Book: Selected Scriptures

  • Lesson 28: Cessationism – Spiritual Gifts, Overview

    Lesson 28: Cessationism – Spiritual Gifts, Overview

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    We are reminded that complementarianism—the teaching that men and women are equal in value before God but distinct in roles ordained by him—is rooted in creation, not culture or the fall. Working through 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Romans 16, we are called to understand these roles not as a diminishment of women but as God’s good design for order and flourishing in the church.

    Key Lessons:

    1. The prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12) is grounded in creation order, not cultural preference or female inferiority.
    2. The silence commanded in 1 Corinthians 14 applies specifically to women judging prophecy in the gathered church, not to all forms of speech—women were actively praying and prophesying in the same congregation (1 Corinthians 11:5).
    3. The different monetary assessments in Leviticus 27 reflect the economic value of physical labor in an agrarian society, not the inherent worth or dignity of men versus women.
    4. Phoebe’s commendation in Romans 16 illustrates that women can hold significant servant-leadership roles in the church, even while the office of elder/pastor remains reserved for qualified men.

    Application: We are called to hold God’s Word as the sole foundation for what we permit or restrict in church life—neither shrinking back from clear biblical boundaries nor adding restrictions Scripture does not actually impose, and always honoring the Spirit’s work in every member of the body.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How do you personally distinguish between a woman exercising spiritual authority over men versus a woman contributing her gifts and knowledge in a mixed-gender setting?
    2. In what ways might a newfound freedom in Christ—like the freedom women experienced entering the early church—lead someone to overstep God’s designed order, and how do we guard against that?
    3. How should a church respond when a doctrinal question involves genuinely ambiguous passages, and what does it look like to hold a position humbly while still being convicted by Scripture?

    Scripture Focus: 1 Timothy 2:8–15 establishes the creation-rooted basis for male teaching authority; 1 Corinthians 14:29–35 addresses order in prophetic speech; 1 Corinthians 11:3–5 confirms women praying and prophesying publicly; Romans 16:1–2 highlights Phoebe as a model servant-leader; Leviticus 27 raises questions about gendered valuation in the Old Testament context.

    Outline

    Introduction

    Before we begin going through the individual questions that came in, first I want to say thank you to everybody who sent in questions.

    Two things. One, I should just quickly ask for prayer again. Last week I wasn’t feeling well for a different reason. This week, apparently I have something called zinc poisoning. Just asking if you can pray while I’m up here because I do not feel good.

    But anyway, God, see me through this. Before we get into the questions, there are a couple of passages that we need to look at if we’re going to discuss this topic. Again, we’re talking about complementarianism.

    And I think I can manage it this time.

    Defining Complementarianism

    Kind of this loose definition that we’re working with is that men and women are equal in value before God, but distinct in roles as ordained by him.

    These roles include authority and submission. They reflect the relationship between Christ and his church. They actually have their root in creation, not in the fall and not in any particular culture.

    “Men and women are equal in value before God, but distinct in roles as ordained by him.”

    1 Timothy 2:8–15 Overview

    The first passage we should look at is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. You can turn there if you’d like, though it spans multiple pages.

    We’re going to work our way through this. This is not meant to be a full examination of the text. We don’t have time—that would probably take a month or two worth of sermons just to go through this and the next passage that we’re going to look at. But I’ll read it for us here.

    1 Timothy 2:8-15 says, “Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger and dispute. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women, making a claim to godliness.” Verse 11: “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness, but I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

    For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. But women will be preserved through childbirth if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity with moderation.”

    1 Timothy 2:11: “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.”

    That’s a lot, as you can see why we’re not going to be able to deeply dive into all of it here. There are a few observations that we can make. It’s likely that these two statements are directed to different groups—one in verse 8 directed to men and one in verses 9-15 directed to women.

    It seems like all the statements made in these directives are corrective in nature. There were issues happening in the church of Ephesus, and Paul was writing this to correct the thinking and behavior of some of the people in the congregation. It wasn’t just writing to say this for the record—there were actually things going on.

    Instructions to Men: Holy Hands and Prayer

    He’s saying, “I’m seeing this. I’m noticing these things happening. I’m getting reports of them.” This is what God’s will is in this area. It could have been issues or questions that people had, disputes, or things like that. He’s setting the record straight.

    At least it would seem that way. The language kind of lends itself to that. One of the reasons we can see this is in the idea of prayer. He says, “I want the men in every place to pray.” That seems like it should be a no-brainer—Paul, why are you saying this?

    It’s possible that, especially as men, it can be more difficult to pray with sincerity. There’s a fear of vulnerability or dependency that seems to be naturally built into the way many men in many societies are brought up. We’re taught to think that we should be handling things ourselves. Even when we’re Christians and talking about submitting to the almighty God, it’s still sometimes difficult for us to not only say we need help, but to dig deep down in our hearts and expose all of the emotions that are really there.

    There are some men I know who’ve cried once or twice in their lives. I haven’t cried that many times myself. I almost cried at a movie that was actually a comedy—that’s so odd. Music sometimes brings me to tears, but it’s very difficult even for me. Some of that might be because I was raised to be tough, to be strong, to just handle it and move on. You’re a man. Leave that emotional stuff to the women.

    That could get into our relationship with God and into prayer. It’s possible that even in that culture, some of the men there had an issue with praying with true sincerity. They were relying on these more formulaic prayers that really weren’t exposing their hearts.

    He also says, “I want you to pray lifting up holy hands.” This idea of holy hands refers to living in a way that honors God. We could see it in Psalm 24:3-4, where there’s a question asked: “Who can ascend to God essentially?” It says those who have clean hands and a pure heart.

    The hands themselves are not talking about your literal hands. It’s elsewhere where God talks about the nation and says that you have blood on your hands. Because you are men of war, you are vicious, you are murderous people—you have blood on your hands. This idea of hands representing the life and the way that we live is seen throughout scripture.

    He says here, “I want you to lift up holy hands.” This doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to have your hands raised when you pray, although that was one of the postures taken especially in ancient Israel. It doesn’t mean that every time you pray you have to lift up your hands or God is not hearing. This is more talking about the posture and the way that you approach prayer.

    Paul also adds a warning about anger and dispute being parts of the life of the church. Those are things that would hinder prayers and would stop them from being effective. We saw last week that he also said that for husbands, if you don’t respect your wives and treat them in a particular way—and that was in 1 Peter 3:7—then your prayers may be hindered. You want to honor your wives and treat them tenderly as you would a precious item or something that’s delicate. If you’re not doing that, your prayers will be hindered.

    Even there we see this idea of prayers being hindered because of the character of the person praying, even if they are a believer and they have access to the throne of God.

    “Holy hands refers to living in a way that honors God—the hands represent the life and the way that we live.”

    It’s also possible that verse 8 was written to include women as well. When it says “therefore I want the men,” it’s using a word that literally means men, males. But we do the same thing sometimes when we talk about humanity. We’ll say mankind. We don’t say mankind and womankind. If I say mankind, I’m talking about humans versus other life forms.

    My wife and I used to watch a show a long time ago called Man Versus Food. You see things about man versus nature, and it isn’t talking about a man fighting a bear. It could be a woman fighting a bear, too. It’s also possible that when he’s saying “I want men,” it could include women. But I kind of lean toward it not being that only because he says, “Likewise, I want the women.” So he has a directive for the men and a directive for the women.

    It seems like that. But he also could be saying that this is the spiritual behavior I want for the church, and in particular, here are some things I’m hearing about the women there. It could be that as well.

    With these passages, I’m going to lay out something. It is with passages where it’s difficult to pull out every bit of meaning, where there is some ambiguity. You don’t really want that to be the only or the primary source of a particular belief or doctrine that you hold. Especially if you’re going to hold to it and say this is 100% what God is saying, and then we get to heaven and God says that’s not what I meant at all. You really twisted it there or you didn’t fully get it. That can happen.

    I’m saying this because we may come across a teacher or a church or a book that says something different than what you hear here from any of the teachers here or from the elders here. I don’t want your first thought to be that they’re heretical. Sometimes we have that kind of reaction—they’re different, so that means heretical.

    It’s not the case many times. There are a lot of people out there doing some odd things in the name of the Lord. But we just want to make sure that we see there are some areas of scripture where there is room for moving. There’s room for some differences from people who are all trying to honor God.

    Instructions to Women: Modesty and Godliness

    So going to verse 9, even that there’s so much that can be said about that, but I just want us to see the flow of this passage so we can pull things out when we answer questions.

    In both the Greek and the Roman societies, it was common for wealthy women to show off their wealth by how they dressed. There’s this idea that modesty, when it talks about modesty, is just talking about covering yourself up. If you’re a woman, cover up your lady parts, but if you’re a man, you don’t really have to worry about modesty because women aren’t—they’re more in thinking and in how they are, how they are aroused. Men are more visual in how they are.

    And we know that’s not true to make those generalizations. But even if it was, Paul here is bringing up a lot more than just cover yourself up so that a man won’t stumble when he looks at you. He’s talking about the heart and one that tries to draw attention to themselves based on their appearance.

    Your beauty, your loveliness should not come solely from how your hair is done or the dress you have on. Your worth should not be tied to your wealth. Coming with a dress that costs $2 million and everyone knows it does because you just saw a report on the news about this dress that cost that, and you make sure the logo is big so everybody sees I have this dress that costs that much money and they know this wealth that I have, they know the importance I have, maybe they’ll even treat me better.

    That is how you gain your status among your friends, among your family, among society—by flaunting this wealth or flaunting something that you have versus godliness and your character. That also can apply to beauty as well, physical beauty.

    People talk about pretty privilege and that people who seem to be attractive tend to get things for free or they kind of get a pass on things or cops let them off with a warning where somebody who looks like me, Shrek, they are just like no, I might just throw you in jail just for speeding, but somebody else they just say no, go ahead pretty lady. We know that actually exists, and God is saying that is especially in the church.

    What he’s ultimately saying is the behavior and the practices of the world are not to dominate the behavior and practices of the church.

    When you belong to Christ, you are different. When you belong to Christ, your motives are different. Your behavior is different because the goal is different. We’re now filled with the spirit, and so our attire may look different. The way that we speak may look different. These things that we do to try to gain favor with people based on wealth or looks or anything else like that will become different.

    “The behavior and practices of the world are not to dominate the behavior and practices of the church.”

    He gives this directive here in verse 10. This is what you should be. This is how you should adorn yourselves. This is how you should order, arrange yourselves—where we get the phrase cosmetic.

    This is really how you should be adorning yourselves and making yourselves look beautiful by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. Your good works are the things that will speak before you. That is the thing that will be beautiful, and that is the thing that will create your worth—that God using you and how much God uses you. People will see that, and that is what will cause them to think highly of you. Not that you have an expensive coat.

    I’m not saying that you got to go thrifting for everything, but look at your heart and examine your heart.

    “Your good works are the things that will speak before you—that is what will create your worth.”

    Freedom in Christ and the Risk of Overreach

    So now we’re going to flow to the part that is more relevant to what we’re talking about here. What may have prompted these verses is that they came from a society, and all three main cultures represented in the New Testament—the Greek, the Romans, and the Jewish culture—all had a very low view of women. They all held women down in society.

    People of a certain age can probably relate to that if you grew up in this country. They had a very low view of the value and worth of women outside of the kitchen and bedroom.

    When women came to Christ and the church was being formed, this was like a liberating experience because there was so much more freedom in Christ for women than there was in Greek, Roman, and Jewish societies.

    Their voices could be heard. They could be like Priscilla and help teach and make more mature one of the leading preachers of the day. They could be like Phoebe, who we’ll look at a little bit and gets commended. So 2,000 years later, we’re talking about the amazing work of this woman named Phoebe because Paul talked about her and how important she was. They didn’t have that for the most part in their society.

    When they came to Christ, it was this freedom that was there—now I have a voice. Now I can be heard. I can be understood. Now I can actually influence things because God values all of his creation.

    “When women came to Christ, it was freedom—now I have a voice, I can be heard, I can actually influence things.”

    That freedom could have caused them to move to a point where now they want to dominate. Now it’s, oh, I get to be heard. Then every chance I get, I’m going to be speaking. Every chance I get, I’m going to try to teach. Every position of authority I’m going to try to fill now.

    It could have been that this created an atmosphere, and we talked about this a little bit last week when we looked at the curse on Eve in Genesis 3:16 and compared that to what was said to Cain in Genesis 4:7. Looking at this desire now to master her husband, and in response, her husband would rule over her and dominate her, rather than this complementary relationship that God intended from the beginning.

    Even in other passages, several times when Paul writes to women specifically, he’s writing about order and roles. It’s almost like a parent when a child starts getting older and you start letting them say a little more and a little more. Sometimes you have to reel them in like, all right, all right, I’m still your parent. All right, you’re getting a little older. You’re 13 and you think you’re grown now. But I need you to dial it down a little bit.

    Women Teaching and Authority: Verse 12

    Still got this child-parent relationship going on, and it seems like there’s a little bit of that going on. Like, okay, yes, there is freedom in Christ, but there’s still roles. There’s still order and we have to maintain that.

    And so you have to make sure that you are quietly. And this “quietly” here does not mean not speaking. It’s the same word if you look at 1 Timothy 2:2. The word is used there as well, sometimes translated as tranquil or peaceable. And so it’s just this idea of being at peace and at rest with receiving instruction and being submissive.

    So it doesn’t mean quiet as in never speaking, but it means quiet as in the attitude of your heart. It’s not one that’s contentious. It’s not one that’s always rubbing up against the authority.

    And then he says, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” It’s possible that that’s what they were trying to do. It’s possible that Timothy even allowed it and said, “Yes, of course you could. My grandmother and mother were the ones who influenced me the most in Christ.”

    “Quietly does not mean not speaking—it means the attitude of your heart is not contentious, not rubbing against authority.”

    Creation Order as the Foundation

    So yes, you could come and teach and you can do this. And he said, “Hey, Timothy, make sure that you maintain the order that God had set.” Which is why in verse 13, he goes and says, “For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve.” This is going back to creation, as we discussed last week.

    It’s not just, “Well people in the culture aren’t going to like that. We can’t be too progressive. We can’t put too much on them too fast.” That’s not what he’s saying here. He’s saying that this was always God’s design to have there be this order and have there be roles.

    It doesn’t impact value or worth at all or ability to minister for the sake of Christ. It just means that there are certain roles that everyone has and those roles come with different responsibilities. Some of the roles have authority and some of the roles will have submission, and some roles don’t have either in a small sense, but all in a sense have submission because we all submit to Christ.

    “This was always God’s design—to have order and roles. It doesn’t impact value, worth, or ability to minister for Christ.”

    We talked last week that this means formal teaching in verse 12—not allowing a woman to teach or exert authority over a man or even hold the office of elder, pastor, bishop, or overseer. This is why we would not accept a woman as a pastor. We didn’t have time to go into 1 Timothy 3, which we did last week, but this is the reason.

    Not because they can’t, not because they’re not spiritual, not because they’re not intelligent and don’t know the word of God, but simply because God said there is an order and that is a role that I want to be filled by men. That is the only reason.

    Full disclosure: my first pastor was a woman and was very instrumental in my spiritual growth. I remember a few years into my walk with Christ—I didn’t know Christ at all. I actually came to that church to sing, and it was through reading the word of God and talking to some of the people there that God brought me into the real church.

    Serving under her, I learned a lot. Then someone I was working with said, “Your pastor is a woman. What? You’re not supposed to have a woman as a pastor? Why not?” He never opened the Bible once. He was from a country where women can’t do anything but cook and bring up their children, and that’s it.

    I’m like, of course you would say that. Had he just opened the Bible, I probably would have come to that realization much sooner. But it wasn’t actually until I was applying to or considering a seminary that the seminary made a statement saying they only allow men because they’re a small seminary and their goal is to train future pastors, not just give people a Christian education.

    Since their goal was to train pastors in a very small private school and they only let a certain amount of people in, they’re going to let people in who could be a pastor in the future. So since they said that, I’m like, “What? What are they talking about? Why wouldn’t they?” Of course, they listed the scripture to back up that statement.

    Then I’m like, “I didn’t even know that was here in the Bible. Wow.” That led me to a whole lot. Actually, I met the president of that seminary. When my wife and I met him one day, I told him something he said he never heard before. I said, “Here’s my wife,” and I said, “You almost broke us up.”

    Then I let him know because she was actually pursuing being a pastor. I didn’t even want to be a pastor, but I was supporting her in that. When we came to that, I’m like, “Babe, what you’re doing is completely wrong. You can’t do that. Look at these passages here.”

    At first, she was like, “Okay, then we just got to break up.” And I’m like, we’re not breaking up. We’re going to study this. We’re going to sit and study this.

    After intense study, if we don’t agree, fine, we break up. But if we still agree, we’re here. And this year will be 20 years of marriage. So I guess you see that she came around.

    She realized you’re right.

    You’re always right, even in non-spiritual matters, you’re always right and stuff. I’ll look right into the camera and say that, too.

    But this is what our basis is, right? It’s the word of God. It’s not just, “Oh, that sounds weird. That’s disgusting. Oh, a man and a man together. Oh, that’s gross.” No, that’s not the basis for why we tell somebody this is sin or this thing is wrong or it’s what God’s order is.

    The Fall as a Warning About Stepping Outside Order

    So I just want to throw that out there to make sure when we are discussing these things that we’re basing what we say on God’s word. We got a question about verses 13 and 14 together. It asks: doesn’t the prohibition of teaching with authority over men that we just saw in verse 12 have its foundation both in design, which is in verse 13, and the fall in verse 14? And then what is the meaning of verse 14 today?

    Verse 14 says it was not Adam who was deceived but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. That’s just referring to the fact that Eve was the one who was deceived by the serpent, and then she gave the fruit to her husband and he said, “Oh, okay. I’ll just take it.”

    I think what we see there is an example of what happens when we step outside of the created order. God’s design was for the man to be the head, for Adam to be the head. He wasn’t even able to give input into this decision to plunge humanity into sin that Eve just did it.

    Eve was deceived and she didn’t even go and talk to Adam about it. Who was her spiritual leader? Who was her head? This wasn’t about what shoes am I going to wear. This was: I’m thinking of violating the only command that God has given us and I don’t even need to talk to my husband about this. I’m just going to do this on my own.

    It’s quite possible that Adam is the one that gave her the command in the first place. If you read the whole account, she got the command wrong. She said we can’t even touch it. That’s not what the command was. The command was don’t eat of it. They might have thrown in don’t touch there just to be extra precaution, but she still didn’t even quote God correctly.

    But they said I have no need of going to the person that God has set up to be my spiritual leader. So I believe this is an example of what happens when we step outside of that order that Paul is saying. It’s not just the optics. It’s not just that we want the church to look a certain way. But there is a real danger that can happen that we may not see, we may not even understand. But there is a real danger that happens when we step outside of what God has ordained for us.

    “There is a real danger that happens when we step outside of what God has ordained for us.”

    Verse 15: Women Preserved Through Childbirth

    And then verse 15, I’m so glad no one asked a question about verse 15. This is—I’ll tell you, I’ve probably read about 10 to 12 commentaries.

