fear of hell and that's a just reason to come to christ because you're afraid of judgment and you're afraid it's extreme and there are other people who if they find out that they're that

they're just going to be annihilated at some point in the future, this might actually embolden them to continue sinning because they feel like, eh, worth it. There are certainly those people. They do exist. So yes, there'll be some... evangelism is easier. Some evangelism is less effective, but then there's another cost that I think most of the conditionalists I've talked to haven't really, I don't know. I haven't seen them acknowledge it, which is this. Okay. I'm going to be honest with you.

Even if you guys were right, you are not going to win this argument. You're just not. It will always be a minority view. Conditionalism, in the foreseeable future and certainly in the past 2,000 years, it has always been, as far as I'm aware, a minority view it's not likely that you're even if you get a larger minority that you'll be anything other than a minority now why is that that doesn't mean you're wrong okay that's not an argument against your view it's about strategy

It's about evangelism strategy. You want to talk about evangelism, right? Most of the non-believers and most of the Christians will always think your view is in error. Even the non-Christians, they'll be like, yeah, that's not what I think. Hell's like eternal. That's what I think it means.

That's what they're going to view. Now, when they hear you, are you against the eternal view of eternal conscious torment? When they hear you, are you against this? And you use the polemics of that would be unjust. That would be wrong. That would be evil. That would be unfair.

because you're not going to win them that your view is the correct view, all you're really doing is you're justifying their unbelief or their self-righteous hatred of God because they think, see, even this Christian over here knows it. Your view is evil. But they still think... It is the right view because, look, historically, they know you're just this minority, this small minority. That's just what you guys are. You're never going to get the masses.

on your side on this. I don't believe you are. And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you zoom out like 500 years and you do. But we're not 500. Right now, it's this time. You're not in this lifetime going to get the majority of Christians on your side or even the majority of unbelievers to think that your view is the biblical view.

You're not. So don't talk about the view in such derogatory ways, the ECT view, eternal conscious torment. I'd say, please don't talk about it in ways that embolden the unbeliever to shake their fist at God. that's just a pragmatic thing for the sake of evangelism. I encourage you with that. And the only other thing I would say to those who have the conditionalist view, there's a couple of things. Well, okay. One thing I'll say that hopefully encouraging.

Yes, it's true. Most people who argue against your view don't understand your view. And your view has a lot of nuances and a lot of little things about it that even like when I try to talk about it, I always get something a little bit off, right? And then Chris Date, who's a friend of mine, who's a conditionalist, who's like a major...

champion of the view. He'll shoot me a text and be like, Mike, you misrepresented us again. And I'm like, sorry, sorry, I'm not, my mistake. It's just, it's a nuanced view. It's a thoughtful view. Like I said, there's better arguments for it than people realize.

But I also want to encourage you with this. A lot of people come out as condition, not all of them, but there's a number who come out as I'm a conditionalist now and they frame it like this. I've always, the reason I was an eternal conscious torment guy was because that's what I was taught.

by people and i hadn't really looked into it and so it's just always been my view now that i'm a conditionalist the reason i'm that is because i've studied the arguments for the other side and wow i was really impressed and so now what i'm doing is i'm comparing Studying arguments for one side to like just absorbing a view but not thinking critically about it I would just encourage you as I was I would say to the traditional guys like myself

The arguments for the conditionalist perspective are stronger than you realize, even though I don't hold them. I don't follow them all the way. Yet, I would also say to the conditionalist, there's actually some pretty strong arguments against your studied argumentation. And if you're not familiar with those things, then you might have a stronger sense of confidence than is actually justified by your view. All right.

Let me now talk about, I'll answer the question, in what way am I open? There's a clip floating around the internet, plus it's on the video, I never deleted it. I said I'm open to the view. I regret using that terminology because of how many people took it in a way I didn't intend. So allow me to explain it. And I would affirm I am open, but in a particular sense. When I did my study on complementarian versus egalitarian, I did a, it took like two years, a project on women in ministry.

I was open to the egalitarian position. It was important to me that when I did that study that I was open to that position or else I felt like I wasn't doing it fairly. I actually wanted to be egalitarian. When I kind of check my, become very self-aware of my own motives, my own thoughts, I realized I actually kind of wanted it to be egalitarian. I thought it would be beneficial in this and this and this way.

Other motives that are probably driven more by my culture and ungodly culture that has devalued both men and women and their roles But it was important that I was open and what I meant by open was As I studied the scripture, I would be willing to just change my theological view, even if it got me in trouble with people. That I would be willing to champion the egalitarian view or champion the strict patriarchal view or champion the complementarian view.

which I ended up championing very hard complementarian views. I was open in the sense that I was willing to be persuaded by scripture to take a different position than the one I currently held. Does that make sense? I had a position I thought was true. I didn't hold it for no reason. It wasn't like I hadn't thought, but I'm...

but I'm going to go deep. I'm going to study hard and I'm open to changing my mind. Maybe there's something I don't know. In that sense, I'm open to conditionalism. I'm open to scripture leading me to the other side and saying, no, you've been wrong this whole time, Mike.

If scripture leads me, I would change my position on that. And I think that is a healthy position to have. Now, if you have thoroughly studied a topic, like you've really studied it down to the depths and someone says to you, are you open to changing your mind? And you say, no, I don't think that's arrogant or weird. I think you're like, no, I'm not. I have already really studied through this very well. I'm not.

On the topic of complementarianism and egalitarianism, I am not open to changing my mind anymore. I've studied it to the depths, and no, I'm not changing my mind on this. I've already looked at the evidence extensively for a long time.

That is not true of conditionalism. I haven't looked at all the evidence. I haven't dug into all of the church history about it. I haven't handled every argument. I have handled a number, and so I am... currently convinced that it is incorrect and if i had to really lay out my view um where i'm at and this is tentatively right it's that um eternal conscious torment is a better

way of describing what i think the bible's teaching about hell even though i don't hold that there is a static experience of eternal conscious torment meaning that the consciousness is always in the same level that the torment is always of the same degree I think that we have varied experiences in hell and we just don't know what God will do. And I don't know that Hitler in year 100 of hell is the same experience as Hitler in year 50,000 of hell. I don't know that. Okay.