    I’m interested to see what people think about this. About half of them said this is probably the most difficult verse to interpret in the entire Bible.

    Yes, this is either the most or one of the most difficult verses. I believe it is saying that not that women will be—there are a few things that people think. One is that women will be saved, meaning rescued from the pain in childbirth. I think any woman who’s had a child here can say no, that’s not true. There still is pain. Christian women will experience pain in childbirth. That’s not what he’s talking about here.

    There are some who believe that he’s saying that just by raising children and being godly in how you raise your children, that will save you. But there are a lot of Christian women who don’t have that opportunity. So again, it seems to be something he’s saying to all women, not just Christian mothers. But he says women will be preserved through childbirth.

    I believe he’s talking about the stigma of being the one to plunge humanity into sin. I think he’s talking here, especially in verse 14, which would make you believe that women just make things worse or they just get in the way or that they’re naive and they’re just really easy to deceive. You can talk to them for a couple minutes. They don’t negotiate well. All these kinds of things that we think today about women.

    Well, the fact that the man was not deceived but the woman was deceived could give somebody some type of backup for those types of things. So I believe that women being so instrumental for the furthering of the human race stops us from taking that view that women have less worth or that women have less intellect.

    When it’s women who are pouring into us and we’re raised by these women, we see their strength and their resilience and their brilliance and we see the sacrifices that they make. Even if a woman is not a mother, when I see you, I think of my mother. I think of my sister and her raising her kids. I think of these women that I see and that pour and speak life into people daily.

    I am rescued from that thought of thinking that women may be inferior because it was Eve that led us into sin.

    “We see the strength, resilience, and brilliance of women and the sacrifices they make—we are rescued from thinking women are inferior.”

    So, another somewhat difficult passage. I’m going to try to go through this a little faster.

    1 Corinthians 14: Order in Prophecy

    1 Corinthians 14.

    That is a long chapter and a chapter that has caused a lot of confusion. It is difficult to understand when you take just pieces out of it. Reading the whole thing is best, but we’re not going to read 40 verses here today. I’ll just pull these out: 1 Corinthians 14:29-35.

    The chapter is primarily talking about speaking in tongues and prophecy—receiving revelation from God directly. This is one of the earliest churches and one of the earliest books written to the church. Keep that in mind when we talk about spiritual gifts in June. Paul is giving them instruction on the use of those gifts of tongues and interpretation of tongues in the service, as well as prophecy. Here he’s focusing more on prophecy.

    Again, this is receiving revelation from God and speaking that revelation out to people. So prophecy, when you see it in the Bible, can also talk about preaching what you see today—what we do in the pulpit. But in this instance, it’s talking about receiving revelation and how to handle that when God is speaking to someone at that moment.

    Verse 29 says: “Have two or three prophets speak and have the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, then the first one is to keep silent.”

    Verse 31: “For you can all prophesy one by one so that all may learn and all may be exhorted and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”

    I actually stopped there. So you have this scene: a bunch of people are hearing from God and Paul says, “Okay, you can’t all talk at once because it’s chaotic and it’s not orderly.” The same thing was happening with tongues. People were just speaking in different languages, then other people are yelling interpretation. It was just chaotic. It was just a mess.

    And here he’s saying that’s happening with prophecy. If it happens and you’re receiving a word and you’re speaking that word and someone else says, “Okay, I have a word,” you sit down, you let them speak, and then one by one each person will speak what God is putting on their hearts to say.

    That way we can have some order. He says all of you can and we all may be able to be exhorted. We all may learn. When it says the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, if someone says something, other prophets who are also hearing from God can say no—that doesn’t line up with what God is saying. They’re developing the written word of God at that time too, so they do have that as well.

    So if one of the prophets says, “I just received the word: Jesus actually did sin. He sinned three times in his life and I’m about to tell you about him now,” then the other prophets can say, “Wait, wait, wait, brother. That’s crazy. Jesus did not sin. We know he didn’t. We have scripture. We have other revelation.” The entire gospel rests on the fact that he did not sin. And they can correct him there.

    So that is what’s happening here. This is kind of an unfortunate cut off, but in the middle of verse 33, it starts a new sentence.

    1 Corinthians 14:33: “God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”

    Women and Prophetic Judgment in the Assembly

    It says, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are subject themselves, just as the law also says, if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

    The context of this command is the authoritative judgment of another speaker’s prophecy. Paul is not saying women should not utter a word in the church building or in the house where they’re meeting, or that they should not be heard at all during the official service. That’s not what Paul is saying here.

    Paul is saying that when we’re going through the prophecies one by one, talking about what God is giving in the revelation, women are not to take part in the judgment of another person’s prophecy. Why? Because look at 1 Timothy 2. What did he say there? That women are not to teach or exercise authority over a man.

    In that space, a woman should not come and exercise spiritual authority over the men who are giving the prophecy by judging their prophecy and deeming it godly or ungodly, or saying it came from God or it didn’t come from God in that moment. That is what Paul is saying there, and not just there, but in all the churches.

    If there is some dispute or if there’s something they just can’t hold in, then when you go home, talk about it with your husbands. Say, “I don’t think what that guy said was right. I don’t think he should have said Jesus sinned, or I think he was trying to say this thing in this way and it didn’t land.” Then you can talk just like you do now and talk about the sermons.

    So essentially, Paul is saying women don’t interrupt the sermon. In those cases, there were men who were allowed to because it wasn’t a full, plain sermon. But understand this is kind of what the equivalence would be today: dare not to exercise authority over a man. So you shouldn’t exercise authority in this case where prophecy is being judged by others in the congregation.

    “The context of the command to keep silent is the authoritative judgment of another speaker’s prophecy—not all speech in church.”

    1 Corinthians 11: Women Praying and Prophesying

    And the last passage reinforces this in the same book, in the same letter to the same people. We’re not going to talk about head covering. Thank you for not asking a question about head covering.

    1 Corinthians 11:3-5 says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

    Let’s make sure Brian’s looking at that.

    So every man—we don’t know what the head covering was, so it probably wasn’t a skullcap. But it says in verse five, every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for it is the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

    So without even knowing what this covering is, the first thing we see is that in the church service, what are the women doing? Praying and prophesying. They’re receiving and even speaking the word of God. They are praying in the public service.

    But he says don’t do it in this way. That is a disgrace. Don’t do it in a way that casts off authority.

    If we look later in the passage, it tells us that this covering was a symbol of authority and submission. This is why the one who is the head—the man—should not have this covering on, but the woman who is under the authority of the man should have it on.

    “This covering was a symbol of authority and submission—don’t rebel against the roles God put in place.”

    I believe this also goes back to what we said about the culture and society of the time. In this new freedom, women were saying, “What we were doing in society, how we didn’t have a voice, how we couldn’t speak—that was wrong.” Well, now that I can talk and I can teach and I can say things and I can pray publicly, let me take this head covering off too.

    That is an issue where they went too far. They said, “I’m going to get rid of every cultural sign of authority and submission. I’m going to get rid of every symbol that shows there is a distinction in the roles between men and women.”

    And God says don’t do that. Don’t rebel against the roles that I put in place.

    What Women May Do in Church: A Framework

    And if your culture, if your society has something that indicates submission, something that indicates authority, don’t throw it off just by the way that it looks. And he said, because it’s the same as a woman whose head is shaved. There’s different things about whether a woman whose head is shaved was just being rebellious, was being an ultra-feminist, or even some say that there was indication that meant a woman was into prostitution.

    All of these things were saying “I’m throwing away the natural order that God has created when he created humans as male and female.” And he said, “God is saying, you are not to do that. Even though you have more freedom in the church and I’m allowing you to do things that the world has said you can’t do, there’s still order.”

    There were several questions that were pretty much all started with: Can women lead worship? Can they pray in a service? Can they read scripture in a service? Can they do announcements? Can women do everything in a service except preaching a sermon? Can women do this in some form?

    There are kind of two things I think we look for when we want to answer these questions.

    Does a direct prohibition of the action exist?

    And if not, does all or part of the action fall under a direct prohibition of another action?

    The only clear and direct prohibition in the New Testament is that a woman may not hold a position or office that causes her to be a teacher, which is a more literal translation of 1 Timothy 2—not just to teach, but to be a teacher or to exercise authority over a man.

    “The only clear prohibition is that a woman may not hold a position that causes her to be a teacher or exercise authority over a man.”

    Anything else is either unclear or is possibly or probably based on a certain context and shouldn’t at least be used as the foundation for a doctrinal position. Now if there are five or six of those together, then maybe. But in legal terms, you say that’s circumstantial evidence.

    Applying the Framework: Prayer, Worship, and Scripture Reading

    If you just find something, I’ll give kind of an example by looking at these two questions. Going back, can a woman pray in the service? There’s no direct prohibition of the action. There’s no verse that says women cannot do this, a woman should not do this, or it is wrong for a woman to do X.

    If you find that, then clearly a woman can’t do it. The other thing we look at is whether prayer falls under some aspect that would cause the woman to slip into the role of a teacher or to give them spiritual authority over the men that they are praying over. If you believe that to be the case, then you don’t have women do that. But if you don’t believe that a person is transferred some spiritual authority because they are praying, then it’s fine for women to do that.

    Now at our church here, in public we have a pastoral prayer, meaning it’s the pastors of the church that are praying over the flock, praying on behalf of the sheep. So we’re not going to have a woman do that. But if you notice, only the elders do that anyway. We don’t say, “Oh, any man come and do it. As long as you have a Y chromosome, you can get up there in the pulpit.” That’s not the case.

    We have something that we have a stronger purpose behind the prayer. It is the pastors praying over the flock at that time. But if it wasn’t and it was just prayer, just congregational prayer, then there’s nothing in scripture that says that a woman couldn’t do that.

    “If it was just congregational prayer, there is nothing in scripture that says a woman couldn’t do that.”

    Going back, lead worship, read scripture. So reading scripture, we your elders here will say no, there’s no issue with a woman reading scripture in public for the same reason. And even leading worship, the question of leading worship comes again—there’s no direct prohibition against any of it.

    Is that causing them to be a spiritual leader or give them some sort of authority? The only kind of thinking that comes in is, well, what if before a song they’re introducing a song and they go into scripture and they exposit the scripture for a minute or two and they’re giving like a little mini Bible study about why this passage is so important, and the scripture is laid out to music and all. But I don’t want to read into the hearts and minds of people.

    I would just say that it’s very difficult to make that argument from scripture that by just stating, “Oh, this comes from this song is based on this verse in the Bible and it’s gotten me through a lot of tough times, so join me in singing this song,” that person has now exercised spiritual authority.

    I’ve even had someone say, “Well, they’re saying sit down and listen to the sermon. Or they’re saying, ‘Please stand and sing.’ And just those words alone are giving them authority because they’re telling me to sit down or stand up.”

    And I mean, this is a real spiritual concern, a real concern that someone had. I couldn’t see that. Someone even said something in the words in the lyrics of the songs. In their membership interview many years ago, they’re not here. I’m not trying to tell them someone was here. But just saying some of the things that I’ve heard, someone really had an issue with women singing because there might be a lyric that says raise your voice to the Lord.

    “Oh, they’re telling me what to do. A woman just told me to lift up my voice or to lift up my hands to the Lord. They just acted in authority.” And so you see here, it’s talking about being a teacher and exercising the spiritual authority. We don’t want to get to a place where we’re demeaning not just women, but we’re devaluing the Holy Spirit working in half the congregation and that we’re not giving the spirit a chance to work and to use people.

    We don’t want to get into that and try to find these little technicalities here and there. Again, we’re coming at this as God has freedom and God has put his spirit into every person who is a believer and he wants to use them mightily. They can do anything until I see something in scripture that says this is for a select group for whatever reason. Only certain people can hold this role.

    And you see that even with different things when we talk about elders—there are certain qualifications. Deacons—there are certain qualifications. It doesn’t mean that the people can’t be used greatly, but certain roles are meant for certain people. And that is the only time that we will bring a restriction in.

    Leviticus 27: Monetary Valuations Explained

    There are a couple more questions. I think they were a little less heavy. One was: why in Leviticus 27 is the monetary value of a boy, girl, man, or woman different? We’re going to look at the scripture here.

    Okay, it ends up being kind of long. So I’ll just read the scripture. Leviticus 27. Then we’ll talk about this because again the Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, when someone makes an explicit vow, he shall be valued according to your assessment of persons belonging to the Lord.

    If your assessment is of a male from 20 years even to 60 years old, then your assessment shall be 50 shekels of silver by the shekel of the sanctuary. And if the person is from five years even to 20 years old, then your assessment for a male shall be 20 shekels, and for a female 10 shekels. But if the person is from a month even up to five years old, then your assessment shall be five shekels of silver for a male.

    And for a female your assessment shall be three shekels of silver. If the person is from 60 years old and upward, if a male then your assessment shall be 15 shekels and for a female 10 shekels.”

    So we see there, as the question states, that the value, the assessment, is different for the men and the women.

    It would seem that reflects the value of their labor, simply because in a society where just about every bit of labor is manual, the men were just able to do more. They were able to lift more and they have more endurance. They have more muscle. So they’re able to do more in a field and carry more than a woman typically, on average.

    I mean, there are some strong women out there and some weak guys too. Looking at some of y’all. But on average, as a generalization, a woman would be able to do less of the type of work and labor that existed through much of the society.

    Most of the society wasn’t about sitting behind a car and driving or sitting behind a desk and being on the computer, where everybody is equal according to their brain. Although I used to be a day laborer a long time ago and I was told I couldn’t have office jobs because they like to give them to women because women could do tedious tasks longer than men. And so even there I was kind of shut out because they’re like, “No, you’re going to be bored.

    Like, stuff 5,000 envelopes for a mailing campaign and I’m going to just stop doing it or I’m going to be joking around with people.” A woman is able to just stuff envelopes for eight hours.

    So I couldn’t get those office jobs. But I was able to go get the jobs where they want me to put a 100 pound sack on my shoulder. So even there, that company and companies that hired from us valued us differently. They had specifications based on gender. They didn’t say, “We want the person to take a test to see how well they pay attention. If it’s a man, we don’t want them.”

    And so it seems that this is what’s going on here. Most of a person’s value in that society was in the work that they could perform, the physical work and labor. So in that case, you’re going to assume that a man could do more than a woman.

    “The assessment reflects the value of labor in a society where just about every bit of work was manual.”

    Now we got this.

    Women Experts Teaching in Mixed Settings

    And this is the question. This is the question that somebody posed to me. I want to call them out because, like, why are you all making me think so much? Why are you making me—just give me the softball stuff. But nope.

    But if there is a Sunday school or co-ed group talking about a specific subject matter, let’s say transgenderism, and a Christian woman with a PhD was brought in to speak about it—so they’re a subject matter expert—first question is: would that occur and in what setting? And two, to what extent can she support her arguments and research with the Bible without it becoming teaching to men or teaching men with authority?

    I think that’s such a great question to just think about because it can really happen. And in the moment you’ll be scrambling like, “What do we do? How do we do this?”

    I think in this case, if it’s not someone teaching directly from the Bible, we wouldn’t have it in a Sunday school setting or something like that. We probably would do something else and say we’ll do something on a Saturday, like we’ve done for the biblical counseling conference or things like that, which are actually more biblical. But we’ve set up certain times for that.

    We actually did have a woman come in and give a presentation about domestic violence to the young adult ministry years ago. I think we did it after the service, in the afternoon. It wasn’t so much being afraid that it was a woman speaking, but that type of topic wasn’t coming from the Bible. She wasn’t even a Christian.

    But it’s interesting here because in the second part of the question—I think if they were just presenting their research that’s not coming from the Bible, you would say, “Okay, you’re presenting research.” But the question really comes in: what if they start getting into the Bible? Now they’re teaching God’s word. They’re not just teaching from their research because they’re a Christian and they’re an expert.

    They’re a PhD. They’re presenting their research, but they are a believer and they’re showing from scripture these certain things as well.

    I think in that case there would be more leniency. I think there’s like a temporary moratorium or something on that. For instance, if we have a Sunday school which is not set up where one person’s talking for a full hour because there’s so much to say, but there’s more dialogue—women are speaking, women are given the mic—and if Glenda talks for three minutes about something and it’s coming from the word of God and you learn from it, did she just violate scripture?

    Or are we just saying okay, somebody is sharing something. She’s not taking this authoritative role. She’s not saying, “I’m diving into the scripture and teaching you these meanings and all that.” But we say okay, in the normal course of conversation, even in a kind of public forum, it’s okay because everyone knows and realizes there was not a transfer of authority. Every time someone in the congregation grabs a mic, they’re not now taking the authority from the teacher or from the elders at that time.

    So I think we just automatically say, “No, it’s not a big deal.” And I think the same thing is true when we have kingdom workers come and speak and it’s a husband and wife team or something. We’re not like, “Okay, well your wife just has to sit there and take pictures of you while you’re up there talking. You’re the only one who could do anything.” But we like to hear from both of them.

    So I think it’s that same mindset there.

    “We don’t want to devalue the Holy Spirit working in half the congregation by trying to find little technicalities.”

    Phoebe and the Role of Deaconess in Romans 16

    Another question. This is actually the last question that we’re going to have. In the framework of the deacons and deacons’ wives, how do we understand Phoebe’s role in the church in Romans 16?

    Let’s turn to Romans 16, please. I have it up there. Romans 16:1-2 says: “I recommend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you, for she herself has also been a helper of many and of myself as well.”

    Paul is talking about this prominent woman who was very important to him in his ministry. He’s writing to the church at Rome, hoping to be able to see them. He’s saying there’s this person you’re going to see coming. She might even have been the one to bring the letter. Phoebe is a servant of the church, and she’s coming there. I want you to receive her.

    He’s vouching for her, which is a good reason to think that she might have either brought the letter herself or was with the group that brought the letter. They can say, “Okay, she’s not just a random person.” Paul is saying this is somebody that you not only should have respect for and honor and be glad that she’s there, but he said help her in whatever matter she may need of you. You are to serve her.

    The other part of that question was if the Greek word uses diakonos, and it is. That word—you can kind of hear it in it—is where we get the word deacon from. It’s a transliteration of the word.

    This is one of those places where I think I’ve only said this to my wife because I’m like, I’m not saying this in public. But sometimes I just wish different decisions were made with things in the Bible. In this case, it wasn’t what was written. It was just a translation.

    There are some words that if they weren’t transliterated—transliteration just means you take the word in one language and you kind of just bring it over into English letters and spell it the same—then we would know it says immerse. That’s actually the real meaning. The real meaning here of diakonos is servant or minister. This is one who serves.

    Even the role of deacon, the office of deacon—it’s so big and official—but it means one who serves. In that office, they are ones who serve and organize the serving. They’re the ones who are kind of in charge of the serving.

    It sounds like here that Paul is saying when she comes, treat her like a deacon. Treat her like somebody who not only serves well but who helps to organize the serving. There’s some authority that goes into her serving because she’s saying this is what you should do. She’s at least in that sense organizing—not spiritual authority, but authority enough to kind of manage what’s going on.

    “Phoebe was someone who not only serves well but helps organize the serving—with authority enough to manage what’s going on.”

    It’s difficult to say because there wasn’t another word that was created for that office or that officer. It’s just a transliteration of a word that means servant. So everybody here is diakonos. Everyone here is a servant. We all are.

    But there’s also a group. It’s difficult to say with 100% certainty when we go back to 1 Timothy 3:8-13. If that is saying that the women who serve in that role should be the wives of the deacons who are also qualified and serve, or if there are women who may not be married at all or married to deacons who are serving alongside of them.

    If you see a church doing either, they’re not unbiblical for that. But at Calvary, we take that to mean the wives of the deacons who are qualified. As in many churches, as in ours and could have been the case at Rome, anybody can serve. The deacons typically will go and reach out to others. The deacons aren’t the ones doing all the work. The deacons will ask other people to serve in different capacities.

    If the deacon asked you to serve as a woman who’s not married to a deacon and you serve, you just were a servant there as well. You just did the same role. It’s hard to know if Paul here is saying that Phoebe has the role of deacon in her current church and when she comes there, accept her as an official deacon in that office, or if he’s saying she is an incredible servant. So much so that she could even come and help you guys get organized in the way that you serve and she could maybe take over a ministry and help out with that because she does so well and her character is so strong.

    It’s hard to know for sure. We wouldn’t use this as the basis for a doctrinal position. We would go elsewhere and maybe use this as a supporting piece to combine with something else.

    There was one more question that came in that we’re not going to have time to answer. I’m actually going to—the other elders don’t know this—but we’re going to make it a part of the larger elder Q&A. It might actually be on here so you can see.

    How is abuse, whether verbal, emotional, physical, psychological, and of varying levels of severity, viewed and handled by the church? Another person asked something I’ll just tag into here.

    Conclusion and Closing Prayer

    Does a wife have to submit to an abusive husband? I think that’s a really good question to hear. The Bible doesn’t say that. There’s no passage on how to deal with domestic violence.

    But there are principles in the Bible that we apply to that, and a lot of prayer and a lot of wisdom. I think it would be great to hear multiple perspectives about it and hear the elders talking about it together.

    That’s all we have time for. I’m going to pray. I don’t have to be part of a soundcheck, so I’m able to stay around and talk if you want to talk after this. Let’s go to the Lord in prayer now.

    Our gracious God, we want to thank you for giving us your word and making it so clear what your will is. We thank you for that, God, because as your word says, we would be tossed back and forth with every new piece of doctrine, every new belief, every cultural fad that comes along. We are thankful that we could be grounded in your word and rooted in your commands.

    I just pray that you would help us, Lord, to seek to honor you above all else. When we approach your word, God, if our thinking doesn’t line up with it, you would change our thinking, you would change our beliefs, you would change our behavior.

    We pray, God, that we would be able to look back and see our growth, see our maturation, and be able to thank you for it. I pray for the time of fellowship we’re about to have and for this service, that it would honor you and you would speak to us through it.

    I ask all of this in Christ’s name and for his sake. Amen.

  • Lesson 27: Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church, Questions

    Lesson 27: Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church, Questions

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    This lesson concludes a two-part defense of the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine by answering common follow-up questions and objections. We are given a comprehensive sequential overview of the world’s last events—from the rapture through the eternal state—and then guided through several challenging objections, including the apparent contradiction from the Olivet Discourse, the identity of tribulation saints, the meaning of the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20, and the question of who repopulates the earth during the millennial kingdom. Each objection is carefully addressed to show that the pre-tribulational view best harmonizes the eschatological scriptures.

    Key Lessons:

    1. God has revealed a clear sequence of end-times events—from the rapture and judgment seat of Christ, through the tribulation, to Christ’s return, the millennium, and the eternal state—giving believers confident hope.
    2. The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 is primarily directed to future Israel during the tribulation, not the church, and therefore does not contradict a pre-tribulational rapture.
    3. God regularly splits what appears to be a singular prophetic event into multiple phases separated by time—such as the Messiah’s coming and the “first resurrection”—so the pre-trib view’s phased approach is consistent with biblical precedent.
    4. Tribulation saints are not the church but Jewish and Gentile believers who come to faith after the rapture, and the millennial kingdom will be repopulated by unglorified believing survivors of the tribulation.

    Application: We are called to live faithfully and watchfully in the present, drawing courage and hope from the certainty that God will vindicate His justice, fulfill His promises, and gather His people to Himself. Rather than growing complacent, we should serve Christ zealously as we await His return.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How does understanding that God splits singular prophetic events into phases (like the Messiah’s coming and the resurrection) change the way you approach difficult eschatological passages?
    2. If the tribulation passages in Revelation and Matthew 24 are primarily for future Israel, what practical value do they hold for the church today, and how should we apply them?
    3. How should the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture affect our daily priorities, evangelistic urgency, and trust in God’s justice?

    Scripture Focus: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (rapture description), Matthew 24 (Olivet Discourse and its proper audience), 1 Corinthians 15:21-24 (phased resurrection), Revelation 20:4-6 (first resurrection), Isaiah 61:1-2 with Luke 4:16-21 (Messiah’s coming in phases), Revelation 7:9-17 (tribulation saints), Matthew 25:31-46 (sheep and goats judgment).

    Outline

    Introduction

    Welcome back to our defending doctrinal distinctives Sunday school series. We are concluding our look today at the controversial yet crucial doctrine of a pre-tribulational rapture.

    Last week I overviewed this doctrine and sought to defend it from scripture. This week I’ll be answering follow-up questions and objections, some of the more common ones.

    Before we get into those new questions, allow me to begin today’s lesson with a quick review.

    Review of Previous Lesson

    What is the rapture? I defined it this way last time. The rapture is an event associated with Christ’s return in which Christ’s entire church, living and dead, is resurrected, glorified, and lifted up to meet Christ in the clouds and be with him thereafter.

    This rapture event is clearly described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and also described in 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.

    Now, when will the rapture take place?

    The Bible nowhere answers that question directly. Rather, Bible interpreters must carefully harmonize various eschatological passages to discern the rapture’s relative timing. No one knows the day or hour, but relative to other events in the last days, we can say when the rapture will take place.

    “No one knows the day or hour, but relative to other events in the last days, we can say when the rapture will take place.”

    Now, theologians have taken to describing the rapture’s timing in relation to the tribulation period. What is the tribulation period?

    Also called the day of the Lord, it is a seven-year period of final judgments on the world before Christ returns to earth to reign. The tribulation period is most clearly described in Revelation 6-19.

    What are the main views today regarding the timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation?

    There is the pre-tribulational rapture view, in which the rapture takes place before the tribulation period. There’s the mid-tribulational rapture view, in which the rapture takes place at approximately the midpoint of the tribulation. Closely related is the pre-wrath rapture view, in which the rapture takes place in the second half of the tribulation but before God unleashes his wrath on the world.

    And then there is the post-tribulational rapture view, in which the rapture takes place at the end of the tribulation period. Now allow me to correct something that I said last week about the midtrib and pre-wrath views. I had said that the midtrib view means that Jesus comes after the seal judgments but before the trumpets and bowls, while pre-wrath means that Jesus comes just before the bowls. That’s not quite accurate.

    I’ve since learned that while there is surely variation among those who hold to a midtrib or pre-wrath view, the typical midtrib view is that Jesus comes for his church at the seventh trumpet or just before the bowl judgments. And those who hold to this view see that as the midpoint of the tribulation period.

    Meanwhile, the typical pre-wrath view is that Jesus comes for his church just before the sixth seal, this being seen as approximately three-quarters through the tribulation period.

    So largely what I said last week is correct. But in terms of the specific lineup between the seal judgments, trumpet judgments, and bowl judgments, I needed to correct that.

    Now, which of these rapture timing views is correct?

    Well, the pre-tribulational rapture view best harmonizes the eschatological scriptures. Jesus will come in love and to rescue and to reward his church. Jesus will come again to snatch his people away. And so if you believe that’s you, that’s you even here in this church this morning. He will do that before the tribulation period begins.

    Key Arguments Reviewed

    Now, last time I presented three key arguments from the Bible for a pre-tribulational rapture view. Just to remind you briefly what those arguments were: Number one, Revelation 3:10 promises that the church will be spared from the tribulation period. I will keep you from the hour of testing.

    Revelation 3:10: “I will keep you from the hour of testing.”

    Jesus says, not keep you from testing or keep you through the testing, but I will keep you from the hour of it, the time of it. Number two, believers, New Testament believers expect to escape God’s wrath. And the whole tribulation period is God’s wrath. It doesn’t really work to say, “Oh, the sealed judgments up to a certain point are Satan’s wrath or man’s wrath, and God’s wrath begins at this other point.” No, it’s all God’s wrath.

    Jesus is opening the seals. There are the trumpets.

    “It’s all God’s wrath. Jesus is opening the seals.”

    And even things like famine, war, the rise of the Antichrist, they are under God’s sovereign control, and they are part of his pouring out wrath on the earth. Then finally, John 14:1-3 requires a return to heaven after the rapture. Jesus says, “In my father’s house are many dwelling places. If I go away, I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go away, I will come back and receive you to myself, that where I am, there you may be also.”

    So he’s going to take us away to the father’s house, not immediately just go right to the earth and forget about the father’s house. All right. So these are the key arguments.

    I also presented to you three supplemental arguments for a pre-tribulational rapture. These are not decisive on their own, but they strongly suggest and reinforce a pre-trib rapture view. Number one, the Thessalonians’ eschatological distress makes best sense with a pre-tribulational rapture. If they were thinking another way, their distress doesn’t make as much sense.

    Number two, the church is noticeably absent in the judgment descriptions of Revelation 6 to 18. They’re there at the beginning of Revelation. John is not afraid to talk about them, but suddenly they disappear. And that’s because of the rapture. Number three, the New Testament does not seek to prepare Christians for the tribulation period. It seeks to prepare Christians for many other things, but not for that.

    Okay, so that’s our review. Let’s now answer some follow-up questions and objections about the doctrine of a pre-trib rapture. A few of you submitted questions to me. That’s great. Allow me to pray and we’ll get into those questions and others.

    Heavenly Father, we thank you for the rapture and we thank you, God, that there’s even enough information to understand the relative timing of the rapture. Yet these are some things that take diligence and skill and care when it comes to interpretation. So help me to be able to explain this well. Help us to be able to understand it.

    And help us to draw the courage and hope that you meant for us to gain from this teaching of a pre-tribulational rapture. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

    Okay, here’s our first question.

    Q1: Sequential Overview of the World’s Last Events

    Could you give a sequential overview of the world’s last events? Between this lesson and the previous one, I’ve touched on different parts of eschatology. Could we just have something that puts it all together? Yes, let’s do that. I think it would be helpful.

    Allow me to show you one of the better charts I found for the last events of the world. I don’t know if you’re able to see it from where you’re sitting, but you can always check the slides on the website afterwards.

    There is one typo on this chart. Please excuse it. It says “Daniel the 70th week from Daniel 7.” It’s not Daniel 7; it should be Daniel 9.

    Here’s a chart that overviews the last events of the world. We are on the left side of the chart currently. We are now in the church age.

    “The next event on God’s eschatological calendar is the rapture and the resurrection of the church saints.”

    The Lord will return from heaven and suddenly and supernaturally remove us all to be with him. Christians who had previously died will be resurrected, and all of us who are still alive will be transformed to have glorified, incorruptible bodies fit for God’s eternal kingdom.

    The Judgment Seat of Christ

    Now, right after that, most likely in heaven will be the judgment seat of Christ, also known as the Bema seat judgment.

    We hear about this in 1 Corinthians 3, 2 Corinthians 5, and Romans 14. This is not a judgment of unbelievers, but of church saints. It is not a judgment of punishment, but of reward.

    Jesus will judge believers’ works as well as the motives of believers in this judgment.

    “This is not a judgment of punishment, but of reward.”

    The works of precious and acceptable quality will receive lasting reward, while worthless works will receive no reward. They represent loss or missed opportunity.

    The Marriage Supper of the Lamb

    Sometime after the judgment seat of Christ in heaven and before the Christian saints return to earth is the marriage supper of the lamb described in Revelation 19:7-9.

    This apparently is a special celebration in heaven with Christ regarding the long-awaited coming together of Christ and his church. The groom finally won with his specially prepared bride.

    “The groom finally won with his specially prepared bride.”

    The Tribulation Period on Earth

    And that’s what’s going on in heaven right after the rapture. Meanwhile, what is happening on the earth? Well, while the church is rewarded and celebrating, the world enters the seven-year tribulation period.

    This period is divided into two portions of three and a half years each. The period begins with the rise of Antichrist who gains worldwide power and makes a treaty with Israel guaranteeing protection and freedom to worship God by sacrifice in a restored temple.

    The seal judgments begin in the first half of the tribulation as does a new worldwide religious system. At the midpoint of the tribulation, the midpoint of the seven years, Antichrist breaks his covenant with Israel, sets himself up in their temple as the only acceptable object of worship and begins persecuting Israel.

    “Antichrist breaks his covenant with Israel and sets himself up in their temple as the only acceptable object of worship.”

    The second half of the tribulation period is much worse than the first, most likely consisting of the trumpet and bowl judgments. The Bible in other places refers to the second three and a half years as the great tribulation or the time of Jacob’s distress.

    By the end of these seven years, probably close to 80% of the world population is destroyed.

    Jesus says if God had not limited the length of the tribulation period, no one would survive.

    Purposes of the Tribulation

    And what we might ask? Well, why? Why this terrible time of tribulation? What is God accomplishing?

    Two main purposes. First, God is executing punitive judgment of the world’s wicked rebels as God initiates his takeback of the earth.

    And second, this we don’t want to miss. God is executing a refining judgment on Israel as God prepares them finally to receive their Messiah and be restored to their promised kingdom.

    So it’s judgment of the world’s rebels, but it’s also refinement and preparation for Israel.

    “God is executing a refining judgment on Israel as he prepares them to receive their Messiah.”

    Christ’s Bodily Return and Final Judgments

    This tribulation period culminates with a final battle of the nations against Israel called in one place the battle of Armageddon. In this battle, Israel is doomed. Jerusalem is taken and the surviving captives are being led away when suddenly Jesus returns to the earth in power and glory. He annihilates the wicked armies attacking Israel and he throws the antichrist and the false prophet alive into eternal fire.

    Several other important events then take place at Jesus’s bodily return to the earth. Satan is cast into the abyss and completely incapacitated for a thousand years. Jesus gathers and judges all remaining living Gentiles on the earth to see if they are fit to enter into his kingdom. This judgment is also called the sheep and the goats judgment featured in Matthew 25.

    “Jesus annihilates the wicked armies attacking Israel and throws the antichrist alive into eternal fire.”

    Saved Gentiles, that is the sheep, are allowed into Messiah’s kingdom.

    Unsaved Gentiles, the goats, are barred from the kingdom and cast into hell.

    Jesus also gathers and judges all remaining living Jews to see if they are fit to enter into his kingdom. As with the Gentiles, believing Jews, saved Jews are allowed in, whereas unsaved Jews are barred from entry and are cast into hell. We’ll say more about this later, but that’s from Ezekiel 20.

    The Millennial Kingdom

    Also after Christ’s bodily return, Old Testament saints and tribulation saints, tribulation martyrs, they receive their resurrection and they receive their reward. And then Jesus actually establishes his long-awaited messianic kingdom and begins ruling with his saints.

    Thus follows the millennial kingdom of Christ in which all the remaining promises of those unconditional covenants in the Old Testament—the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenant—are fulfilled in their entirety for Israel. This 1,000-year kingdom will be characterized, as we’ve seen in previous lessons, by righteousness, peace, joy, ecological renewal, unprecedented prosperity, long life, absence of disease, rapid increase of population, vegetarian animals, and more.

    “All the remaining promises of the unconditional covenants are fulfilled in their entirety for Israel.”

    At its beginning, only believers will inhabit this kingdom. Though later some unbelieving children will be part of this kingdom and they will chafe under Christ’s rule. Some of them will not come to faith.

    At the end of the 1,000-year kingdom, Satan is granted release from his abyssal imprisonment. He immediately gathers all unbelievers of the world for one final rebellion against the Lord and against his Christ. These will besiege the city of Jerusalem one last time.

    But God will destroy these rebels with fire from heaven. He will finally cast Satan and presumably his demons also into eternal fire. And God will even destroy the whole created universe with fire.

    The Great White Throne and the Eternal State

    Immediately following as earth and heaven are fleeing away from the presence of God is the great white throne judgment, which God through his son judges all sinners finally and eternally according to their deeds and according to the sinners’ names being absent from God’s book of life.

    Thus sinners from all periods of history will finally have their resurrection. But it is not a resurrection to life. It is a resurrection to judgment with bodies specially prepared for receiving holy torment forever.

    After each sinner is judged before God’s throne, he is thrown into eternal fire.

    What follows is the final entry in God’s eschatological calendar: the creation of the new heavens and the new earth and the eternal state.

    Death and sin are finally gone forever.

    New Jerusalem comes down to earth from heaven where God dwells with his people. They will worship him. They will serve him. They will rule with him and they will enjoy him and his amazing new world forever.

    “Death and sin are finally gone forever. God dwells with his people and they will enjoy him forever.”

    That’s the overview. This is what God has revealed to us that he is going to do and what we can look forward to as his believing children.

    There are plenty of details in this revealed plan that we do not yet know, but God has revealed enough to us so that we can have full hope and courage in the present.

    Here’s a list of those same events I just recounted to you with some supporting scripture references. I’m not going to spend time with this slide, but you can look at it later when they’re posted to the website.

    That’s question one. Let’s go to the next question.

    Q2: Will the World Know the Rapture Happened?

    Will the world know that the rapture has taken place after it takes place?

    The answer is we cannot say for sure.

    The rapture surely will not be an invisible silent event like the Left Behind book series suggests. We noted in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, which most clearly describes the rapture, that the rapture is said to be accompanied by Christ’s shout from heaven, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God.

    That’s a lot of sound. That’s kind of noisy. Believers are also said to meet the Lord in the air and in the clouds, which suggests the atmosphere of the earth. That’s a visible place.

    “The rapture is accompanied by Christ’s shout, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God.”

    Now, I suppose believers could meet the Lord high enough and concealed enough by clouds for the rest of the people on the ground not to notice. But what about the sounds? Might believers be the only ones who hear the sounds, or will the world hear it too?

    Biblical Precedents for Selective Hearing

    It is possible that only believers would hear the sounds, though we don’t have precedent for that in the Bible. Usually in the Bible, if there’s a sound, everybody nearby can hear it too.

    That being said, we do have a few instances in the Bible in which people hear sounds, but only those for whom the sounds are meant can clearly understand it. For example, when God speaks from heaven to Saul on the Damascus road, Paul clearly sees Jesus and he hears Jesus’ voice. But Acts 9:7 says that his companions heard a voice but saw no one.

    Acts 22:9 says that his companions saw a light but did not understand the voice.

    We also have the instance where God speaks to Jesus in John 12:28-30. The Father tells Jesus, “I have both glorified my name and will glorify it again.” When Jesus hears this voice, he’s in a crowd of Jews in Jerusalem. Those standing by heard the voice but they thought that it had thundered or that an angel had spoken to Jesus.