But I do think that he is still experiencing it. So that's my position on that topic as it is now. Doesn't mean it's your position. I mostly just wanted to bring that clarity because there was people that took Ray Comfort to respond to this. I thought he responded well. Kurt Cameron's video and clips from that. And then they put clips.

right alongside that of me saying i'm open and it was it was just that context was not what i meant at all i meant i'm open to being persuaded that i'm wrong and that it's true i don't mean that i'm here's the important thing i don't mean that i'm leaning okay i'm not leaning to conditionalism

I'm not. I don't think that's the right view. I'm just trying to take the right posture towards it. So that was question number one. I hope that's brought some clarity to those who understandably took my open language and understood it to mean something a little different than what I meant. For years, I've been asked about the topic of hell, guys. You can look it up online. I've answered very consistently that, no, I hold the traditional view.

And that I think the conditionalist view is incorrect. I just try to be charitable towards those who hold that view. And I'd encourage more of that in the online discussion. You know, Kirk Cameron here is not a heretic for his for even if he changes his mind fully, which it looks like he probably will. Who knows? Maybe he won't. He's leaning that way, it seems. That's how he's presented himself, in my opinion. But he's not a heretic if he does that. Will it be a slippery slope?

I guess that's the last thing I should say. It might be. I don't suspect Kirk would slip down that slope, but for a lot of people, changing their view of hell is part of a slippery slope of changing their view on a lot of other things.

And that's hit and miss. Some people, they remain very faithful, theologically conservative Christians and other ones. They just start changing everything they're not comfortable with about Christianity. So something to be aware of. All right, we'll go to your guys' questions.

This comes from Competitive Shrimp, and it's about 1 Timothy 5 verses 11 and 12. And the question, I'll read the question, then we'll read the passage. It says, if there's no marriage in heaven, and when a spouse dies, we're free to remarry. How then does a young widow break her first vow? Okay, if there's no marriage in heaven and when a spouse dies, we're free to remarry. How then does a young widow break her first vow? Okay, 1 Timothy 5, 11.

This is about, I'm going to back up a little bit. Context is always good. Paul is talking to Timothy about taking care of widows and how much they're actually going to bring financial support to certain widows. But the church...

Any ministry that's giving money out to people has to be careful how they give that money out, right? They can't just hand it out to everybody who asks. Despite viral videos of people calling random churches and asking for money, oh, this is me and I need money. We don't.

We rightly suspect that you might be playing a game with those requests. Churches get those calls all the time. And they're often scammers. They're calling like 30 churches in the area and just getting as much money as they can. That is unfortunately the case, which is why... The church is wise to often use its funds to support people that they know. People who have local reputations in the local body, not strangers.

Anyway, it says here, let a widow be enrolled. This is enrolled in the finances, in the giving, in the financial care of the church. If she's not less than 60 years of age, so she's got to be older, having been the wife of one husband. This is the phrase one woman man is the counterpoint to in first Timothy, the requirement for a leader and elder to be a husband of one wife, a one woman man. So this is the same thing. It's a.

She's been faithful in her marriage, in other words. You could say that she's never been remarried. Let's say she was 23 and her husband died and she married again. And then she's 64 when her husband dies. She would still, I think... In my studies on this, she would still be considered the wife of one husband because she was a faithful woman to the one husband she had. That's what I think that means. And having a reputation for good works.

If she's brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. Okay, so she's a godly, productive member of the body of Christ. And she's a widow and she's older.

But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. This is a passage I still wonder myself exactly what is meant by that. In what sense are they abandoning their former faith or their former vow? I think you might have had a different translation you were looking at. This is the New King James.

It could also be translated, uh, promise in the NIV. It's, I don't know why it won't give me to 11 instead of 10. Um, their first pledge in ASB. I'll bet it in ASB. Not pledge. I wonder what you were using there. Maybe King James. Wait, hold on. King James? I want to find it. I'm in Galatians 1 now. Let's find out if it's King James.

Now it's faith. Okay. Interesting. So I don't know what translation that was. So we're back to the ESV on your screen here. So the younger widows, let's analyze the background here to get us closer to understanding the passage. They're not to be enrolled in this financial support because when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. This is describing them.

somehow failing in their commitments to godliness and holiness as widows who are receiving supply and support from the church now it is implied that some people thought this is like the beginning of the nuns the nunneries you know um and i think that's incorrect to say that because this these are not nuns

you're adding a lot to it. That's how you, that's a recipe for, what's it called? When you read back your current historical setting into the past, you know the word. I don't know why I can't think of it. But there is a sense in which these women who are widows are serving the church. They're probably continuing to serve. They've been devoted to every good work historically. Now, maybe they're older and they can't take care of themselves.

And so they're not actually actively serving in the church because they're older. That's why it's only she's enrolled if she in the past has a reputation for good work. She's done all this. The implication is... If we're going to support this woman financially, she will be trying to bless the church if she's physically capable. We know it because she has a history of doing that even when she was not being supported by the church. That means there's a financial benefit coming her way.

And there's, it seems, at least when possible, expected ministry happening from this widow to others. Not the same as a 12-year-old taking a vow. In fact, it would imply, or a 15 or 20 or 30-year-old woman, it would imply that these younger widows are not to take such vows, because then their passions will draw them away from Christ. Now, is that vow the vow of the former faith? I don't think it's their former vow as far as their previous marriage. That's not my impression.

So what was their former faith? Well, it might be that to be enrolled as a widow, this is a hypothetical. You need to continue being a widow. And then if you're going to stop being a widow, you're going to stop getting support from the church. creates a situation where if you do desire a man, you're more likely to fornicate. Maybe that's what Paul's talking about. That's a possibility. I don't know.