    John 12:28: “I have both glorified my name and will glorify it again.”

    So they heard something but they didn’t understand it. Only Jesus did. Therefore, it is my opinion—we can’t say this dogmatically—that the world will hear and will perhaps see something during the rapture that indicates something special is happening.

    However, either because God conceals the full truth from them or because their hardened hearts will not allow them to grasp the truth, the world probably will not know that the rapture has taken place. After all, just look at how the unbelieving Jews responded to the signs of Jesus’ resurrection. It was pretty obvious that Jesus had risen from the dead. But they were willing to entertain all sorts of explaining possibilities except the most obvious one: that Jesus, the one that they hated and crucified, actually rose from the dead.

    “The unbelieving heart is dead and blind without God’s merciful intervention.”

    The unbelieving heart is dead and blind without God’s merciful intervention. So one way or another, the world probably will not know, but we can’t say that for certain.

    Number three, this next one’s a big one.

    Q3: Does the Olivet Discourse Contradict Pre-Trib?

    Doesn’t Jesus’ Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, Luke 19, and Mark 13 contradict a pre-trib rapture view?

    Okay, the Olivet discourse is an important word from Jesus on the end times, but it’s too long of a passage for us to read and analyze in depth together right now. Nevertheless, I’ll try to summarize the important issues from this discourse.

    At first glance, Matthew’s version and to some extent the other versions of Jesus’ Olivet discourse do seem to contradict a pre-trib rapture view because in relation to Jesus’ second coming, Jesus instructs his disciples to prepare for increasing world tribulations, to watch for the abomination of desolation being placed in the temple in Jerusalem, and to flee from Jerusalem at that time without going back to get anything.

    Also, there is no mention of a rapture except perhaps Matthew 24:41.

    Matthew 24:41 says, “Then there will be two in the field. One will be taken, one will be left. Two women will be grinding grain at the mill. One will be taken and one will be left.”

    Yet these verses come at the end of the description of tribulation. So doesn’t that suggest a post-trib rapture rather than a pre-trib rapture?

    On the surface, yes, this does seem to contradict.

    On closer examination, however, these objections are meritless.

    Matthew 24:40-41 in Context

    To tackle these objections in reverse order, verses 40 to 41 in Matthew 24, in context, do not relate to the chronology of judgments associated with Christ’s return, but instead to the disciples’ necessary readiness.

    If we go back to verse 3, Matthew 24, the whole discourse starts with a two-part question from Jesus’ disciples. He tells them, “Look at this temple. It looks great. I tell you, soon there will not be one stone left upon another.” The disciples therefore ask Jesus a two-part question: When will these things happen? When will the great temple in Jerusalem be torn apart, even as part of the eschatological last days?

    And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? Some people say that’s actually three questions, but I would say just two because the disciples have assumed that those latter two things are going to happen at the same time. Jewish eschatological understanding based on the Old Testament was that the Messiah’s coming would coincide with the end of the age.

    They’re just two things happening at the same time. So when will this happen and what are the signs? In verses 4-31 in Matthew 24, Jesus clarifies the signs of his coming—namely, increasingly intense judgments unleashed upon the world and Israel, culminating in the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the sky in verse 30, which is Jesus himself. The last sign you’ll see is me, and you’ll know that the end of the age is here.

    Jesus himself will appear in the clouds in glory.

    In verses 32-35, Jesus concludes talking about the signs of his coming by presenting the fig tree as a parable. He says, “Just as the fig tree’s leaves show that summer is near, so these tribulation judgments, when you see them, show you that my coming to the earth is near.” Verses 36-41 then represent Jesus’ answer to the other part of the disciples’ question: When will these things happen? When will we start seeing these sign-like tribulation judgments?

    When will you return? The answer is no one knows. No one knows except the Father. All you can know is that it will be just like the days of Noah. Most people in those days weren’t ready and therefore experienced judgment rather than salvation.

    Verses 40-41 appear in this latter response from Jesus and thus are spoken generally about the future. They’re not related to the specific chronology of the tribulation events.

    “You cannot justify a post-trib rapture view based on the placement of verses 40 to 41.”

    So in short, you cannot justify a post-trib rapture view based on the placement of verses 40-41 because those verses don’t have to do specifically with end-time chronology.

    Furthermore, the focus in the context just before verses 40-41 is judgment upon the unready.

    So probably verses 40-41 are not talking about the rapture at all. Listen to verses 40-41 again. It says, “Then there will be two in the field. One will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding grain at the mill. One will be taken and one will be left.”

    Taken in Judgment, Not Rapture

    On its own, we could see that being the rapture. But look at the previous verse, verse 39. Jesus says, “And they,” speaking of the oblivious ungodly in the day of Noah, “and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away. So will the coming of the son of man be.” Now notice the word “took” in verse 39.

    It’s the same Greek verb as the one that appears in the next two verses about taking.

    What is the sense of the “took” or “taking” in verse 39?

    When Jesus says, “And they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away,” what is the sense of taking in verse 39? Judgment. This isn’t like they were rescued. No, they were taken in judgment most likely.

    Then verses 40 to 41 keep the same sense of the taking. The one taken in each instance isn’t taken away in the rapture or taken away in salvation, but he’s taken away in judgment.

    “The one taken in each instance isn’t taken away in the rapture but taken away in judgment.”

    You don’t want to be one of the oblivious ones who’s taken away suddenly in judgment.

    So what should you do instead? Well, what the next verse says and what the rest of the discourse basically says—verse 42 and following—stay awake. Be ready. Keep persevering and following and obeying Christ because he will come at an hour you do not expect. If you don’t want to be taken away in the judgment, stay ready.

    So again, not only does the placement of verses 40 to 41 not indicate a post-trip rapture chronology, it’s not related to that specifically, but the verses themselves are probably not talking about the rapture at all. So this cannot be used against the pre-trip position.

    But to this, someone might say, “Well, now you’ve got no mention of a rapture at all in the passage.” And yet, the passage does mention people seeing the events of the tribulation period. Isn’t that a problem?

    The Olivet Discourse Is for Future Israel

    Only at first glance. Because ultimately, this passage is not direct instruction for the church, but instead for future Israel. That is, this is for Jewish believers at the time of the tribulation.

    I’ll tell you something interesting. If you compare the version of Jesus’s discourse in the book of Matthew and you compare it to the version in Luke, you’ll notice some poignant differences.

    Luke’s version speaks much more about what’s going to happen soon to Israel. Even that Roman armies will surround Jerusalem in AD 70 and destroy its temple. In Luke’s version, Jesus doesn’t say “when you see the abomination of desolation.” He says “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies.”

    So Luke seems to be focusing on the near judgment coming on Israel, whereas Matthew’s version speaks much more about what’s going to happen to Israel in the far future, even in the last days under antichrist.

    Now, did Matthew and Luke twist Jesus’s words to talk about their own preferred topics? No. Rather, it must be that Jesus originally spoke about both of these things. He spoke about Israel’s near judgment and he spoke about Israel’s far judgment. But each author chooses in his record of Jesus’s discourse to focus on just one or the other. He doesn’t mention all of it.

    All this to say, Matthew, particularly in Matthew 24, this word from Jesus is largely a revelation as to what will happen to Israel in the last days rather than what will happen to the church.

    “This word from Jesus is largely a revelation as to what will happen to Israel rather than the church.”

    And will Israel be raptured at the beginning of the tribulation period? No. Israel will not be raptured at all because as a people, they do not yet believe in their Messiah. They won’t have yet believed in their Messiah at the beginning of the tribulation. So then it is no surprise that Jesus does not mention a rapture when answering his Jewish disciples’ questions about Israel’s future.

    Now someone might say, “But wasn’t Jesus talking to his actual disciples and giving them instruction as to how they should act in the future? These disciples were later the foundation of the church. They basically were the church in incipient form. So how can you say that this instruction is only for later Jewish believers, only for Jewish believers in the tribulation period?”

    Well, let me first say that just because instruction is most directly applied to others rather than the original audience doesn’t mean it’s not useful for the original audience. In addition, it is useful for the disciples to hear this instruction as well, even if it more directly applies to a later generation.

    Textual Details Pointing Beyond the Disciples

    Second, there are details in this text that indicate Jesus is speaking beyond his current disciples. I’ll point you to a few.

    One is the parenthetical in verse 15 in Matthew 24. After Jesus mentions the abomination of desolation, we get this little parenthetical which says, “Let the reader understand.” That’s really interesting because obviously Jesus did not say that originally. It’s not like his disciples were listening and he’s like, “Let the reader understand.” They weren’t reading. They were listening to his voice.

    So why would he say that? Well, he didn’t say that. Yet Matthew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to put that parenthetical in Matthew’s record of Jesus’s words. And why? To indicate that what Jesus just said would be relevant to later readers and not necessarily the original disciples.

    “‘Let the reader understand’ — Matthew was inspired to indicate this would be relevant to later readers, not the original disciples.”

    Another point of detail is verse 20 in Matthew 24, in which Jesus says, in the context of the abomination of desolation appearing in the future temple, in the context of the antichrist unleashing his vicious persecution of the Jews, and in the context of believers at that time needing to flee: “Pray that your flight will not be in winter or on a Sabbath.”

    What’s poignant about that statement? Jesus said, “Pray that you will not need to flee on a Sabbath.” Why would fleeing on a Sabbath represent a potential difficulty for future disciples?

    For Jews still living under the Mosaic law, there are limitations as to what is allowed before God for you to do on the Sabbath. You’re not to work on the Sabbath, but also you’re not to travel a long distance. That’s why the New Testament can refer to a Sabbath day’s journey. There was an understanding that there’s only a certain amount of distance you’re able to cover on the Sabbath before you violate God’s law and sin against God.

    But if you had to flee from deadly persecution on the Sabbath, then you’re in this terrible predicament: Do I violate God’s law and save my life, or do I keep God’s law and perhaps lose my life?

    But would fleeing on the Sabbath be a concern for the future church? It shouldn’t be.

    Colossians 2:16 says, “Let no one judge you regarding a new moon or a Sabbath day, things that are mere shadows of the things to come, but the substance is Christ. We are not under the Sabbath restrictions that the Jews once were. The Sabbath has been fulfilled for us in Jesus Christ.”

    Therefore, this warning—this word about what they should pray for—would have been largely irrelevant for the original disciples who would soon be brought under the new covenant and certainly irrelevant for the church. But it would be highly relevant for Jewish believers in the tribulation period who are at that time still living under the Mosaic law.

    This Generation — Who Is It?

    Finally, there’s verse 34 which says Jesus speaking, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Okay, who is this generation? Who is this generation that Jesus has been speaking about, even for whom Jesus has given this instruction about signed judgments and the unknown timing of Jesus coming?

    The most intuitive answer is that Jesus is referring to the generation of his hearers, his original disciples.

    This necessarily means that everything Jesus just described would be fulfilled before the generation of his original disciples died. All of you hearing me, you’re not going to pass away until these things are accomplished. What’s the big problem with this interpretation?

    They’ve already passed away and these things did not happen. There is no biblical or historical record of all these events coming to pass. And Jesus obviously is not now returned and reigning on the earth from a restored and believing Israel.

    Now there are some interpreters who believe, who insist that actually these things did come to pass based on verse 34. These are called preterists. They say all or most of these events were fulfilled by AD 70.

    The only way you can make that work is if you make figurative much of what Jesus is saying. For example, Jesus coming in clouds is actually a metaphor for the Roman armies coming to Jerusalem and destroying it.

    That is a huge stretch. That just doesn’t work. But preterism requires that.

    So even though this generation most intuitively would refer to Jesus’ original disciples, it cannot reasonably be taken to be so. So who else could it be?

    Well, future Israel—the generation of Jewish believers alive at the time of Christ’s return, alive during the tribulation period. Jesus says all these foretold events will conclude in that generation’s lifetime.

    “Future Israel — the generation of Jewish believers alive at the time of Christ’s return.”

    Revelation would be even more explicit. It’s only going to be seven years. So it’s going to conclude within one generation. But before that specific information was given, Jesus says it’s not going to take hundreds of years.

    It’s going to be a short amount of time. All these things will happen before one generation passes away.

    Therefore, one could justly say based on these details of the text that the direct relevance of this passage is not for the original disciples nor for the church but for the generation alive at Christ’s return, particularly Jewish believers.

    All this to argue that Matthew’s Olivet Discourse and also the other versions of the Olivet Discourse we have in Luke and Mark primarily explain the eschatology of Israel rather than the church. Therefore the lack of any mention of a rapture—or if you really want to, you could talk about the gathering of the elect by his angels and say, “Oh, surely that’s the rapture”—that’s given at the end of the description of tribulation judgments.

    The lack of any mention of a rapture or the gathering of the saints at the end of the tribulation is not really a problem for the pre-trip position because this is about Israel rather than the church. What Jesus says in Matthew 24 and 25, Luke 21, and Mark 13 actually fits with the pre-trip rapture.

    Q4: Why Give the Church Tribulation Instruction?

    Okay, that was a big one. Follow-up question number four. All right. Well, why would the church be given this instruction then? Why would the church be given instruction like Matthew 24 and 25 and Revelation 6:19 if the church won’t actually go through the tribulations that those passages describe? Why couldn’t God just give extra revelation in the future for whoever actually needs it?

    Well, if we ask a why God question like this, we must be prepared to admit that we might not be able to discover the answer. And that’s okay. God doesn’t have to explain himself to us.

    But we many times wonder why God includes this thing in the Bible and not this other thing. Why didn’t God clarify this issue more? Well, God has his reasons, or he decided this is sufficiently clear. We need to stay humble and be able to trust God even when we don’t fully understand.

    Still, while we don’t have God’s exactly revealed answer as to why these passages are included to the church, we can brainstorm some answers that demonstrate that this is a good thing. I’ll just give you four.

    First, the explanations of the wrath to come teach people in the present age to fear God and seek salvation refuge in Christ. After all, if you do not believe and if you do not become part of Christ’s church, then you are headed to these judgments.

    What is the frequent evangelistic message of the New Testament from the apostles to Jews and Gentiles? Repent and be saved from the wrath to come. Yes, the wrath of hell, but also that which comes before it, the horrifying world tribulation in which you will probably perish and be quickly sent to hell if you go into it. From this reason alone, the passages are quite relevant.

    Second, for the saved believer, these explanations of wrath to come give believers great reason for gratitude, comfort, and effort at holiness. If what you’ve been rescued from by the Father’s mercy, you should love God all the more and seek to serve him with more zeal.

    “These explanations of wrath to come give believers great reason for gratitude, comfort, and effort at holiness.”

    Third, these passages encourage believers by explaining how God’s justice will be vindicated in the days to come. Repeatedly, the Bible instructs believers not to seek vengeance on the people of the world, even when they persecute us, because God will take care of it.

    But believers don’t usually see that. Believers don’t see God’s justice against the world or against persecutors in the believer’s lifetime. Therefore, it should encourage believers, yes, even believers in the church right now, that God will one day set right what otherwise doesn’t look like it’s going to be set right anytime soon. We can trust God and not seek vengeance.

    Fourth, the exhortations and examples given for our future brethren, those who are living during the days of tribulation, ought to encourage us to walk more faithfully in our present less demanding circumstances. If there are, for example, special Jewish evangelists in the tribulation period who will remain unstained by the world even in that situation, then don’t you want to do the same? Wouldn’t you like to live as faithfully in your lesser time of tribulation?

    This, by the way, explains why the book of Revelation would be highly relevant for Christians being persecuted by Rome at the end of the first century. It’s not because the emperor’s persecution is what Revelation is describing figuratively, but because the emperor’s persecution is just a lesser version of what Antichrist will one day seek to unleash on all of God’s people.

    If God’s people can be faithful in the future and if God can vindicate that faithfulness in a spectacular way, then God’s people can be faithful in the first century in a lesser version of that as they await God’s vindication.

    All right. Next question number five.

    Q5: Who Are the Saints in Revelation 6–18?

    If the church does not go through the tribulation, then who are the saints on the earth described and being martyred in Revelation 6:9?

    That’s a good question, but it’s a relatively simple one to answer. We do indeed get references to saints living on the earth a few times in the judgment section of Revelation. Revelation 13:7, for example, says that the Antichrist will be given authority to make war against the saints and overcome them.

    Revelation 16:6, an angel praises God’s justice for turning all the fresh water of the world into blood because the people of the world, even at that time, poured out the blood of saints and prophets. The angel says, “And you have given them blood to drink. They deserve it.” Revelation 17:6, Revelation 18:20, and Revelation 18:24 similarly report that Babylon, that horrid economic, religious, and political capital of the world, will one day be judged for getting drunk on the blood of the saints.

    So the saints are clearly there in the tribulation.

    But who are these saints?

    They are not the church. Don’t think “church” automatically when you read “saints” because, after all, there were saints or holy ones in the Old Testament before the church came to be.

    “Don’t think ‘church’ automatically when you read ‘saints’ — there were saints in the Old Testament before the church came to be.”

    Tribulation Saints Identified

    Rather, these in the tribulation period in Revelation 6:18 are other saints. These are Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus who come to faith after the rapture and before Jesus’ kingdom arrival to the earth.

    Thus, these are commonly called tribulation saints. They are a special category of saints alive during the tribulation period. The Bible foretells that there will be many of them. Even though we look at the book of Revelation and we see the incredible stubbornness of the people of the world, they’ve got these obvious judgments of God coming upon them and it’s like, “Why aren’t you turning and believing? God is clearly real. His word is clearly true. Why aren’t you turning and believing?” We might be like, “Oh, nobody saved at that time.” That’s not what the Bible says.

    The Bible foretells that there will be many tribulation saints, but most of them will be martyred.

    Revelation 7:9-17 describes an uncountable multitude of saints who come out of the tribulation. So they were in it, but they’ve come out of it because they’ve died. John sees them worshiping the Lord in heaven. These are said to be those who have made their robes white in the blood of the lamb and for whom God now wipes away every tear from their eyes.

    They’re not going to be beaten by the sun anymore. They’re not going to be hungry anymore. They’re going to be with the lamb and they’ll know his joy forever.

    This is kind of amazing. God is indeed a God who even in wrath remembers mercy.

    “God is indeed a God who even in wrath remembers mercy.”

    Even in the horrors of the tribulation, many will hear, many will believe the gospel, and many will be saved. It’s not the church. This is another group of brethren unique to that time.

    Okay, next question.

    Q6: The First Resurrection in Revelation 20

    Number six, Revelation 24:6 describes the first resurrection of believers taking place right after Christ’s return to the earth and defeat of his enemies.

    Doesn’t that detail point to a post-trib rapture rather than a pre-trib rapture?

    After all, how can John speak of a first resurrection after Jesus returned to the earth if there already was a resurrection of believers as part of a pre-trib rapture?

    Okay, fair objection. This is a good question and it’s part of a constellation of objections to the pre-trib view all around the same basic concept. The pre-trib rapture view splits into two or more what the Bible often describes as a singular event.

    So you get a reference to a singular event. The pre-trib rapture seems to split it. For example, it’s the second coming of Christ, not the second comings of Christ—once at the rapture and once again at the end of the tribulation.

    Or it’s the resurrection. One resurrection in the future, not resurrection part one, two, three, and four.