I still struggle with this passage, really understanding it. I don't think at all that it gives itself to arguments for nuns and stuff like that. I think it actually would argue against it because if you do apply it to that, it implies that... This sort of single commitment of living singly like that is denied to the younger widows because the desire for a spouse is going to draw you away from that.

But is it because they fornicate or is it because there's some vow they took when they took on the church role, the payroll from the church that they made a promise like, I promise I'll never get married in the future. I don't think that's, I don't think that makes a lot of sense. Because they're free to marry. Young widows are free to marry. That's a biblical concept. Like if their husbands die, they're free to marry whoever they want, only in the Lord. That's what Romans says. Romans 7.

So that would seem inconsistent to suddenly introduce that as a vow. Rather, they're somehow betraying Christ. Not a vow to be single, but somehow betraying Christ. Again, maybe you're getting payroll. You want to continue getting that money coming in.

but you're starting to look and wish that you, you had instead said, no, I'm probably going to seek another husband. And then it creates a situation where you end up fornicating. Maybe that's the situation. I don't know. All right. Question number three. Katie did says, if we were created as eternal beings, then what purpose did the tree of life hold in the garden? I think that one standard response to this.

Would be that the tree of life in the garden was simply not giving. So there's the body and there's the soul, right? There's the, there's the physical body that, that would go on to live if it was sustained by the tree of life.

But that doesn't mean that the soul had to be sustained by the tree of life. And a lot of conditionalists actually hold that view. So at least they seem to, from my perspective. And here's why, because they'll believe in these two very different deaths, right? There's the initial death.

The body dies and the soul sort of exists, continues to exist. It lives on until the final judgment. When the body is resurrected, they're given a new body, a resurrected body for judgment. And then the body, their view, body and soul are destroyed in fire, in hell.

That intermediate period, they're obviously not thinking that they had to eat of some tree in order to keep that existence going between the first death and the second death. Now there are some... conditionalists who are also physicalists and they believe that when your physical body dies like there is no soul that survives like the soul is somehow it's all just part of the physical they probably explain this in a better way than i am doing right now but basically that intermediate period

There is no Adam and Eve after their physical bodies die. They don't exist. And then they're brought back into existence when they're resurrected. That is, I think, an even more minority position. But I think it's refuted by the idea of like David, excuse me. Well, David says like, I could go to my son, but I can't bring him to me. I think that the implication of that is that there's like an active afterlife.

Other thing is that Saul with the witch of Endor, you guys know the passage, calls up Samuel. And it seems to be the only reasonable interpretation of that in my mind is that... There is this continuation, continuance after death of the self in a non-physical form. It's called the soul, the spirit. Yeah. So hopefully that answers your question. And their death was... Physical, right? They did physically die. Okay, number four. This is from...

Rosa Saved by Grace, who says, Happy New Year, Mike. Yeah, Happy New Year, guys. I should have told you that as well. Happy New Year. I'll show you my new shirt. Potatoes. Boil and mash them. Stick them in a stew. Great little shirt. My wife.

Always gives me funny shirts. See, our deal is I don't have to go shopping and she just supplies me with shirts. And then I will wear the goofy shirts that she gets me. So actually, that's the reason why there's so many cat shirts. I don't buy those. I wear them. She buys them. All right. You say Happy New Year. And then how do we reconcile Matthew 6, 25 through 33 with the reality of poverty? I'm comfortable saying even he doesn't. God is still good.

But this passage sounds almost word of faith. Matthew 6, 25, 33. Let's look at it and we'll understand your question. Jesus speaking here at the Sermon on the Mount. This is the amazing Sermon on the Mount. I don't know when the last time was that you read the Sermon on the Mount. If you don't remember, then I recommend you read it starting today. Therefore, I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on.

Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Okay, so he's counseling here against anxiety about your life. Why? Because when you are worried about things that in this sense are just about keeping you alive. then you are not in a great place. Anxiety does not bring you good. Anxiety does not bring you help and aid. Oh!

My wife just texted me. She says this potato shirt was a gift from Rachel Dunn. Thanks, Rachel. One of the viewers sent that in. That was a great shirt. I just, it was in my closet and I forgot where it came from. So my wife wanted to make sure you got credit. So thank you very much. That was very kind of you. All right. So Jesus is counseling us against anxiety because for one thing, as Psalm 37, I believe it says, do not fret. It only causes harm.

That anxiety itself is harmful. And just being worried about things all the time is harmful. My old pastor once said, worrying works. Because most of the stuff I worry about never happens. So it must work. That's his dry humor, which I liked. So then it says, don't worry about the specifically he names what you eat or drink or about your body, what you'll put on. So food, clothing, sustenance, basic needs.

Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? That's the second problem with anxiety about those things is you reduce your life to the things you worry about. And if you're worried about the most basic of things in... You don't really see the elevated nature of human life, that it's about so many things. Look at the birds of the air. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to a span of life? Again, your anxieties doesn't, it doesn't work. It doesn't do anything. And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They neither toil nor spin. Yet I tell you.

Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore, do not be anxious saying, what shall we eat? Or what shall we drink? Or what shall we wear? For the Gentiles seek after all these things. Jesus usually uses the Gentiles, it seems, as like, not always, but often as an example of worldly thinking.

limited worldly thinking. And it says, and your heavenly father knows that you need them all, but seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. And all these things will be added to you. Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow for tomorrow will be anxious for itself.

Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. I'm going to read your question one more time so we can really get to it. How do we reconcile this passage with the reality of poverty? I'm going to modify it and say the reality of extreme poverty because... This passage actually would apply to a poor person who has food, who has clothing, who has just got their basic necessities taken care of, but they're poor. They would be taken care of.

based on this passage. It's not about prosperity, right? It's about basic needs. But the next question is like, what about the Christian who's like literally starving to death? What about the believer who was kidnapped in Nigeria, right? Because they were Christians, because they named the name of Christ and they're being held and they're being starved and they're being brutalized and eventually they're going to be murdered.