    Such splitting of one event into phases is one of the perceived weaknesses of the pre-trib position. By contrast, the post-trib rapture view has the advantage of keeping events simple and singular.

    It’s one coming of Christ, one first resurrection, and so on.

    We admit that rhetorically speaking, this does seem to be a weakness of the pre-trib view.

    God Splits Singular Events into Phases

    But in reply to this objection, we must confess God apparently likes splitting what sounds like singular events into phases.

    “God apparently likes splitting what sounds like singular events into phases. He’s done it before.”

    He’s done it before and he’s going to do it again in the future. Consider when the Old Testament foretells the coming of the Messiah. Does the Old Testament make it sound like the Messiah will come to his people Israel once or twice?

    Just once, even though it’s actually twice.

    We see a stunning example of this in Luke 4:16-21. The context here is that Jesus visits the synagogue in Nazareth and he reads from the scroll of Isaiah. He reads a portion of it, hands it back to the attendant, and then Jesus announces, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

    That’s pretty cool. But what part of Isaiah was Jesus reading? Isaiah 61:1 and part of verse two. Isaiah 61:1-2 reads, “The spirit of the Lord, the spirit of the Lord, Yahweh is upon me because Yahweh has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to captives and freedom to prisoners, to proclaim the favorable year of Yahweh.” That’s what Luke also records.

    What’s intriguing about this is that Jesus stops reading in the middle of a verse. What does the next part of Isaiah 61:2 say right after it says to proclaim the favorable year of Yahweh?

    It says, “And the day of vengeance of our God.” Why didn’t Jesus read that next line?

    Because that line wasn’t being fulfilled yet. You couldn’t have read that line and say, “This scripture is now being fulfilled in your hearing.” Because that second part of it, the day of vengeance, it was not actually being fulfilled.

    Yet these lines were originally put together as one prophecy about apparently the one coming of Messiah. That’s true. Yet you see the Messiah’s one coming to his people would be in phases.

    First it would be to proclaim the favorable year of Yahweh, salvation through the cross. Later it would be to proclaim the day of vengeance of our God, God’s judgment on the world.

    So from this one example, we can see pre-tribers are not playing fast and loose with the Bible by breaking singular events down into phases. God is the one who did it first.

    “Pre-tribers are not playing fast and loose with the Bible. God is the one who did it first.”

    The Resurrection Has an Order

    More to the point, the Bible speaks of the one resurrection of the dead happening in phases. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:21.

    In 1 Corinthians 15:21, Paul writes, “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.” Okay, singular event, right? One death for all through one man, one resurrection from the dead for all through another man, namely Christ, just one singular.

    But Paul quickly follows up that statement just two verses later with verses 23-24. 1 Corinthians 15:23-24.

    “But each in his own order. Christ the first fruits. After that, those who are Christ at his coming, then comes the end when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father when he’s abolished all rule and all authority and power.”

    Did you notice what Paul just did? What Paul just said? He clarified that the one resurrection has an order. Or in other words, it has sequential phases.

    “The one resurrection has an order — in other words, it has sequential phases.”

    Christ first, then his people at his coming, then the end.

    And consider the gap of time between the first and second phases of this one resurrection that Paul describes. Jesus was the resurrection first fruits around 30 or 33 AD. And if the rapture happens today, how many years later will be the second phase of this resurrection?

    Almost 2,000 years between the phases of the one resurrection. Just the first two phases. And if it’s not today, it could be even longer.

    So even a resurrection with phases can be separated by millennia and still be the one resurrection.

    So it is then with the first resurrection described in Revelation 20:4-6. John’s use of the term does not preclude anyone being resurrected before the inauguration of the millennial kingdom because if that were to be the case, Jesus himself would have to be excluded.

    His resurrection could not happen because this is the first resurrection. Rather, John uses that term, the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6, to contrast it with the resurrection of the dead that occurs at the end of the 1,000-year millennial kingdom. A qualitatively different resurrection because this is the one that takes place for the great white throne judgment.

    This is the resurrection of sinners unto eternal death.

    Blessed indeed is the one who partakes of the first resurrection in whatever phase and not the second.

    The first resurrection has different phases. We have Christ the first fruits after the cross. Then the resurrection of Christian saints at the rapture. Then the resurrection of Old Testament saints and tribulation saints at the inauguration of the kingdom after Christ returns to the earth and sets up his millennial kingdom.

    Those three things are the first resurrection though in phases.

    Rhetorically, mentally, it would be simpler if it had no phases. But we have to be faithful to what the Bible actually describes. That’s why we hold to it as a pre-tribulation rapture.

    Okay, my last question, last prepared question.

    Q7: Who Repopulates the Earth in the Millennium?

    Who exactly will be repopulating the earth in the millennial kingdom period?

    After all, as we noted in our lessons on premillennialism, Isaiah foretold about Messiah’s coming kingdom. Isaiah 65:20 says, “No longer will there be an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fulfill his days, for the youth will die at the age of 100, and the one who does not reach the age of 100 will be thought accursed.” Isaiah 65:23 further says, “They will not labor in vain or bear children for terror, for they are the seed of those blessed by Yahweh and their offspring with them.”

    In other words, Isaiah prophesies that someone is going to be having babies in the millennial kingdom and without the calamities of miscarriage or child mortality or maternal mortality.

    So, who’s having the babies?

    We might want to answer resurrected saints.

    But Jesus says explicitly that this is not so. When answering the Sadducees’ trick question about the woman marrying seven times and then having her husbands all die, “Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be?” Jesus responds, “In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” That’s Matthew 22:30.

    In other words, resurrected believers aren’t married and don’t get married. And as marriage is the only legitimate sexual relationship before God, resurrected believers are also no longer having sex and they’re no longer having children.

    Okay. Then if resurrected saints aren’t having children in the millennial kingdom, maybe unbelievers who’ve survived the tribulation period are having them instead.

    This cannot be the case either. For the scripture repeatedly makes clear that unbelievers will not enter the kingdom of God. Just one example, John 3:3: “Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

    In fact, Jesus describes a judgment of the survivors among the nations after his coming in Matthew 25:31-46, which is also called the sheep and the goats judgment.

    He gathers all survivors of the nations, that is, the Gentiles. And if every surviving Gentile is an unbeliever, as evidenced by his poor treatment, his neglect of the least of these, my brethren, Jesus says that unbeliever is immediately sent away and cast into eternal punishment.

    Whereas those who are believers from among the nations are welcomed in.

    And as I mentioned earlier, Ezekiel 20:33-38 says that God will execute a similar judgment among his people. He will gather Israel. He will gather the Jews in the wilderness and purge out all rebels and prevent them from entering the kingdom.

    So in short, no unbelievers are entering the kingdom of God once Jesus inaugurates it. So babies will not be coming from unglorified unbelievers.

    So if not coming from glorified believers and not coming from unglorified unbelievers, who’s left?

    Unglorified Believing Survivors

    The only possible answer is surviving believers among the nations and among the people of Israel who do enter the kingdom but are not yet resurrected or glorified.

    These persons continue in a state similar to before. They are still subject to the weaknesses of sin and death, but they also still get married and they still have children. But it’s on a restored earth under the perfect rule of the Messiah and of his saints.

    These believing survivors at the beginning of the millennial kingdom will bear children and will repopulate the earth probably at an amazing rate considering that their curse has been removed. And their children will also have children.

    But not all of the offspring will grow up to believe and be saved. Which is why Isaiah can say that some of these children will indeed die young at the age of 100, considered to be cursed by God.

    But many of these children will not die young, or at least they will live until the end of the 1,000 years because then they will join, they will be part of, they will make up Satan’s final rebellion and his assault against Jerusalem, which God will easily crush.

    Sometimes people look at Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 and they’re like, “Oh, Revelation 19, he got rid of all the unbelieving rebels. Who’s there to rebel in Revelation 20?” It must be symbolic. Revelation 20 is just a recounting of Revelation 19. No, there’s no reason to take that view because when there are children being born in the millennial kingdom and some of them don’t grow up to believe, then you have people who can constitute this final satanic rebellion. You don’t need to take Revelation 20 symbolically.

    “Believing survivors at the beginning of the millennial kingdom will bear children and repopulate the earth.”

    So again, to reemphasize, there will be procreation in the millennial kingdom, but only at first by believers who have survived the tribulation period and then by their descendants.

    Now, someone might ask, “So, when will unglorified believers finally be glorified? When will they receive their resurrection bodies?” We don’t know. The Bible doesn’t say clearly. It could be individually at the moment each one of them dies, or it could be at the end of the millennial kingdom period. Either way, God’s going to work it out.

    And by the way, the fact that someone needs to bear children in the millennial kingdom and the fact that some of these children need to turn out to be unbelievers is a weakness of the post-trib rapture view. Because if the rapture happens right when Jesus comes back bodily to the earth, then all believers in the world are resurrected and glorified and all unbelievers are judged and barred from the kingdom. So no one can have children. But who’s going to then be part of the final rebellion?

    So this is the problem for the post-trib view. But if you’re post-trib, there’s a good chance you take the Bible’s eschatological prophecies symbolically anyway. So you’re probably not that bothered by that inconsistency.

    Unfortunately, this move to allegorization, to figurative interpretation, it can save any kind of error, which is why a consistent literal hermeneutic for the Bible is so key, as we emphasized at the beginning of our course.

    “A consistent literal hermeneutic for the Bible is key, as we emphasized at the beginning of our course.”

    Audience Q&A

    Okay, that’s it for my prepared questions. I think I have time for one or two more. Glenna, I was looking at that same narrative.

    That’s a good question, Glenn. In trying to explain that line, “this generation will not pass away until all these things have come to pass” or however exactly Jesus says it, can you parallel that to the statement that God makes to Abraham? “You are going to possess this land,” even though Abraham never actually did.

    There is some similarity, but I don’t think it’s a complete parallel. With Abraham, you have not just him but in his body there’s the seed from which the people to come will actually be brought forth. So you could say that in speaking to Abraham, he’s speaking to all of Abraham’s line because the seed is in Abraham.

    Sometimes there are parallel passages that say it explicitly: “You and your descendants will possess this land.” That’s not quite the same thing for the disciples in Matthew 24, especially because he says “this generation,” which seems to imply it’s only going to be a certain amount of time before whatever is making up that group is going to pass away.

    So you’re really stretching the definition of what generation means if it’s supposed to include the disciples and then all their spiritual descendants. There’s some parallel there, but I don’t think it’s totally exact.

    Arthur, yeah. When you mentioned the question of why God would reveal to the disciples the distinction between the rapture and the understanding of the saints coming out of the tribulation, my memory went to when God visited Abraham and said, “Shall I keep this from Abraham since he’s going to be a great person and I have a plan that I didn’t reveal to anyone else?”

    I was thinking of that as an example. We see that there are times when God will reveal something, and God does do that.

    He does reveal that type of character.

    Yeah. And since he was talking to his disciples, he considered them his friends, just as God considered Abraham his friend.

    Yeah, that’s a good point, Arthur. You’re pointing out parallels where for the friends of God—those who have been chosen for God’s special favor—he often does reveal plans that may not directly have to do with that person, but may have to do with those who will come after as part of bringing comfort or bringing clarity.

    Not just the example you mentioned with Abraham, where he says, “What I’m about to do with Sodom and Gomorrah, shall I not reveal it to my friend Abraham?” Or when he reveals to Abraham what’s going to happen to Israel when they go down to Egypt. He says they’re going to be slaves for centuries and says, “That doesn’t really have anything to do with me,” but he’s like, “I want you to know about it.”

    I’m thinking also of the parallel that Jesus says in his farewell discourse where he says, “I no longer call you slaves but friends, because slaves don’t know what their master is doing, but I’m letting you know.” I also think of the same objection sometimes made with the prophecy about the virgin birth in Isaiah 7, where he says, “Why would Jesus declare this to King Ahaz because it has nothing to do with him? Surely this must refer to something different than the Messiah who’s to come centuries later because why would he tell Ahaz?”

    Well, God has his reasons.

    “God has been revealing plans to His friends throughout all the scriptures.”

    Even though it referred more directly to Ahaz in his own time period, he wanted Ahaz to know about it. I would say partially as a statement of rebuke and judgment to Ahaz. He says, “You’re not willing to believe me. You’re not willing to test me by faith. You only test me by unbelief. I’m going to tell you about somebody who’s going to come in the far future who’s going to be totally different from you and is going to be fulfilling what the house of David was meant to be.”

    Closing Prayer

    Anyway, I think it’s good that you pointed out if we have problems with God saying things to the church that aren’t directly related to the church, well, God has been doing that throughout all the scriptures for those who are his friends. All right, good comments, good questions. If you have other ones, you can let me know afterwards.

    But remember too, as I was telling somebody before we got started, before the end of our course at the end of June, we’ll have one more elder Q&A. So if you have a question about eschatology, particularly about premillennialism or pre-tribulation rapture that I haven’t answered yet and that you still think would be good to have answered, let me know and it might be something we can talk about at that time.

    All right, we’ll end our time today with a word of prayer. Thank you for being part of the class.

    Lord, we thank you again for your rapture. We thank you for this truth. Everything you do is right. If you had chosen to do it a different way, we could not complain. Yet, God, the way you have chosen to do it is so right.

    And thank you for letting us know. Thank you, not only for letting us know so that we may have hope and perseverance, but also, God, so that we can see how these things are going to be all taken care of. You will vindicate your justice. You will show faithfulness to Israel and to your people.

    And God, we are going to be with you in your kingdom forever. God, we do say along with the Apostle John, come Lord Jesus. If you were to come back today, we know you can choose to come back today or any century from now. If you were to come back today, we would be so glad.

    But God, help us to be those faithful slaves until you come back. Not to say to ourselves, “Well, my master’s a long time coming, so I’m just going to goof around.” No, help us not to do that. Help us to not miss out on the joy of serving you nor test you by this kind of selfish unbelief.

    I thank you for this time and bless the rest of the service in Jesus’ name. Amen.

    Amen.

  • Lesson 26: Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church, Overview

    Lesson 26: Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church, Overview

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    This lesson examines the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 1 Corinthians 15:50-53, Revelation 3:10, John 14:1-3, and other passages. The biblical evidence, when carefully harmonized, demonstrates that Christ will return to snatch up His church—both dead and living believers—before the tribulation period begins.

    Key Lessons:

    1. The rapture is a clearly taught biblical event in which all believers, both dead and alive, will be resurrected, glorified, and caught up to meet Christ in the air.
    2. Revelation 3:10 promises that the faithful church will be kept *from* the hour of testing, not merely kept *through* it—pointing to a pre-tribulational rapture.
    3. The entire tribulation period, including the seal judgments, constitutes God’s wrath, and New Testament believers are promised rescue from God’s wrath, not endurance through it.
    4. John 14:1-3 requires a return to heaven after the rapture, ruling out post-tribulational views that have the church going up and immediately coming back down.

    Application: We are called to live in present obedience and holiness as we await Christ’s return, not preparing for wrath but preparing by faithfulness—putting on faith, love, and the hope of salvation. This doctrine should produce comfort, encouragement, and mutual ministry within the church body.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How does understanding that the rapture is a reward for persevering faithfulness change the way we view our daily walk with Christ?
    2. Why is it significant that the New Testament never instructs Christians to prepare for the tribulation period, and what does this tell us about God’s posture toward His church?
    3. If the rapture could happen at any moment, how should that reality shape our priorities, relationships, and evangelistic urgency?

    Scripture Focus: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-53 describe the rapture event itself. Revelation 3:10 promises the church will be kept from the hour of testing. John 14:1-3 shows Jesus preparing a heavenly home and coming to receive His disciples. 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 and 5:1-11 reveal that believers expect rescue from wrath, not entrance into it. Revelation 6 demonstrates that the seal judgments are God’s wrath from the very beginning of the tribulation.

    Outline

    Introduction

    Good morning. Good morning. It’s time to begin Sunday school. Please find your seats.

    Welcome back to our defending doctrinal distinctive Sunday school series. We’re getting closer to the end. I don’t just mean that eschatologically, but we’re getting closer to the end of this course. After today’s topic, which we’ll cover this week and next week, we only have one more larger topic and then we have our final elders Q&A and then it is finished.

    But what are we talking about today? You see it on the screen. We’re talking about the rapture and why your pastors at this church hold to a pre-tribulational rapture stance. That means we are once again talking about eschatology. We’re talking about the biblical teaching of last things—what God is going to do in the last days of this current world.

    I’ve already spoken about eschatology broadly in a couple of previous lessons. I presented to you why our church is premillennialist. That is, we believe that Jesus will return to earth before his 1,000-year kingdom to establish that kingdom and to fulfill the promises that have not yet been fulfilled to Israel. If you missed those lessons, you can go back and listen to the recordings, and I recommend you do that because I lay a foundation there that I’m going to build on in today’s lessons.

    Now, this doctrine of a pre-tribulational rapture is especially important to me since it was something that I had to wrestle with during seminary—my own doubts about this doctrine. As God would have it, I was assigned to explain verbally the rapture in one of my classes. And I was like, “No, anything but that. That’s the one I’m not totally sure about.” But forced to study the issue, I became firmly convinced of a pre-tribulational rapture position.

    So my explanation today is just an expanded version of what I presented previously in my seminary class. Here’s how we’ll proceed in today’s lesson. We will first define terms and I’ll give you some helpful background on this topic, and then I will present to you a six-part argument for a pre-tribulational rapture.

    Okay, let’s pray and we’ll get into it. Lord, thank you for this truth, this glorious truth of your Son’s coming to get his church by the rapture. God, I pray that you would help me to be able to explain this well and help us not only to be able to understand it, but to appreciate the impact of it—that this is a mark of your great love, your faithfulness to your church, and a reality for which your church can hope and persevere in the present. I bless this time in Jesus’ name. Amen.

    Background: The Rapture in Scripture

    Let’s start with background. Where exactly in the Bible do we get this concept of a rapture event? The answer is two New Testament passages. Unlike some of the other topics we’ve studied in this course where there are so many verses we don’t have time to cover them all, there aren’t that many verses related to the rapture. We’re going to look at those in a bit more depth.

    Two main passages describe the rapture event. The first one is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. If you like, you can turn there in your own Bibles and see it for yourself.

    This is our main passage on the rapture.

    “Where exactly in the Bible do we get this concept of a rapture event? The answer is two New Testament passages.”

    I’m going to read it and then present to you a few observations.

    1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 — The Main Rapture Passage

    This is Paul speaking to the Thessalonian church. He says, “But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God.

    And the dead in Christ will rise first.

    Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall always be with the Lord.

    1 Thessalonians 4:17: “We who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”

    Therefore, comfort one another with these words.

    Key Observations from 1 Thessalonians 4

    All right. In this part of Paul’s letter to the newly established church in Thessalonica, Paul seeks to correct an eschatological misunderstanding which was distressing some of the people in the church. Notice in verse 13 that Paul says he does not want the people to be uninformed about those who are asleep.

    And by the way, who are those who are asleep? Those who have died, believers who have died. He says, “I don’t want you to be uninformed about them so that you people will not inadvertently grieve like the rest of the hopeless world.”