That this is happening in Nigeria all the time right now and not only Nigeria Sudan and all sorts of other places, right? So if a Muslim is doing that to you, do you say you know, this passage doesn't really work for me. It doesn't really apply to me. I think honestly, what we're doing is we take Jesus's teaching here and we turn it into a mathematical formula sometimes where we're like, oh, so if I seek first God's kingdom,

then I will always, always, in every scenario, in every conceivable situation in life, I will always have the food, the shelter, the clothing, the basic needs will always be met. I don't think that's what Jesus meant. I think he meant being anxious is not the solution.

Seek first God's kingdom and he'll provide for you and don't worry about these things. Don't be filled with angst about this kind of stuff and let the Lord provide for you. Does that mean he will always in every conceivable situation provide for you? Paul says he knows how to be abased and he knows how to abound. To be abased means being brought low. He knows how to be in hunger and suffer. I mean, when he talks about all the perils, you know the perils passage.

It was perils of water, perils of this. He talks about going without food. He talks about being imprisoned, despairing of life itself. That wasn't in contradiction to this. It's just that he wasn't going to get the things...

that he needed by being anxious about it. He was going to just continue to seek the Lord and trust in God's provision. In general, God will take care of you and provide for you. If he calls you to a time of suffering, of poverty, may you honor him in it and know how to be abased as Paul was.

But I think that this is a general truth that Jesus is giving us. It is not a mathematical formula to apply to every scenario. So there may be times where as a Christian, you do suffer need. You do even starve. That may happen. But it's...

Not as likely if you're seeking first God's kingdom and his righteousness. This verse, actually, Matthew 6, 33, is one of the reasons why I'm in ministry today. I remember being young and worrying about if I went to, you know, Calvary Chapel's school of ministry.

program which was a two-year program not accredited but it was a good program uh where we were going to learn all sorts of stuff that similar to seminary but not as not as great as a seminary as far as education level goes but when i went there i

was on the fence. I was like, look, I either need to do this or I need to pursue a career of some other kind. Now, I didn't have any open doors. Nobody was going to offer to hire me if I did this. I didn't know how I was going to pay the bills, but I really knew I wanted to serve the Lord.

And I felt like it was something that would be good. You know, it would be a good thing for me to seek the Lord that way. It worked with whatever my talents, my gifts were. Teaching seemed like it was obviously something I was supposed to do.

I was on the fence. I had not yet submitted my application to the school of ministry. I was thinking about it. And I just thought two years, we're in that classroom, three hours a day, five days a week. And then you have like another five hours of homework every day or more. It was a very intense program.

You could do some part-time work, but it was really, really hard if you did more than part-time work to even do the program. It was this verse that got me. It was Matthew 6.33. I read this and I thought,

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. That's definitely what I'm doing. All these things, just the basic needs, they'll be added to you. Okay, Lord, I'm just going to trust you. And Lord has proven faithful in that in my life. And I'm very grateful for it. All right, next question.

uh should be five actually number five gabriel merit says happy new year to you and those with you mike uh great thanks to you and them for the work done yep thank you and thanks to the mods who are in there helping make the live chat not as disastrous as it could be I'm grateful for that. I'm grateful for all of you guys who try to keep kindness present as well as being willing to call things out. Just having that balance is really great. So the question you have is...

I've been curious about the word until slash till in Matthew 1834. Does this imply purgatory? Matthew 1834. All right. I'm going to back up and read the whole parable. Jesus says, this is, well, I should read what he's asked. Okay, so Peter asks Jesus, and we're going to ask the question, does this passage imply purgatory? Therefore. . . .

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king. Now he's going to give an illustration, a story that will teach this principle that he just taught about forgiveness. the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants when he began to settle one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents that is an amazingly huge amount of money

And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold with his wife and children and all that he had in payment to be made. Right. So he has some extreme negative consequence that's going to happen to him. He's in danger. Big danger because of this money. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, have patience with me and I will pay you everything. He never could have paid. Okay. He just is begging because he doesn't want this to happen to him and his family.

And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. Okay, he didn't just say, I'll give you patience till you pay me. He said, you don't owe me anymore. Whoa. Okay, so he was... destined for debtor's prison this is where you're you're basically in in bonds you know until you can work off your debt which would probably never happen in his lifetime but when that same servant went out

he found one of his fellow servants who owed him 100 denarii and seizing him he began to just a small amount by the way relatively small amount it's significant it's like months of income but still it's nothing compared to 10 000 talents and seizing him he began to choke him saying pay what you owe

So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him. So this choking him, it's less of a business expense, right? Now, before it was a business thing. Okay, you owe me the money. You don't have it. You guys will go to debtor's prison. This is like, he's angry at the guy.

He's mad, choking him. There's a carnal rage that's there. Pay what you owe, right? You owe me this small, relatively small debt. I want you to pay it all. So his fellow servants fell down and pleaded with him, have patience with me and I will pay you. He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. You guys get the message, right? When his fellow servants saw what had taken place.

They were greatly distressed and they went and reported to their masters all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and he said to him, you wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should you not? have had mercy on your fellow servant as I had mercy on you. And in anger, his master delivered him to the jailers. Now he's angry. Until he should pay all his debts. Probably never going to happen.

so also my heavenly father will do to every one of you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart all right is it about purgatory okay no but if it was Let's just say hypothetically, if it was about purgatory, what would the implications be? The implications would be that purgatory is where you pay for your own sin and that you stay in there until you on your own can pay off your entire debt. Purgatory would be...

The result of not getting forgiveness for your sin by Jesus. You're not forgiven. It's revoked. And then you somehow earn your way to heaven through your punishment. You suffer till you can be released if you were to make this about purgatory to be consistent That would be the interpretation because that's what happens in the passage He's there not forgiven and he's paying his own debt

Now, purgatory in the Catholic Church does serve a function similar to that, but not the same. In purgatory, there is a combination of works. It's not just you. It's Jesus plus the saints plus people praying for you in purgatory, but it's also you suffering.

And that suffering is expiatory, meaning you're actually paying the penalty for your sins. A lot of times modern Roman Catholics will present purgatory as though it is a... character transformation and that's kind of the whole story that's not classically what purgatory is supposed to be and it's not what it's supposed to be in actual official catholic doctrine purgatory yes it's meant to refine your character

But it's more than that. You're also meant to literally suffer to pay for your sins. Jesus suffered on the cross to pay for your sins. You are now suffering in purgatory to also pay for your own sins. That is actually where the reformers and myself included have major problems with purgatory because you're saying that I'm going to Jesus is suffering is not going to cover my sins fully and so that

Just so we get clear on what purgatory is. It's often sold to Protestants as, don't you feel like you need to be more refined? Like you're not ready for heaven. You need more sanctification. And it's sold as if it's just sanctification. And that is not the doctrine. That is not that it's not fair. It's not honest to try to get Protestants to believe it thinking it's just sanctification because it's not the actual belief.

But this passage, no. The guy's going to be in purgatory. He's going to be in debtor's prison until he pays off the full debt, which he probably never will. He'll probably die first. That's the 10,000 talents thing. He's never going to pay it. It's more of a parallel of hell, of actual judgment.

Your sins are not forgiven, right? You're not under Christ. You're not under grace, which purgatory still considers a person in some sense under grace. You're not under grace. You're not forgiven. You actually have to pay the full price for your sin. So that's the hell experience. That's the judgment of God. That's the wrath of God.

So it doesn't work with purgatory, I don't think, on any level. Not when you analyze it thoughtfully. All right, go to the next question, number six. And we have all ten questions for today, just so you guys know where all the questions are filled up. Shrut.

says hi mike and team happy new year and thank you for all you do happy new year to you too and thanks for watching new believer here oh that's that excites me all right i'm happy to talk to i hope i hope i can give you a good answer and my question is since jesus is yahweh

Why is he given the name above every other name in Philippians 2? What does that mean? Okay, I get what you're saying. Hey, if he's already Yahweh, he already has a name that's above every name, right? So how can he be given one unless he's somehow less?

Well, let's look at Philippians 2. So often, new believers, you want to know this. So often, the answer to our questions is embedded right in the very passage of scripture that you're asking about. So you'll read a passage and you'll ask a question, a hard question about it. oftentimes get that question in your head, reread it again, and sometimes you'll find it answering the question for you. Let's see if that works here in Philippians 2. So the passage was the name above every name. Let me...

Let me take us to that verse real quick. Therefore, God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth. And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. So natural question. If he's already God, how can he get exalted and then have a name? All of a sudden, he gets bestowed upon him a name that's above every name. How does that work?

Well, Philippians 2, let's read the whole section leading up to this. So if there's any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind. having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Oh man, this is such a good reminder for us. Social media turns us into like rude Christians. It just does. It happens to me too. Good reminder to be...

Full of love and affection and sympathy. Being of one accord as much as possible with our brethren. Here it says, do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit. but in humility count others more significant than yourselves what an amazing culture that that would create

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. And you might be like, why are you reading all this, Mike? This has nothing to do with. Actually, what Paul's doing is he's describing Jesus. He's describing what Jesus did. And he's telling us to put on Jesus's attitude.

Now in verse five, he reveals that he says, have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, that's affirming the deity of Jesus, right? He's in the form of God. We could go to 2 Corinthians 4.4. I wonder if I can put that on your... I don't know if you guys are seeing that. There's a delay here. Jesus being in the image of God.

There's lots of New Testament passages that affirm the deity of Christ. Lots and lots and lots. So he's in the form of God. Here Philippians is not denying that. We know Paul wrote Philippians. Paul who affirms the deity of Jesus in no uncertain terms. And he says here he's in the form of God. That's the beginning point. Jesus is God from all eternity. But what happens? In his incarnation, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped or held on to.

but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Jesus comes in human form. Now he empties himself. There's a lot of theological debate over what that meant that Jesus emptied himself. What does that mean? He emptied himself. It didn't mean he was not God anymore. That's not the case. Jesus is affirmed as God in his incarnation. He's still God. But he empties himself.

In a status sense, he comes down and there's other ways I think too, but in a status sense, he comes down and he's in human form and he's not being treated as God. He's being treated and behaving as a normal human.

that experiences normal humanity. He walks in obedience to the father, right? He doesn't treat the father with equality because he's going to live out this incarnated human life where he does everything that we're called to do, but he does it perfectly. Every way we fall short, he does it well.

And being found in human form, he humbled himself, right? This is why it was humility because he didn't deserve it. It was humility because he was God with us, Emmanuel, by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, so he lowers himself, becomes incarnate, lives a perfect life, dies on a cross. Then he rises from the dead. But God has exalted him, highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name that's above every name.

so that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow. Two aspects of this I would want to highlight for you that stand out to me at least. One of them is that... Only when you, you can only exalt Jesus if Jesus first lowers himself. Because he's God. You can't exalt him higher than he is. He can't get a name higher than he has in eternity. He's God the Son. He's affirmed as, he's Yahweh. There's Yahweh.

the father there's also yahweh the same god who is the son and the i know the trinity can be complicated but it doesn't mean it's not thoroughly taught in scripture okay i know it can be confusing it doesn't mean it's not clear that it's actually the case that Jesus is God, but he's also with God, with the Father. So this...

Exaltation of Jesus can only happen if he first lowers himself and that's what Philippians 2 does It says first he lowers himself takes on that humble form and then he just acts like a normal person Then after his death and resurrection, he's exalted. He's given a name above all. And the name above all is Jesus. So that this incarnate second person of the Trinity, he's the one to whom everyone will bow. Even though he took on that humanity, which he keeps, he is now highly exalted.

basically back to the position he was before, and now everyone will bow before him. Does that make sense? I hope that makes sense. I think that's the answer for you. Number seven, Wesley Lehman says, Does 1 Corinthians 4, 14, 31 mean all believers can prophesy? If all can teach in some way without being teachers, teaching their children, can all prophesy without being prophets? Yeah, that's a sticky one for me.