    Now, what exactly were some of the Thessalonians believing in error about those who had died, those who had fallen asleep? Paul does not say specifically, but we can infer what the error was based on Paul’s correcting explanation.

    Apparently, the Thessalonians were grieving because they thought that believers who already died, believers in Jesus who already died, were going to miss out on Christ’s glorious second coming and his millennial kingdom. They loved these persons and didn’t want them to miss that.

    So Paul clarifies in verse 14 that departed believers will be there at Christ’s return. More than that, in verses 15-16, Paul says that the dead in Christ will be the first ones to meet the arriving Lord being resurrected from the dead.

    “Paul clarifies that departed believers will be there at Christ’s return.”

    According to verse 17, only after the dead in Christ are raised to meet Christ will living believers, those who are still alive at Christ’s coming, be caught up together with those resurrected believers to meet the Lord in the sky. The result according to verse 17 is that both dead believers and alive believers will be together again and from then on all of them will always be with the Lord.

    The Word ‘Rapture’ — Harpado

    Now notice the phrase in verse 17: “will be caught up.” This is the form of the Greek verb harpado, which generally means to grab, seize, snatch, or take away suddenly. The equivalent Latin verb is rapere, from which we get our English word rapture. It just comes from the Latin version of this Greek verb.

    In these verses, Paul is teaching about the rapture. There is a snatching away coming of both dead and living believers in Christ, which is the church.

    “There is a snatching away coming of both dead and living believers in Christ, which is the church.”

    They are snatched from this world at Christ’s second coming to meet the Lord in the air and then always be with the Lord.

    According to verse 18, what does Paul expect that this clarifying teaching about the rapture will do for the Thessalonian believers?

    It will comfort them and should enable them to comfort one another. The rapture is meant to be a comforting doctrine.

    By the way, with what sounds does verse 16 say Christ will descend from heaven for his church?

    There’s a trumpet, the trumpet of God. There’s a shout, presumably from Christ because he will descend with a shout, it says, and the voice of the archangel.

    Based on verse 16, does the rapture seem like a silent event or a noisy event?

    It seems pretty noisy, contrary to certain popular book series.

    In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, we see a clear passage revealing the coming rapture of the church. The other main passage that describes this event doesn’t use harpado, doesn’t use this term for snatching away, but is clearly talking about the same instance. If you like, turn over to 1 Corinthians 15.

    1 Corinthians 15:50-53 — Instantaneous Transformation

    Smaller passage here, but 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.

    The context here is Paul refuting the idea that there’s no coming resurrection for believers. Aside from arguing that such a reality would contradict Christ’s own resurrection because he’s the first fruits of what his people will experience, Paul then clarifies that a glorified resurrection body is necessary for being in or remaining in Christ’s everlasting kingdom.

    Let’s pick up Paul’s words in verse 50. 1 Corinthians 15:50 and then the few verses following.

    Paul says, “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

    Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

    1 Corinthians 15:51-52: “We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.”

    Notice what Paul teaches here in verse 51. Paul says that not all believers will sleep, meaning not all believers will what? They will not all die. Just like the previous passage, sleep equals death. But he says nevertheless that all believers in Christ will be changed whether alive or dead.

    All believers will be changed at a certain time in the future to become incorruptible and immortal. According to verse 52, how much time will be needed for this transformation? It’s instant. It says in a moment, in an eye twinkle.

    And according to verses 52 and 53, when will this transformation happen? At the last trumpet and also at the same time as what? It doesn’t exactly say the return of Christ, though we’re going to connect that in just a second.

    But at the same time as the believer’s coming resurrection, it says the dead will be raised imperishable in verse 52. So this changing of all believers in Christ—both dead and alive—it’s going to happen at the same time as the last trumpet and as the believer’s coming resurrection.

    Combining the Two Passages

    Hopefully, you already see the intimate connections in this passage to what we read earlier in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. This is because the two passages are talking about the same event. When we combine what both passages are telling us, we can conclude the following about the rapture.

    The rapture is a future event associated with Christ’s return in which Christ’s entire church consisting of both living and dead members will be resurrected, glorified, and lifted up to meet Christ in the clouds. The transformed church will then finally be fit for Christ’s everlasting kingdom and will be with Christ from then on.

    “The rapture is a future event in which Christ’s entire church will be resurrected, glorified, and lifted up to meet Christ in the clouds.”

    We call this transformative event the rapture based on the term in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

    Now, these passages are pretty clear. Belief in a future rapture really is not controversial. If you believe in the Bible, there’s going to be a rapture. If you don’t believe the Bible, then you don’t believe that. But the Bible makes plain in these two passages that a future rapture of the church will happen.

    The Controversy: When Does the Rapture Occur?

    You may ask, well if the truth of the coming rapture is plain, then why is this considered a controversial doctrine? The controversy emerges when we try to answer when in relation to Christ’s second coming to the earth the rapture occurs.

    While these passages clarify that it is part of Jesus’s second coming, there are a number of events in Jesus’s second coming. Where does the rapture exactly fall within those events? Do these two passages make it extremely clear?

    They don’t. In fact, no single verse in the Bible does. That’s why this becomes a difficult doctrine to understand. Where in connection with Christ coming does the rapture take place?

    We might ask, is the exact timing of the rapture unknowable then? We just know it’s somewhere in the second coming. Well, no. We can know the timing of the rapture in relation to Christ’s return to the earth. Nobody knows the day or hour, but we can know relatively in the events of Christ’s second coming when the rapture will take place.

    “No single verse in the Bible decides the timing. The answer only comes by careful harmony of various eschatological passages.”

    The answer only comes by careful harmony of various eschatological passages. No one verse is going to decide it for you. You have to compare all the passages and harmonize them together.

    Now, some of these passages at first seem to contradict each other. Because of this need to harmonize various passages to understand the timing of the rapture, there have emerged three main views as to when the rapture will occur relative to Christ coming. The names for these views all have to do with the tribulation period. The terms are relative to when the tribulation period occurs.

    You may say, what’s the tribulation period? The tribulation period is the period of last judgments on the world before Christ’s return.

    Dispensational premillennialists talked about that term in our previous lesson. Like your elders at Calvary, they understand the tribulation period to be seven years. It’s not just sometime in the future. It’s a period of seven years. That conclusion comes from the repeated reference to seven years or two sets of three and a half years that we see in the book of Revelation and also in the book of Daniel, specifically Daniel 9.

    Thus, the tribulation period may also accurately be called Daniel’s 70th week or the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord is a term you hear throughout Scripture, but it refers to that final period of judgment before the Lord returns himself to the earth.

    By contrast, those who take a symbolic view of Revelation either see the tribulation period as describing the entire church age in which we live or some undefined amount of time shortly before Christ’s return in which the present tribulations of the world get much worse.

    Now, we don’t take that view. We don’t believe that’s a hermeneutically sound way to approach the book of Revelation. Thus, we see the tribulation period as being seven years.

    The Three Main Views on the Rapture’s Timing

    All right. That’s what the tribulation period is. But what are the three main views of the rapture’s timing relative to the tribulation period?

    Well, first there is the pre-tribulational rapture view. These terms are pretty self-explanatory.

    The pre-tribulational rapture view is that the rapture of the church will take place before the tribulation period.

    In other words, Jesus rescues the church before he unleashes any special judgments on the world.

    “Jesus rescues the church before he unleashes any special judgments on the world.”

    For pre-tribulationists, the rapture is the very next event on God’s eschatological timetable. Not waiting for anything else, just waiting for the rapture.

    The second main view is the midtribulational rapture view. This is the teaching that the rapture of the church takes place in the middle of the tribulation period. Those who hold this view see a distinction in the types of tribulation that take place in the final seven years of judgment or the final period of God’s judgments of the earth.

    The first three and a half years are the seal judgments. Many midtribulationists would say these are the wrath of man or the wrath of Satan or both. The second three and a half years, the trumpet and bowl judgments, are the much worse wrath of God, the great tribulation as some verses of scripture describe it. From this, God rescues his church via the rapture.

    As an aside, a variant of the midtrib rapture view is the pre-wrath rapture view, which teaches that the rapture will take place sometime in the second half of the tribulation period just before the bowl judgments. So in the pre-wrath view, there are the seal judgments, there are the trumpet judgments, but the bowl judgments—God rescues the church from because that’s where God’s wrath is really unleashed.

    Third, there is the posttribulational rapture view. You can guess by now what that means. This is the teaching that the rapture of the church takes place after the tribulation period at the very end of the tribulation period.

    In other words, when Christ returns, when he appears in the sky at the battle of Armageddon to dispatch all his enemies and to conquer and rule, the church will be called up to the heavens to meet their arriving king and then immediately come back down following him as he wages war.

    Obviously, this posttribulational rapture view requires the church to go through the entire tribulation period.

    Now, which of these views is correct according to the Bible?

    We must admit none of these views is problem free. However, the best view is the pre-tribulational rapture view. This view best harmonizes the relevant verses of scripture, which is why we hold to it here as your pastors and why we teach it.

    Grace on a Difficult Issue

    Now, do you need to believe correctly on the rapture to be saved?

    Do you need to believe correctly on the rapture to be a member of this church?

    No. No, definitely not. Though the Bible does give enough information to nail down the relative timing of the rapture, this matter of interpretation can be difficult. We need to show grace and patience to one another.

    “Though the Bible gives enough information to nail down the timing, this matter can be difficult. We need to show grace and patience.”

    Also, though the issue of the rapture is important, it will affect your hope and courage in the present.

    Nevertheless, you need not believe the correct timing of the rapture, nor even believe in a rapture at all to be saved.

    Key Argument 1: Revelation 3:10 — Kept From the Hour of Testing

    Nevertheless, why do I insist that we can know the timing of the rapture in relation to Christ coming? And why do I insist that it is the pre-tribulational view? Well, allow me now to begin this six-point defense, this six-point presentation for a pre-tribulational rapture.

    This defense will consist of three key arguments and then three supplemental arguments. Three key arguments for a pre-tribulational rapture and then three supplemental.

    The first key argument for a pre-tribulational rapture is number one: Revelation 3:10 promises that the church will be spared from the tribulation period. Let’s go there. If you would turn over to Revelation 3.

    The context here is Jesus’ seven letters or seven messages to the churches in the Roman province of Asia. Think western Turkey.

    In Revelation 3:7-13, Jesus gives his message to the church in the city of Philadelphia. Unlike Jesus’ messages to some of the other churches, Jesus has no reproof for this faithful church.

    However, like Jesus’ message to the other churches, Jesus gives certain words of encouragement to the believers at Philadelphia to persevere in faithfulness until he comes.

    Let’s see what Jesus says in Revelation 3:7-13.

    Jesus’ Promise to the Church at Philadelphia

    And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write, “He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this, I know your deeds. Behold, I put before you an open door which no one can shut because you have a little power and have kept my word and have not denied my name.

    Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie. I will make them come and bow down at your feet and make them know that I have loved you.

    Because you have kept the word of my perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth.

    Revelation 3:10: “I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world.”

    I am coming quickly. Hold fast what you have so that no one will take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. And he will not go out from it anymore. And I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down out of heaven from my God and my new name. He who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches.

    In this message from Jesus, we’re focusing on verse 10. Notice what is the basis for Jesus making the promise to the church that he does in verse 10. He says, “I’m going to do something for you because what did you do?”

    They were faithful. They kept his word, the word of his perseverance. They persevered in keeping Jesus’s word faithfully. What is Jesus’s promised reward for this? He says, “You’ve kept my word. I will keep you from a certain hour.”

    What’s this hour? Notice the way Jesus describes it. It is an hour of testing—that is to say, it is an hour of difficulty that will reveal people’s hearts.

    It is also an hour which is soon coming upon the whole world, that is to say, upon all mankind. It is an hour that will test those who dwell on the earth. Now, that may sound like it’s just mere repetition of the previous two phrases, but not quite.

    The description “those who dwell on the earth” is one that you see throughout the book of Revelation, and it always refers to the ungodly. Those who dwell on the earth in the book of Revelation refers to the ungodly people of the world.

    Kept From, Not Kept Through

    In summary, Jesus tells the Philadelphians that an hour—not a literal hour in this context, but a period of time—is coming soon in which all the ungodly of the world will be tested by great difficulty. But Jesus will keep the faithful Philadelphians from that testing time.

    Indeed, notice the phrasing in verse 10. He says, “I also will keep you from the hour.” Now, the Greek for keep is teraso ek. The preposition ek means, in its most fundamental sense, “out of,” “from,” or “away from.”

    I have that on the slide.

    So Jesus is saying that this faithful church will not merely be kept from testing but will be kept out of, kept away from the time of testing—the time of worldwide testing.

    “This faithful church will be kept out of, kept away from the time of worldwide testing. They won’t even go into it.”

    They won’t even go into it. They won’t go through it.

    Now, could Jesus have had in mind just some local difficulty soon to appear in the city of Philadelphia? No. Why not? Because he says this is going to be over the whole earth, all those who dwell on the earth. This is a worldwide time of testing, not a local one.

    And where in the context of this book would the Philadelphians have gotten a sense of what hour of trial Jesus was referring to? If you’re reading the book of Revelation, having it read to you in your church, and he says, “Trials are coming and we’re not going to go into it”—what could he possibly be referring to?

    Does anywhere else in Revelation clarify? Maybe the rest of the book. Revelation 6 to 18 describes exactly the period of trial, the period of judgments that’s about to come upon the whole world.

    And another question we should ask: would Jesus’s promise of reward, this rewarding protection and exemption, have been only for the Philadelphians, just this particular church? Exactly. Pastor Mark pointed out that even at the end of this section, he says, “He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” Everybody should listen to everything I’m saying to each church.

    Indeed, all the letters are given to all seven churches, and the rewards and warnings are meant for them all. So it’s not like the Philadelphians got a reward and we don’t. No, it’s the same for any faithful believer or church. It’s just spoken specifically to the Philadelphians, but it applies to all.

    So then, for the promise of Revelation 3:10 to make sense, what must be true about the rapture’s timing? It must take place at the beginning of the tribulation period. It must be a pre-trib rapture.

    And why does Jesus do this? It’s explicit in the text. It’s a reward for the church’s persevering in the present age. Jesus’s promise is: if you will persevere in the present time of testing by keeping my word, then I will keep you from the future time of testing which is coming upon the whole ungodly world.

    “If you will persevere in the present time of testing, then I will keep you from the future time of testing coming upon the ungodly world.”

    Answering Post-Tribulational Objections to Revelation 3:10

    Now those who take a post-trib stance might try to argue about the translation of this verse. They would say the sense of “keep from” here is more like “keep so that you will eventually emerge from this hour of testing safe and sound”—keep with a sense of going through and emerging out of it safe and sound.

    This translation is grammatically possible, but extremely unlikely for at least a few reasons. First, this severely stretches the preposition “ek” from its basic sense. If Jesus didn’t really mean “keep from,” but “keep through to emerge from,” why didn’t he just use a different preposition? It’s not very clear.

    Second, the rest of Revelation clarifies that most of the saints alive during the tribulation period are severely persecuted and then martyred. If that’s the church, that does not sound like special protection from testing. That sounds like the most testing you can ever have.

    Is this really to be a motivating reward for present perseverance?

    “Most saints alive during the tribulation are persecuted and martyred. That does not sound like special protection from testing.”

    Third, if God will protect the church by some other providential or miraculous means during the tribulation period, then why the rapture at all? The rapture seems unnecessary if there’s no rescuing component to it.

    Revelation 3:10 is a problem for those who take a post-trib view of the rapture, but it is a key support and key argument for those who take a pre-trib view.

    Now, we might ask: could Revelation 3:10 still fit in a mid-trib or pre-wrath view if we distinguish between man’s wrath, Satan’s wrath, and God’s wrath in the coming tribulation?

    Well, perhaps Revelation 3:10 could fit.

    Key Argument 2: Believers Expect to Escape God’s Wrath

    But here’s where we need to look at a second key support or argument for a pre-trip rapture. That is number two.

    New Testament believers expect to escape God’s wrath. The whole tribulation period is God’s wrath. New Testament believers expect to escape God’s wrath.

    The whole tribulation period is God’s wrath. This is a two-part argument. Let’s look first.

    “New Testament believers expect to escape God’s wrath. And the whole tribulation period is God’s wrath.”

    I’m going to base this argument primarily on two verses, both in the letters to Thessalonians. There are other verses we could include, but I’ll focus on these two.

    First Thessalonians is where we’ll start. If you’ll go back to First Thessalonians, let’s go to chapter 1.

    1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 — Rescued from the Wrath to Come

    1 Thessalonians 1:9-10.

    This is part of Paul’s introductory greeting and giving of thanks for the faithful Thessalonians. Notice what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10.

    Speaking about the testimony others are giving about the church, he says, “For they themselves report about us. What kind of reception we had with you and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God and to wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead. That is Jesus who rescues us from the wrath to come.”

    Notice in verse 10, the attitude of the new Thessalonian believers is they wait for Jesus’s return in hope, expecting to be rescued from the wrath to come.

    1 Thessalonians 1:10: “Jesus who rescues us from the wrath to come.”

    The believers are not expecting to go through wrath, but instead be rescued. And how? By Jesus himself coming from heaven. Jesus coming represents rescue from wrath.

    That’s the Thessalonian understanding.

    How does that expectation fit with anything except a pre-trib rapture?

    1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 — Not Destined for Wrath

    Paul makes another reference to this hopeful expectation near the end of this book. Go to 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11.

    This passage comes right after the one that we looked at earlier describing in detail the rapture event.

    We pick up in verse one of chapter 5, and let’s pay special attention to verse 9. 1 Thessalonians 5:1.

    Now as the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying peace and safety, then destruction will come upon them suddenly, like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

    But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief. For you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness.

    So then let us not sleep as others do. But let us be alert and sober. For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get drunk get drunk at night.

    But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation.

    For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with him.

    Therefore, encourage one another and build up one another just as you also are doing.

    1 Thessalonians 5:9: “God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Preparing for the Day of the Lord

    Go back to verse 2. Notice Paul’s reference to the day of the Lord. What’s that? That’s the final period of God’s judgment of the earth. In the verses that follow, Paul makes a distinction between believers and unbelievers preparing for this day, the day of the Lord.

    How do unbelievers prepare?

    Are the unbelievers prepared?

    No, they don’t prepare. That’s the big problem. That’s why the Lord’s coming is like a thief in the night for them.

    But how do believers prepare?

    Okay, they remain alert, but behavior-wise, what do they do?

    They continue to walk in obedience. They walk in the light. They put on faith and love in the hope of salvation. They do not prepare, notice, by girding up their loins for suffering. Preparing to go through the utmost persecution, not according to this passage. Rather, they prepare by present obedience. That’s how you prepare for the day of the Lord.

    “They do not prepare by girding up their loins for suffering. Rather, they prepare by present obedience.”

    Now, notice verse 9. Why do believers prepare this way?

    Because these believers know that God has not destined them for wrath but for salvation in Christ. Then verse 11 says this reality ought to result in mutual encouragement and ministry in the church.

    Now, we must ask again, how do the words of this passage make sense with anything but a pre-trib rapture? We’re talking about the day of the Lord. We’re not just talking about eternal judgment and hellfire. He’s talking about the day of the Lord in verse 2, and he’s talking about how people prepare for that.

    Paul says believers are confident that they will not experience God’s wrath as they prepare for the day of the Lord, but they instead will experience salvation or rescue. That’s just like we said in chapter 1.

    If believers were to go through the tribulation period, then they could not have this expectation.

    They would have to prepare for wrath.

    They would expect to enter into wrath.

    Are the Seal Judgments God’s Wrath?

    Now, here’s where a mid-triber might say, “Well, believers have to experience man’s wrath and Satan’s wrath in the first part of the tribulation, but they will indeed be exempt from God’s wrath in the later part of the tribulation, the trumpets and the bold judgments.” And to that, we must reply, where does one get the idea that the seal judgments in the beginning of the tribulation are not God’s wrath?

    Why don’t we look at this ourselves? Go to Revelation 6.

    Revelation 6 is where the seal judgments are unleashed.

    “Where does one get the idea that the seal judgments in the beginning of the tribulation are not God’s wrath?”

    The context here is John’s vision of the future. He’s just seen the lamb in heaven, that is Jesus Christ, take the scroll that is sealed with seven seals from God sitting on his throne.

    Look at what Revelation 6:1-2 says happened next.

    Revelation 6:1-2: “Then I saw when the lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with the voice of thunder, ‘Come.’ I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.”

    Okay?

    The Lamb Unleashes the Judgments

    Dispensational premillennialists like your pastors here generally interpret verse two of this passage as the unleashing of the antichrist onto the world to begin amassing his empire. Now, is the antichrist a good guy or a bad guy? He’s a bad guy. So, is the antichrist an agent of God or an agent of Satan?

    Careful.

    We might want to say only an agent of Satan.

    But who unleashes the antichrist according to verse one?

    The lamb does. Christ does.

    “Who unleashes the antichrist? The Lamb does. Christ does.”

    Why would the lamb do that? Especially if the antichrist will lead the earth into greater evil, greater woe, and greater judgment. Why would the lamb do that?

    It’s to accomplish God’s purpose, which largely is to bring judgment to the earth—judgment on the ungodly.

    Remember what we know from other scriptures. It’s even something I spoke about recently in the sermon.

    All evil forces are on God’s leash.

    They can never accomplish anything but what God has ultimately determined for God’s glory and his people’s good.

    So while the antichrist may unleash man’s or Satan’s wrath on the world, whose wrath ultimately is the antichrist unleashing?

    The Whole Tribulation Is God’s Wrath

    It’s God’s wrath. And so it is with the sealed judgments that follow. Verses 3 to 4, we have worldwide war unleashed, resulting in worldwide casualties. In verses 5 to 6, we have worldwide famine unleashed and resulting in worldwide food shortages and starvation.

    Verses 7 to 8 we have worldwide death, war, famine, disease, and wild animals kill a quarter of the earth’s population. Verses 9 to 11 it describes a cry of martyrs for justice. Then in verses 12 to 17 we have the sixth seal of horrific cosmic disturbances: there’s a great earthquake (verse 12), a blackened sun (verse 12), the moon turns blood red (verse 12), celestial objects fall to the earth (verse 13), the sky splits apart and disappears (verse 14), and there’s a reshuffling of the mountains and islands (verse 14).

    Okay, just focusing on the sixth seal judgment. Is that man’s wrath, Satan’s wrath, or God’s wrath?

    That’s got to be God’s wrath. And why would we say, “Oh, God’s wrath only begins at the sixth seal and not any of the other seals”? It’s part of the seal judgments. Why would it exclude the previous five? And all of them come from the Lamb breaking the seals. It is the Lamb who is bringing these things about.

    It is God.

    And in case we’re not sure, the future people of the world give testimony as to what they now realize is going on. Maybe they didn’t detect it right away in the first seal judgments, but by the time we get to number six, at least some people of the earth understand what is happening.

    Because what do they say in verses 16 to 17 of Revelation 6? They say to the caves and the mountain rocks, “Hide us from God and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come.” And who is able to stand?

    You see, the seal judgments are part of the day of the Lord. This is the great day of God’s and Christ’s wrath.

    Revelation 6:16-17: “Hide us from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come.”

    God gives the sealed judgments to the Son and the Son unleashes them.

    So how could the seal judgments, how could the beginning of the tribulation not be considered God’s wrath?

    And if the seal judgments are the beginning of God’s wrath on the ungodly world, and if the Thessalonians already, and if the book of Thessalonians already told us that believers look at the day of the Lord confident that they will not experience God’s wrath, then the future rescuing rapture must come at the beginning of the tribulation period so that the church does not endure even the seal judgments.

    Only a pre-trib rapture fits with the New Testament expectation of escaping the tribulation period of God’s wrath.

    By the way, if we’re still doubting the first sealed judgments, these first things described in Revelation 6 are God’s wrath, we should just compare Ezekiel 5:13-17.

    I won’t make you turn there, but what do we see in Ezekiel 5:13-17? Well, there God is describing his unleashed wrath. He actually says that is unleashed wrath on unfaithful Jerusalem. And guess what form this wrath of God is?

    Which is exactly what the first four seal judgments are in Revelation 6.

    Oh, God may use man and Satan as his agents in a mysteriously sanctified way, but it is the wrath of God. It was for Israel. It will be for the world in the future. And God rescues his church from that.

    Key Argument 3: John 14:1-3 — A Return to Heaven After the Rapture

    Well, now we arrive at the third and final key argument for the pre-tribulational rapture, which is number three: John 14:1-3 requires a return to heaven after the rapture. Let’s turn over there. John 14:1-3.

    This is a passage I preached through not too long ago. It’s part of Jesus’ farewell discourse—the last words of comfort and instruction to his distressed disciples.

    All of chapter 14 is really a set of comfort that he’s delivering to his disciples. Listen to what Jesus says as comfort in verses 1-3 of John 14. He says to them, “Do not let your heart be troubled.

    Jesus Prepares a Place and Comes to Receive His Disciples

    Believe in God, believe also in me. In my father’s house are many dwelling places. If it were not so, I would have told you. For I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself that where I am, there you may be also.

    John 14:2-3: “I go to prepare a place for you. I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, there you may be also.”

    Notice in verse 3 that Jesus mentions coming again for his disciples. Every time in the farewell discourse that Jesus mentions coming again to his disciples or seeing his disciples, we need to take a step back and ask: what time does Jesus have in mind? There are multiple times that Jesus returns to his disciples.

    Is Jesus talking about his post-resurrection appearances? Is Jesus talking about the Holy Spirit coming on the day of Pentecost, the spirit of Christ? Or is he referring to his second coming to the earth? The answer is not always the same depending on where you are in the farewell discourse. But in these verses, Jesus must be speaking about his second coming to the earth.

    Notice that Jesus speaks in verse 2 of the father’s house, which cannot be the earthly temple, but must be heaven. In verse 3, Jesus speaks of going to the father’s house to prepare a place for his disciples there. This fits the context of Jesus explaining to his disciples about leaving the earth to go back to the father.

    Then in verse 3, Jesus speaks of coming again and receiving all his disciples to himself. This cannot be the resurrection since in his post-resurrection appearances Jesus has not yet gone to heaven. And this cannot be Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit, since Jesus is receiving the disciples rather than the disciples receiving Jesus by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

    So John 14:1-3 must be describing the second coming of Jesus and the receiving or the gathering of all Jesus’s disciples at that time. The “you” there is plural, which Thessalonians tells us is the rapture event. We’re talking about the second coming. We’re talking about the rapture.

    By the way, you may notice that these verses—John 14:1-3, especially verse 3—sound a little bit like 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Remember how it says, after describing the whole rapture, “And then we will always be with the Lord”? Well, same thing here at the end of verse 3: “Where I am, there you may be also.” That’s why I’m gathering you.

    The Rapture as an Expression of Christ’s Love

    And why would Jesus do that? Well, why do you want anybody to be around you all the time? Because you love them.

    The rapture is an expression of Christ’s love. His true love for the church.

    “The rapture is an expression of Christ’s love—his true love for the church.”

    Why a Heavenly Home Requires a Pre-Trib Rapture

    Now then, if John 14:1-3 is talking about the rapture, which it is, then the rapture must be a pre-tribulational rapture.

    Why? Notice the flow of thought in verses 2 to 3. Jesus says he prepares a place for his disciples in heaven and then comes again to receive his disciples. We might ask, receive his disciples where? Well, to heaven, to the Father’s house, and that they may be with him there.

    Now, someone might say the text doesn’t specifically say that he receives them to the Father’s house. But is that sense not implied? Why mention in verse 2 the preparation of the heavenly home if that’s not where Jesus is receiving his disciples? After all, no other location is mentioned.

    And if Jesus is to receive the disciples merely in the clouds and then go straight back to the earth as a post-tribulational rapture view requires, then what is the point of preparing the heavenly home? The disciples are never going there.

    And how would a prepared heavenly home that you never entered be any comfort to Jesus’ disciples?

    No. The only way to make sense of this text is to infer a space of time after the rapture in which Jesus returns with his disciples to heaven to the Father’s house. And so this simple observation rules out a post-tribulational view.

    “The only way to make sense of this text is to infer a space of time after the rapture in which Jesus returns with his disciples to heaven.”

    And since the midtribulational view was ruled out in the previous point, the only view left that fits all three passages we’ve looked at is the pre-tribulational rapture view.

    Post-Rapture Events Confirm the Pre-Trib View

    And by the way, there are other post-rapture events that only fit with the pre-trip view. Without a time to return to heaven, there is nowhere in the eschatological sequence to fit the bema seat judgment described in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.

    Unlike the great white throne judgment of sinners described in Revelation 20, which only results in eternal punishment for all those who are judged, the bema seat judgment is a judgment of reward and a judgment for the righteous based on their good deeds.

    There’s nowhere to fit the bema judgment if it’s not after the rapture. Also, without a time to return to heaven, there is nowhere in the eschatological sequence to fit the marriage supper of the Lamb, which is described in Revelation 19:7-10 as taking place immediately before Jesus returned to earth and before the battle of Armageddon.

    You can’t have the marriage supper if you don’t have the church. But the church can’t have the marriage supper if the church goes up and comes right back down. There’s no time for the supper.

    “Without a time to return to heaven, there is nowhere to fit the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

    There’s no time for this feast right before the return to earth.

    These then are the three key arguments for the pre-tribulation rapture view. Together these arguments prove that Jesus will suddenly return in the future to snatch up his believers, and it will be at the start of the tribulation period. He will then later return with those saints to the earth at the end of the tribulation when he actually establishes his rule over the earth.

    Now, I mentioned that there are three more arguments.

    Supplemental Argument 1: Believers’ Eschatological Distress

    These arguments are less decisive, but when added to the three arguments I’ve already presented, they give us even more reason to hold to a pre-tribulation rapture view. Allow me briefly to present three supplemental arguments for a pre-trib rapture.

    Number one: believers’ eschatological distress in 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians makes best sense with a pre-trib rapture. What am I talking about? Well, to remind you, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, the Thessalonian believers are apparently distressed that dead brethren were going to miss Jesus’ second coming and kingdom.

    But think about it. If you knew the church was going to go through a horrific period of world judgment before Jesus returned, would you be sad that your brethren were missing that?

    I don’t think so. I’d be relieved instead. You don’t want to go through what we’re about to go through.

    The Thessalonians’ distress suggests therefore that they had a pre-trib rapture view. They didn’t think they were going to something bad that their brethren would be glad to miss out on, but something good.

    “If you knew the church was going through horrific judgment, would you be sad that your brethren were missing that? The Thessalonians’ distress suggests a pre-trib view.”

    2 Thessalonians 2 and the Day of the Lord

    Meanwhile, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-15 presents a similar situation. I don’t have time to read that text right now, so I’ll summarize.

    In 2 Thessalonians, believers are again feeling eschatological distress because someone came claiming apostolic support and saying that the day of the Lord, the tribulation period, had already arrived.

    Paul, in response in 2 Thessalonians 2, reassures the church that the day of the Lord had not in fact arrived and that the Thessalonians could know this for sure based on what Paul previously taught them. Namely, that the day of the Lord would coincide with the apostasy and the revealing of the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, the antichrist.

    Because the church had seen neither the apostasy nor the antichrist, the church could be confident that the day of the Lord had not yet arrived.

    Now, sometimes post-tribers try to use this passage as a gotcha, saying, “Hey, see, if the Thessalonian church was pretrib, then Paul could have just said that the day of the Lord hasn’t arrived because you’re all still here and so am I. The rapture hasn’t occurred yet, you guys don’t need to be concerned.” Paul doesn’t say that. So the church must not have been pretrib, and neither was the apostle Paul.

    But that argument from silence has an answer and a counter.

    While we don’t know why Paul didn’t mention the rapture specifically, Paul does talk about something currently restraining the antichrist until it is taken out of the way in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7. That could be a reference to the rapture. But we don’t know why specifically he doesn’t mention the rapture.

    We can supply a reasonable explanation as to why he wouldn’t cite the rapture. Perhaps Paul doesn’t mention the rapture because it wouldn’t decisively answer the Thessalonians’ concern. If Paul replied, “Guys, the rapture hasn’t occurred yet,” they might have said, “Well, maybe we were wrong and the rapture will take place later.” So Paul speaks more to the root of the people’s concerns.

    Actually, the fact that the church was concerned at all is an argument for a pretrib rapture rather than against.

    If the church, based on Paul’s teaching, was expecting to go through at least part of the tribulation, then why would they have been so shaken if somebody announced, “Okay, the tribulation has begun”? They were expecting that, or they would have been if there was a posttrib or midtrib view.

    But if the church was not expecting to go through the tribulation at all because Paul had taught them a pretrib rapture, then their great distress in 2 Thessalonians 2 makes perfect sense. “Paul, we weren’t expecting this. I thought we weren’t going to see the day of the Lord.” That makes sense.

    “The fact that the church was concerned at all is an argument for a pre-trib rapture rather than against.”

    Supplemental Argument 2: The Church Is Absent in Revelation 6-18

    Number two, another supplemental argument for a pretrib rapture is that the church is noticeably absent in the judgment descriptions of Revelation 6:18.

    This is an argument from silence, so it’s not conclusive on its own, but it is still significant. John is perfectly content to talk about the church in Revelation 1:3. I mean, it’s letters to the seven churches. It’s church, church, church, church, church, church, church. Always talking about the church.

    But then John doesn’t mention the church again in the book of Revelation until the end of the book, Revelation 22:16. And even there, it’s just to say, oh, Jesus sent this message to the churches to encourage them.

    What happened? John clearly was not afraid to talk about the church in his letter. It was very helpful that he talked about the church. But where’s the church in the rest of the book?

    Especially, where’s the church in the judgment descriptions of Revelation 6:18?

    Now, John talks about saints on earth going through judgment. He even talks about the inhabitants of Israel and Jerusalem going through judgment, but not the church. Why? Why no longer talk about the church?

    Why no longer give any instruction to the church when it comes to the tribulation?

    Could it be that the reason John doesn’t talk about the church going through the judgments is because the church doesn’t go through the judgments? The church is not there because it’s not there. The church was snatched up before the judgments took place.

    “The church is not there because it’s not there. The church was snatched up before the judgments took place.”

    If not, how does one explain the church’s absence in Revelation 6:18, at least on earth?

    Now, some people might say, well, Revelation doesn’t directly mention a pretrib rapture. It never says there’s a rapture in Revelation. Well, we already saw Revelation 3:10 more or less does, and Revelation 6:18 assumes a pretrib rapture.

    Supplemental Argument 3: The New Testament Does Not Prepare Christians for the Tribulation

    Then, finally, number three of my supplemental arguments: the New Testament does not seek to prepare Christians for the tribulation period.

    The New Testament noticeably does not seek to prepare Christians for the tribulation period. If the church were to go through even part of the tribulation period, you would think that Christ and the apostles would have wanted to prepare the church for that by the spirit of God.

    Christ and the apostles prepare the church for other difficulties. The church has been warned of false teachers, both present and future. The church is warned of persecution, both present and future. The church is warned of spiritual warfare with demons, both present and future.

    But the church is never warned about nor told to prepare for the final period of judgment. Rather, what is the consistent message of the New Testament letters? As we already saw, be encouraged, brethren, that you will not face the judgment. You will not enter into God’s wrath.

    The coming of Christ is always spoken of in the New Testament to the church as a hope and comfort.

    “The coming of Christ is always spoken of in the New Testament to the church as a hope and comfort—not something to fear or dread.”

    Not something to fear, dread, or for which you must gird up your loins. Not for believers.

    How could this be except a pre-trib rapture? A rapture—this rescuing, this rewarding, this expression of love—takes place at the beginning of the tribulation. It removes the dead and alive believers in Christ from the earth, and they come back with Christ at the end of the tribulation.

    Q&A

    Okay, that covers my argument. I think I have time for maybe one or two questions. Next time I’m going to answer some more common questions and objections. Maybe some of you are like, “But what about the Olivet discourse, Matthew 24 and 25?” We’ll talk about that next time. Is there time for a question or two that I can answer right now? Arthur?

    My question has to do with the church being raptured prior to the wrath of God. Does that mean that in heaven they operate under solar time? We know it’s seven years. We know the marriage and the land judgement are going to occur while they’re in heaven, and we know that the rapture comes before the wrath of God. Are they operating under solar time?

    That’s a good question. Arthur, to repeat it for anybody who didn’t hear: if we’re talking about the seven-year duration from which the church is raptured up to heaven before they come back to the earth with Christ, is it solar time that operates in heaven? Is it exactly seven years just as it would be on the earth? That’s an interesting question. I have to think about it more.

    But my first instinct in answering that question is yes. Remember, time measurements were established before the sun was. If we go back to Genesis 1, there was evening and morning—one day, second day, third day—but the sun wasn’t yet created. Where was the changing of light and darkness? Where was the actual elapsing of time coming from? It came from God.

    Some people sometimes talk about going to heaven or going into the kingdom as the end of time. I think that’s a little bit misleading because we are body and soul creatures who exist in time. We are always going to exist in time. Our time with God is going to be everlasting.

    Will the experience of time be different in heaven? Maybe. But the way the scriptures speak about it, it’s as if it’s kind of like the time that we have on earth. Even when we get to the new heavens and the new earth, it talks about fruit trees bearing fruit in their seasons. I think it’s every month, or it talks about time in terms of months. Time doesn’t disappear for God’s people whenever we go to heaven or whenever we receive glorified bodies.

    The only thing to note maybe is that time is not ultimately dependent on the sun. We commonly use the sun as the way to measure time because it’s an easy time marker for us, along with the moon and the stars. That’s what God created these things to do. But we still have time even in Revelation 21-22 when God says there’s no longer night anymore. I think it says there’s no sun because the lamb is the light and God is the sun for his people.

    That’s an interesting question. Maybe time for one more. Let’s go with Mark.

    What about the argument that says that concepts—I think there’s some evidence maybe a bit earlier, but it’s at best sporadic.

    What about the church history argument that the rapture concept only comes late, maybe in the 1800s, and only sporadic before that? I don’t know about that specifically in my preparation for this. I do know that the term rapture as an English term didn’t come about until about the 1800s, along with dispensational premillennialism and John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. That’s where you begin to hear this term rapture.