I don't know how to answer that one for sure. I've thought about that as well. And my charismatic brothers think about it more and they often have more thoughts to share about it than I do. But I'll read it here. I believe in the gifts. I don't... I guess I don't, it's questionable whether I should call myself charismatic. It's questionable. Maybe in some ways I should, in some ways I should. I wonder like maybe continuations is better or.

Or someone who just believes in the gifts that they're relevant today. Another time. Another talk for another time. Verse 31 on your screen here. It says, for... you can all prophesy one by one so that all may learn and be and all be encouraged and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets um does this give a case that there are people who prophesy

but are not prophets um you might think it does because if everyone's prophesying not everyone's a prophet right that would just seem logical logically true but The passage actually uses the word prophets to describe the very people that all can be, all can prophesy. And then the implication is when it says prophets in verse 32, same sentence, that it's referring back to those people who just prophesied.

Right? Now, the subject to the prophets, I think that that is meaning that you're not out of control when you prophesy. You can stop. Hey, stop. We said two or three at the most, but I have a word. You can control yourself. I think that's the implication there. But it actually calls them prophets.

If I had this verse alone, it was the only verse I had, I would think that everybody who prophesies is considered a prophet in some sense. There's another pragmatic concern, though, that is like this idea that, well, what if, like I've spoken prophetically, okay? I mean, I have...

Prophesied to people a couple different times not many and those things did come to pass I really believed at the time was from the Lord that it was a word from the Lord and I shared it with them and then it did come to pass and

Does that mean that I'm a prophet? This is a very rare occurrence for me. It's extremely rare. Would I call myself a prophet? No. I don't traffic in that on a regular basis. So I would tend to be like, well, maybe you're a prophet while you're doing it. But if you don't do it regularly, I wouldn't use the term.

But I don't respect the people online who prophesy constantly and they go, well, I don't call myself a prophet. They just don't want accountability is what they want. That I don't respect. If you're going to prophesy all the time, no doubt about it.

I probably need to give you a better answer for that, but that's what I've got for now. All right. Number eight, Sermon on the Mount is the question. Okay. Maddie Rocco says the Sermon on the Mount has some hyperbole. Cut off your hand, for example. And I would agree that's hyperbole. How do you know what is hyperbole and what isn't specifically regarding anger? How would I give a rule about what is hyperbole and what isn't?

I think you would assume something's not hyperbole unless you had indications that it was. Otherwise, you could easily dismiss something the Lord is saying, Jesus is saying, or the disciples are saying, because you're like, well, that's probably hyperbole. Most of the time people are not speaking with hyperbole most of the time They just say what they mean and if there's indications in the passage that it's hyperbolic Then you would think maybe this is hyperbolic so

Is cutting off your hand hyperbolic? I don't even know if actually, maybe hyperbole is not the best term for that. Maybe cutting off the hand is metaphorical. Maybe that's a better word. Because I don't think it's... exaggerating what you should do. I think it's metaphorizing, it's metaphorizing, metaphorating, metaphor nations of what you're supposed to do. Is there a word that could fit in that sentence that would actually be real? I don't know.

But Jesus is giving a metaphor saying that thing that is access to sin in your life, that thing that is the sin in your life and the cost of getting rid of it, it's worth it, even if it was like cutting off your hand. Now, is cutting off your hand going to stop you from sinning? No, of course not. Whatever you did with your right hand, you could do with your left hand. So I'm going to cut that one off too. Okay, but now what about with my stubs? Can I still do this sin? Yeah, probably.

So the cutting out, gouging out of one eye isn't going to change anything about what you see. You'd have to cut out both. Even if he was being non-metaphorical, he'd have to be like, get rid of both eyes. But even then, guys, that's not how dealing with sin works. We understand this is a metaphor.

For get rid of the thing that is harboring sin in your life, in your heart, even if there's an extreme cost to it, for the sake of your walk with Christ, for the sake of your future, your legacy, your... fatherhood your motherhood your your ability to be an imager of god in this planet to avoid the pain and suffering of eventual that will come eventually from sin cut this thing out even if it costs you but cutting off physical body parts is not is not

what's meant there that's metaphorical there's when you when you bring up a specific issue um anger when jesus talks about anger let's read the passage is this hyperbolic You have heard it was said to those of old, you shall not murder and whoever murders will be liable to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who's angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.

That means that the internal stuff, this is actually where modern Judaism splits from Jesus significantly. At least some of the major proponents for modern Judaism who are even Christian friendly. but this is an area where they're definitely not in agreement. They often, like Dennis Prager, who I actually really respect, and I think he has a lot of great things to say, he has a teaching on the commandment, in the Ten Commandments, he goes through them, and the one against coveting.

He interprets it in a way that I think is not biblically true and suggests that it's okay to covet or lust in your heart, but you can't try to take. And here Jesus is highlighting the opposite, right? Actually, no, it's the heart thing is the problem.

If you're angry, just this is an internal thing. You're just angry, not even an outburst, just you're angry with your brother. And it's assumed that this is an unjustified, ungodly anger. You'll be liable to judgment, meaning you have moral consequences before the throne of God for those feelings. That doesn't seem hyperbolic yet, okay? Whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council, okay? That is...

I think this is in reference to a human council. Like, hey, you've slandered your brother. You can stand before the council of elders kind of thing in a human sense. But Jesus is then adding to it, whoever says you fool will be liable to the hell of fire. I know there's eternal, not just physical, but eternal consequences to the sins of even wrongly insulting your brother. Now, is it hyperbole? Because Jesus says, don't say you fool. Yet he goes on later to say that the Pharisees are fools.

and other other things he insults them blind guides hypocrites brood of vipers that their father is the devil like those are some extreme insults jesus gives to these guys does that apply here whoever insults his brother

The implication is that this isn't hyperbole that Jesus is doing here. What I think is happening here is he's just not clarifying all of his language constantly. The implication is that if you have unjust... calling someone a fool unjust insults to your brother unjust anger in your heart then you are accountable to god for those very things right so it's a generalistic thing but um but there can be proper anger

towards individuals that is not sinful but anger can lead us to sin this is why ephesians says in your anger do not sin nor let the sun go down on your wrath so don't don't let don't let anger be held on to for long periods of time resolve it take it to the lord ask him for justice, trust him with it, and then move forward. So hopefully that helps. I think you have to read a lot of the Sermon on the Mount with that same kind of hermeneutic that I was just using. Question number nine.

Silver Russ says, Do you believe that God uses the consequences or results of a sin for his own purposes, like a one night stand resulting in a child? A reference could be Joseph and his brothers. This one seems like a no-brainer to me, but I want to give a warning after I explain how it's a no-brainer. So the no-brainer is, does God use the consequences or results of sins for his purposes, even for good? Absolutely, he does.

Joseph and his brothers, perfect example, perfect example at the end of Genesis where he tells them what you intended for evil, God intended for good, and therefore he saved many people alive. They sold him into slavery. They were jealous of him. They were mad at him. They were hateful of him.

And he, God used that for good to save a lot of people's lives because he got exalted to Pharaoh's right hand and he saved so many people. And I think Joseph's a picture of Jesus. Jesus was rejected by his own Jewish people, not entirely, but largely. And. he then becomes significantly enthroned amongst the gentiles as their lord and then eventually there'll be this jewish revival where they come in and that one that they rejected is welcoming them in

Yep, God used even your rejection for good. I think it's a picture of the messianic work of Christ, both amongst the Jews and the Gentiles. Joseph, it's really cool stuff. Anyways, the warning is this. We're very tempted to try to get rid of our sense of shame or regret or grief over our past sins by saying, well, God used it.

And I've heard plenty of people say about like their sins in the past. They're like, I wouldn't change a thing. If I go back, I wouldn't change a thing because it got me here today. I see how God used it. I wouldn't change a thing. And I would just say, I never encourage you to say that about sin.

Any chance you had to go back and undo a sin in your life, you should definitely do that and know that God will still work all things together for good. God didn't need your sin. He used your sin. That's the thing. He did not need your sin. He used it. He doesn't need it.

The way to deal with your sense of guilt and shame about your past is to look to the cross and know that you're forgiven and know that the savior of all, he knew every sin you ever would commit. And he died on the cross to pay for them because he loved you that much. He wanted you to be clean.

And that the righteousness that you have is not your own. It's not you looking back and going, I've been faithful. I've been good. It's you looking to him and going, he was faithful. He was good. I am clothed with Christ's righteousness. I look down and I see.

his righteousness on me. And I look to the cross and I see my filthy rags on him and he dies and he buries them and he rises without them because my sin has been separated from me as far as the East is from the West. That is how you deal with shame. That is how you deal with grief.

It is not by whitewashing your past and saying, well, God used it, so it wasn't so bad. It was still evil when Joseph's brothers betrayed him and sold him into slavery. And at no point in their lives should they ever pat themselves on the back and be like, did you see what God did through our sin? It was pretty amazing, right?

maybe what we did wasn't that bad that's the only thing i would caution against question number 10 comes from mr mrs cool mrs cool welcome matthew 8 i watched so many matthew questions this is great I love when there's like an unintended theme that we get. Okay, Matthew 8 verses 5 through 13 says that Jesus was amazed at the centurion's faith. In other places in the New Testament, Jesus knew the thoughts of the Pharisees.

If Jesus could read thoughts, how could he be amazed? Okay, let's read the passage, then we'll go through some possible answers. Because if the text doesn't give us a clear answer, what we can do is hypothesize. What does good theology and good understanding of scripture, what options does it give us for answering the question you gave? All right, let's read the passage. When he had entered Capernaum, Jesus, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, Lord, my servant is lying.

paralyzed at home suffering terribly and he said i will come and heal him this is a rare moment where a non-jew comes to jesus and asks for healing doesn't happen too much He mostly, he's like, I came to the last house of Israel. That's his focus. His focus was on the Jewish people. It was after his death and resurrection that he sends the disciples out into all of the world, not just Israel. So this was a rare moment, right? And he goes, I'll come and heal him.

But the centurion, and this is actually good theologically, the Gentiles should know that we are not secondhand citizens in Christ, but we are not the ones to whom the promises were given. We are those who get to be grafted in, and we should be grateful for that.

but the centurion replied lord i'm not worthy to have you come under my roof but only say the word and my servant will be healed for i too am a man under authority with soldiers under me and i say to one go and he goes and to another come and he comes and to my servant do this and he does it

So what he's saying is that Jesus has such authority that he knows that if he simply declares the man healed, it'll happen. And that the analogy is that he can just tell someone like, hey, go over there and do a thing. And he just knows it'll get done. He doesn't have to go himself. So, pretty strong faith in Jesus. When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, Truly I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.

I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. Well, east and west meaning Gentiles, guys. Many will come who are outside of Israel. And they will recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Right? In the kingdom of heaven. While the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So again, prophesying basically the Gentile reception of the Messiah and the Jewish rejection. Not entirely, right? The disciples were Jewish. The early church in Jerusalem was largely Jewish. But as a whole, the Jewish people, even today, popular... common judaism that we have today modern rabbinic judaism talmudic judaism rejects jesus for now for now god willing there'll be a radical change okay so question question

If Jesus could read their thoughts, how could he be amazed? And your example was, there's other places where Jesus knows people's thoughts, or he knows supernatural knowledge, where he sees Nathaniel. I saw you when you were sitting under the tree, Nathaniel. I saw you when you were sitting under the tree. He knows what was in the heart of man. So he didn't trust himself to anybody. That's what it says in John.

two possibilities for answering this question, this tension that you've got. One of them is to suggest that Jesus did know about the centurion. but he was still amazed, even though he knew, he knew what he was thinking, and he knew what he was going to say, and he knew all of it all along, but he still reacted in the moment with amazement.

That is a possibility. Okay. That's not typically how I would use the word amazed, but maybe it has to be used that way to apply to Jesus because he's just omniscient. He knows all things. And so he's displaying amazement because he's in the moment. He's actually experiencing it in that exact moment.

And that was a wonderful moment that was amazing, even though we knew it would come. I experienced this when I rewatched certain films, okay? Me and my wife just recently started rewatching Lord of the Rings, which we do every once in a while. So we're watching Lord of the Rings and there are certain scenes that I think are so well done and thoughtfully crafted. I'm looking at the intro and how they're at the Shire and I'm like, I'm genuinely amazed.

by how well this movie came came across especially when all the stuff they've done after that was like the rings of power and i the war of the rohirim i didn't even watch i saw the trailer and was like i lost all interest so that's just me you guys can disagree if you want lord of the rings

amazing Hobbit was like definitely a step down. Um, but then it went, it went real downhill after that. So the, uh, but the Hobbit still had great stuff. Okay. I won't talk about the Hobbit in the Lord of the Rings too much. All right. I'll stop. David was going to make fun of me. for doing this uh not that i don't enjoy that i am still amazed re-watching those scenes and i go man look at the writing the acting the the

Everything about that was done so well. The placement in the film, the way they decided what they would include and exclude from the books and stuff. I thought, wow, it was really well done. I am amazed because I'm experiencing it in the moment again, even though I've already seen it more than once.

Jesus could be amazed in that sense, right? Yes, he knew the guy would do it, but to have him right there in the moment doing it, to watch his face as he's going, you don't have to come. I trust you. I believe in you. That is still perhaps an amazing thing. That's one possible resolution to your question. Here's another resolution, and this is probably the one I would lean towards personally. And that is that while Jesus carried omniscience,

Sarah Zimmerman, I saw that you just wrote Lord of the Rings is boring in the live chat. And I want you to know that you are giving an official, as your employer, an official warning. It's going in your permanent record. No. So the other option is this. Jesus, while he's omniscient, because he's God. He never stops having the attributes of God. Omniscience is an attribute of God. But he doesn't always use that omniscience.

And I know this sounds weird to people and feel free to reject it if you think my explanation, you don't like it. You know, I'm not saying you're bound to this. But here's a motive for this explanation. In Luke, it says that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature before God. And man grew in wisdom. God is all wise. In what sense can Jesus grow in wisdom? Here's another dilemma for us. Understand the incarnation and the nature of Christ as he is both God.

truly God and truly man, how could he grow in wisdom? Well, when he was three years old, did he have actively in the front of his mind, did he have all the knowledge of omniscience at all times? Or was he like learning things?

Was he learning the names of things, learning language? I think he was probably learning language. I think he had that real human experience. But the question is how to explain that kind of learning while also saying that he has all... all-knowing omniscience at the same time how can you learn and be omniscient and i think that the answer is we have the voluntary disuse of attributes we have of or i should say abilities we have so i have the ability to see right now but if i close my eyes

I am not using that ability. Now you can be like, Mike, how is it you don't see the camera that's looking at you right now, even though you have eyes and supposedly you can see? And the answer is I have eyelids and I have closed them. I can have an ability and not use it. I think that Jesus, in the nature of his incarnation, can simply close his eyes or release the usage of attributes he does have.

And maybe the human brain gave an avenue for that to be easier to do. Or I don't know. I don't know. I'm conjecturing too much to say that, to be honest. But this is also true of Jesus's strength. You know, he fasted for 40 days and he's tired and he's hungry.

But God doesn't need to eat. Of course not. He doesn't need to eat. But he's subjecting himself to this human experience where his body has a need to eat. And Jesus subjected himself to a human experience that involved growing and learning things. And so he may have just been amazed.

Because at the moment he did not know at that exact moment was not accessing his eyes closed to that omniscience to know what that was, what that guy was going to say. And then maybe just taking moment by moment direction from the father. Now go here. Now come over here. Now say this.

As he says, I only say the things the father tells me to. He only does the things the father tells him to. That to me seems like a good and very satisfactory explanation. And that was question 10. Oh, bonus question. New Year's 2026 bonus question, or bonus comment, I should say, from the bearded doctor. Okay, I'll try to read this the way you wrote it. Purgatory is where cats go after they die.

Purgatory. Purgatory is where cats go after they die. You heard it here first, guys. Purgatory is real, but only for cats. you can, you can debate that in the comment section. All right. Um, I am not going to usually give you guys updates on what's going on. I'm going to, I'm going to not do that as much at the end of the streams. I'll give you guys a little update on things, but not as much expectations. Cause

I keep hitting delays on the work I'm doing behind the scenes. And there are things that I can't actually discuss. I can't tell you about because it would reveal things about people. But I'm still doing cover-up culture videos. I'm going to do a few more. And I'm very eager to get done with this series of videos. I'll tell you that much.

I really want to move on and get back to teaching Hebrews. And I need to take a break because I have to write a book. So there's going to be a bit of a while this year, a little section of this year where I won't be producing much content. There's some pre-recorded stuff. And then I'll be back into Hebrews verse by verse probably later this year. So that's the plan. The timing of it is, I don't know. I don't know, man. I just got to finish.

A number of people have come to me, said, Mike, will you help us please to tell our story? We think there needs to be accountability in the church with these individuals and situations. And I've committed to helping them. So I need to get through that list of people. And then I want to get back to more verse by verse stuff. And a theology of government series of videos, probably a few videos on that. We'll see how many. So that's the little update. Let's pray. Father, we...

We lay before you our coming year, 2026. We pray that right now you'd help us to have a vision for what you would like us to do. Let us not just have our own selfish ambitions, but rather kingdom ambitions that we would be very ambitious, but we'd be ambitious for your kingdom.

to seek your kingdom in our lives, in the lives of those around us, to see how we can further serving you in ministry, how we could be good husbands and wives and fathers and children and mothers and daughters. And we pray that you would help us, Lord, to have a real vision for the... The purpose, the deep purpose and meaning that you've placed into every moment of our lives. And that we would not get caught up in the habits that distract us. In Jesus' name, amen.

See you guys next Friday. And maybe, maybe sooner than that. We'll see.