    But were they talking about it without that term in previous times? And what was the expectation there? I’m not entirely sure. Again, I think we can say with confidence that the Bible teaches a rapture. Whether you call it a rapture or something else, believers will at some point in the future be glorified, resurrected, and lifted up to meet Christ in the air.

    If you believe the Bible, you have to say that there’s work that needs to be done to determine the timing of that. If the church didn’t always get that right in church history, it’s a somewhat difficult thing to work through. But we have to say about that: even if that is the case, ultimately church history is not determinative. It’s significant. It’s interesting, but we ultimately go back to the scriptures because there were certain things even in the Bible the church was already drifting from.

    We got to go to the scriptures above church history. I think maybe time for one more question.

    If we want to talk about church history, how about the church history of the Bible? As you’re pointing out, the Thessalonians certainly were talking about the rapture and were talking about their expectation of meeting Christ. That’s even more to the point of why we go back to the scriptures ultimately rather than church history.

    There’s a lot of things that you can get twisted up in if you just rely on church history, which is what the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have done. They say, “Well, church history has always been this.” It’s like, “Well, first of all, that’s not true.

    And second of all, even where it is largely true, it doesn’t fit with the Bible. You got to deal with that.”

    Those were good questions. We’ll talk about some more common questions and objections related to what I presented to you next time. If there’s a particular question that you’d be interested in my answering, submit it to me. You can either talk to me about it and I’ll hopefully write it down, or you can send me an email at pastordavecm.org.

    Send it to me by Thursday, and Lord willing I’ll be able to integrate that into my lesson for next time. Okay, that’ll do for today. Let me close in prayer.

    Closing Prayer

    Heavenly Father, what a wonderful truth that you’ve declared about this rapture. Lord, we are aware that we would wish not to go through the tribulation. And so it is a happy doctrine for us to affirm.

    But God, we are ultimately captive to your word. If your word says something different, then we would affirm that. But this is what your word says: the way the scriptures harmonize together confirms that you will send your son and your son will come and get us.

    We therefore can have this confident expectation that we will not see your wrath. We will not see your wrath in hell. We will not see your wrath unleashed upon the world.

    Lord, thank you for your generosity, your love, your faithfulness to us. God, let that inform the way we live our lives. Not so we just say, “Great, I’m not getting any wrath, so I’ll just live how I want.”

    Lord, that is not what true faith does. But Lord, let us, as we expect to meet you, do as I think 1 John 3 says: to become more sanctified, to become more faithful and more ready for your return.

    Thank you God. Amen.

  • Lesson 25: Eternal Conscious Punishment, Questions

    Lesson 25: Eternal Conscious Punishment, Questions

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    This passage examines the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment (hell) as taught in Scripture. We are reminded that hell is a necessary consequence of God’s holiness, worthiness, and justice, and that understanding this reality should deepen our worship and fuel our evangelism.

    Key Lessons:

    1. Sinners continue to sin in hell and never repent — their state is permanently fixed after judgment, making eternal punishment a never-ending cycle of sin and judgment.
    2. Hell is a natural and necessary consequence of three divine attributes: God’s holiness, God’s infinite worthiness, and God’s perfect justice.
    3. A faithful gospel presentation must include the reality of hell and God’s wrath — the good news is only truly good when we understand how devastating the bad news is.
    4. Common arguments for annihilationism (emotional appeals, the word “destruction,” and the reconciliation of all things) do not hold up under careful biblical examination.

    Application: We are called to incorporate the reality of hell and God’s wrath into our evangelism with urgency, not apologizing for this truth but presenting it as essential to understanding the gospel. We should also let the weight of what Christ endured on our behalf deepen our worship and gratitude.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How does understanding the severity of hell change the way we appreciate Christ’s substitutionary atonement on the cross?
    2. In what ways might we be tempted to soften or avoid the topic of hell in evangelism, and how can we faithfully present this truth with both honesty and compassion?
    3. If our affections will be fully sanctified in heaven so that we praise God even for His judgments, what does that tell us about how incomplete our understanding of God’s holiness is right now?

    Scripture Focus: Matthew 25:46 (eternal punishment parallels eternal life), Mark 9:43-48 (the worm does not die), Revelation 20:10 (tormented day and night forever), 2 Corinthians 5:11 (knowing the fear of the Lord we persuade men), Revelation 19:1-3 (heaven praises God’s righteous judgments), and 1 Peter 2:24 (Christ bore our sins on the cross).

    Outline

    Introduction

    Let’s start out with a word of prayer. Father, we are thankful for this morning that we get to come to your church and we get to open your word and to be edified and to see the wonders within. Lord, I just pray this morning that all the mothers here would be blessed and we thank you for the role they have in our lives.

    As we come towards this weighty topic again this morning, pray that you would help us to understand it to the limit that we can understand it as humans and that we can have this truth affect our lives, affect our evangelism and even bring us joy knowing that you have saved us from such a great sorrow.

    I pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.

    Well, somebody pointed out that this morning is Mother’s Day and we are talking about eternal conscious punishment, which is a little interesting. But I’ll tell you, in my own study of this topic I’m alternatively depressed and joyful, right? Because when you come to the topic of hell, you don’t want any of the people to go there. You don’t want to go there. You don’t want your worst enemies to go there because of how horrible it is.

    But at the same time, you start to understand as you dwell on these things that Christ took this great punishment for you. And the more awesome you see that sacrifice, the more joyful you become. At least for me.

    Well, today we’re here to pursue the truth of what the scriptures tell us about hell. What is the accurate diagnosis that the scriptures have of our eternal state? And there’s nothing more important to get right than this.

    Review: Eternal Conscious Punishment

    We saw last time that the scriptures are clear. The fate of man who is unredeemed, who has not been saved by a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is eternal conscious punishment. This is an unending punishment that will be horrible and will never end. Eternal conscious punishment, eternal conscious torment.

    This is set up against some of the other competing philosophies such as universalism, which is everybody eventually makes it to heaven. That’s not taught in the Bible. And also annihilationism, which is the thought that perhaps everybody who doesn’t believe in Christ ceases to exist at some point, either at the point of death or sometime after a resurrection.

    That’s also not taught in the Bible.

    Some of the verses we saw last time—there were about 40 verses in all of scripture talking directly about hell. Some of the clearest are Matthew 25:46: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” The same word for eternal punishment is used for eternal life. Both are eternal.

    Matthew 25:46: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    And Mark 9:43-48 where Jesus quotes the Old Testament in the book of Isaiah: “the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” Hell is going to be a place where not only is the fire never extinguished, but the fuel for that fire, which is sinners, will never be consumed. A fearful fate.

    We talked about two phases of hell last time. The first phase is from now until Jesus comes back for the resurrection. That’s going to be sort of a temporary holding place that’s also characterized by punishment. But then there is a final state in the lake of fire.

    This is again a very disturbing topic. Last time we worked together and saw this whole word scramble of all these words that are used to describe hell. If you are interested, you can go back and look at that. It’s a fearful thing.

    One last thing to mention before we get into some of the questions is that most of what we know about hell comes straight from the mouth of Jesus. It’s difficult to sort of sweep it under the rug when Jesus himself is telling us about hell. The same Jesus that died to save us from hell.

    Before we get started into some questions today, as I was thinking about hell and what it might be like, I remembered a fear I had as a child. I had this fear of being buried alive. The thought would keep me up at night.

    Hell, I think, is somewhat like that. It’s darkness, it’s loneliness. It’s never any hope of escaping.

    But then there are other adjectives that are added in there. It’s fire. It’s brimstone. So not only are you in this place of darkness, but there is fire causing you pain, brimstone, worms eating your flesh, and this lasts forever. I think if you think about that for too long, you risk going insane.

    But anyways, you guys have submitted some awesome questions about hell, and today we’re going to try to go through about eight of them. If we can get through eight of them, I will be pretty happy. During each question, we can see whether or not you have some brief comments or some brief questions you want to follow up with. We have about 10 minutes for each question.

    Question 1: Do Sinners Continue to Sin in Hell?

    Probably six minutes for each. We’re going to try to move a little bit efficiently and quickly. The first question somebody asked was, “Do sinners continue to sin in hell?” And the answer to this question is clearly yes.

    Sinners continue to sin in hell. Some verses show this. While not talking directly about hell, they show what’s happening during the judgment on earth and how suffering that judgment affects sinners. In Revelation 16:9, “the people were scorched with fierce heat and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues and they did not repent so as to give him glory.”

    In verse 11, “they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pain and their sores, and they did not repent of their deeds.” In verse 21, “huge hailstones weighing about a talent each came down from heaven upon people, and people blasphemed God because of the plague of hail because the hailstone plague was extremely severe.”

    I remember when Pastor Bobby preached on this passage, what struck out at me is that you would think perhaps the suffering, you would think perhaps the punishment would cause people to repent. By and large, this does not happen. In hell, this will never happen. Judgment in fact hardens people.

    “Judgment in fact hardens people.”

    Here’s another verse. This one is particularly poignant. In Revelation 22, you have to kind of look at the context here. Revelation 22 is describing a time after judgment has happened.

    A Fixed Eternal State

    And here it says, “Let the one who does wrong still do wrong and the one who is filthy still be filthy and let the one who is righteous still practice righteousness and the one who is holy still keep himself holy.” This verse is interpreted to mean that whatever state you’re in after judgment, that’s it. You’re going to stay in that state.

    If you’re holy, you’ll stay holy. If you are filthy, you’ll stay filthy. If you do wrong, you’ll do wrong.

    The time for repentance will be passed. The time for taking advantage of Christ’s offer of taking your sins and him taking your sins and you taking his righteousness, that’s gone. And now you are in the state that you are in and you will still do wrong. You will still do sin.

    So this eternal state in Revelation 22 is a fixed state. This eternal state is now fixed. You are fixed in either your sinfulness or in your holiness. And this division is now permanent.

    “The time for repentance will be passed. This eternal state is now fixed.”

    Well, we’ll see that again in some other scriptures.

    Sin Heaps More Judgment

    But then obviously, if you think about this enough, you realize that this is part of why eternal punishment is just—the wicked never stop sinning. That sin in hell, even in hell as they blaspheme God, as they rail against God and hate God, that sin will continually heap upon judgment.

    And so that cycle will never end. You continue to keep on wrath on yourself.

    “The wicked never stop sinning, and sin in hell will continually heap upon judgment.”

    And this goes back actually to a lot of themes that we talked about in this Sunday school series on determining doctrinal distinctives. They all fit together. Maybe two months ago or three months ago, we talked about sovereign election and how even election, how even your faith is a gift from God, right?

    Your faith—and that was determined before the foundation of the world and that was given to you by God. And you will see that here there is no possibility of repentance because there is no more grace. There is no more—the gift of faith is no longer being offered.

    So you cannot repent, and in fact you will not want to repent if you are there in hell. It’s a frightening thing. Anybody have anything to add here before we move on?

    Well, they’ll bow the knee. But then it will not be a willing bowing of the knee. It will be a forced bowing of the knee. This we’ll come back to later. Christ wins the victory, right? And he has enemies by which he subjects, but they don’t convert, right? Yeah. So it’s a frightening thing.

    Arthur, my question is: are the righteous going to be aware of this?

    Yeah, wait. Two questions. Okay. Maybe three questions. Hopefully we’ll get there.

    Question 2: How Should We View Hell Properly?

    All right. Question number two: How should we view hell properly?

    This was, I think, from Mark. How should we view hell properly, particularly knowing that God is perfect, holy, and good? And how can we avoid downplaying or apologizing for an attribute of God that we struggle with?

    I think this question comes from a demonstrated tendency in modern evangelicalism to sweep under the rug when people are interviewed. They tend to give a roundabout answer. I think Joel Osteen did that recently in a very public interview. Instead, how do we think about this in a way that honors God’s attributes?

    Well, I’ll answer it this way. I think there are three things that we have to remember when it comes to hell, and it is a natural consequence of three things.

    The first thing that is a natural consequence of is God’s holiness. I have to remember that we as humans, as limited humans today, cannot fully understand God’s holiness. And we also don’t really understand our sinfulness in a full way.

    Hell Reflects God’s Holiness

    And the fact that we don’t understand God’s holiness and we don’t understand our sinfulness means that it doesn’t seem like hell is necessarily a just thing. That’s just because of our human failing. We don’t understand God’s holiness. We don’t understand how much God hates sin. We don’t understand how God abhors sin and how sinful sin is.

    Hell is as unending as God is holy. How holy do you think God is? That’s how unending hell is. If you take even a moment off of hell, then you’re taking away from God’s holiness. In a real sense, hell is a natural necessary consequence of God’s holiness.

    But there’s another thing that I think hell is a natural consequence of, and that’s God’s worthiness. God is infinitely holy and you’ll see in Revelation that the angels cry out “holy, holy, holy” and then the 24 elders say “worthy is the lamb.” These two concepts are connected. The holiness that leads to the worthiness, and the worthiness means that God is of infinite worth.

    We even understand today that sin incurs a punishment proportional to how worthy the thing is that you sinned against. If I go to one of your houses, assuming you’re not a billionaire, and I break one of your vases, well, you might not be very happy with me, but it wouldn’t be a big deal.

    “Hell is as unending as God is holy.”

    You probably wouldn’t go to jail for that.

    Hell Reflects God’s Worthiness

    But if I go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and I break one of those vases, well, that’s a priceless work of art, right? That’s a treasure. You probably would go to jail for that.

    And so sin against an infinitely worthy God will incur a great punishment, a very severe punishment. And so that means that if you shorten the duration of hell and minimize the worthiness of God, you’re saying God is really not that worthy.

    “Sin against an infinitely worthy God will incur a very severe punishment.”

    He’s not infinitely worthy. And another way of saying it is if hell were finite, then God’s worthiness would also be finite. That means you could be finished paying for your sin. That means it’s a finite amount of sin. And that means God’s worthiness is finite. You can put a price tag on it, right?

    Hell Reflects God’s Justice

    So again, these two things are basically—if you think about it enough, you realize that hell must be unending. And finally, there’s one more, and that’s God’s justice.

    Hell is not a cruel and unusual punishment as some people would say. It is God’s being perfectly just. In Deuteronomy 32:4, he says all his ways are justice, for his ways are just, a God of faithfulness and without injustice.

    Righteous and just is he. How many times did you hear the word justice there? I mean, it’s like just in that one verse, four times he’s talking about how he’s just, faithful, without injustice, and righteous and just. And then Psalm 55 actually says, “The boastful will not stand before your eyes. You hate all who do injustice.”

    So one way of thinking about this is we tend to think of hell being filled with people who are generally good. And so, well, that’s not really a good thing that you’re putting good people in hell. But that’s not the case at all. In fact, hell is not full of good people.

    “Hell is not full of good people. Biblically, these people are wicked.”

    We’re thinking about it wrong, right? Hell is full of wicked people. Biblically, these people who are in hell are wicked.

    One Day Our View of Holiness Will Be Fixed

    That’s one way we can think about this. One of the things is that one day we will have our view of holiness fixed. I think the reason we don’t see these things in an intuitive way is because our view of God’s holiness is flawed. But one day we will have that view of holiness fixed.

    I think we read a verse last time in Revelation 14, which I think we’ll be able to see again later on in a different question. When people are being judged, Jesus is right there watching them. In fact, Jesus and the angels are sitting there watching the people be judged. It’s not something that they’re doing hidden out of view.

    “One day we will have our view of holiness fixed.”

    It’s right in full view, and it is something that is presented as a righteous and a good thing.

    Question 3: Should We Preach Hell in Evangelism?

    Okay. I’m not going to pause this one. We’ll pause the next one maybe. Question number three: Won’t proclaiming the unpopular message about hell prevent people from believing, and shouldn’t we just preach about God’s love instead?

    I massage this question a little bit. I think it was a little bit different than this, but anyways, obviously we don’t like to tell people about hell. It’s just not something we enjoy. It’s not an enjoyable conversation when you’re going to impact this.

    But I want to maybe challenge you guys to think about this in a different way. I think that a right presentation of hell is essential for effective evangelism. And maybe we’re not doing it right if we’re not doing that. It should be an essential part of the gospel presentation because we should honestly be afraid of God’s wrath.

    Without—I’ll just tell you a sort of personal testimony. I was sharing the gospel with somebody a few weeks ago and talked about sin, and then we talked about the gospel. At the end, they were just nodding like, “Okay, great,” and what I felt from that conversation was that I didn’t seem to have communicated any sense of urgency. I think I failed to do that in that conversation.

    So I gave them the gospel and they were like, “Yeah, I’ll think about it,” right? But really, what I should have communicated was: you don’t have time to think about it. This is too serious of a thing for you to sit on the back burner for the next ten years. You have to understand that judgment is imminent and judgment is terrible, and you never want to go into a place like hell.

    The good news is really only good when you understand how bad the bad news is.

    “The good news is really only good when you understand how bad the bad news is.”

    I think Mark sent out this article from A.W. Pink, which basically boils down to this: a God without wrath is not the God of the Bible. When you present the gospel without the wrath of God, think about it this way. You may be presenting the wrong God, because the God of the Bible is one of wrath and hatred of sin.

    In fact, Jesus is the one who preached hell more than anyone. We talked about this.

    The Fear of the Lord Persuades Men

    This is how Jesus evangelized. He brought up hell constantly. In fact, in every interaction he could, he brought up the idea of hell. And this is just one example. Matthew 10:28, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.” Jesus is not softening hell in any way.

    And Paul also has the same tendency. He says, “For we must appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body according to what he has done whether good or bad. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, Paul is saying we should be afraid.” And in fact, this fear is what will persuade men. This is what you should use to persuade men. It’s the fear of the Lord. It’s not just the love of the Lord. It’s not just warm and fuzzies. But we need to bring the fear of the Lord into our gospel presentations.

    And if you get anything out of this sermon, maybe you just want to memorize 2 Corinthians 5:11. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.

    2 Corinthians 5:11: “Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.”

    Thinking about that a lot. In summary, I don’t think we should be afraid of talking about hell in evangelism. In fact, that is really what we should be using to persuade men. It’s supposed to be terrifying. It’s supposed to push us to repentance.

    Anybody have any comments or questions on this one?

    Somebody wrote who? Abigail. Go ahead.

    Urgency and the Love of God

    Yeah, that’s a great point. And it’s interesting because in preparation for this, I listened to the whole—well, I mean, at least I read the transcript of the whole three-hour conversation that Kurt Cameron had about annihilationism versus eternal conscious punishment.

    One of the things that they said was evangelism, or I guess coming to repentance—I suppose the motivation of that should be the love for God, right? I don’t think that’s that simple. And when you look at how Jesus presented it, he doesn’t appeal to that as much. I mean, he does say “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength,” but he talks about hell a lot more than that, in fact.

    And I think obviously that’s not the only motivation. It’s not only escaping punishment. But we want to come to Christ because it’s the right thing to do and look at what Christ did for us and we all love God and what he did, and of course that’s right and good.

    But as I said, I think if you don’t—if you only present those things and you leave out the concept of judgment, there’s no urgency to your gospel presentation. Then people will just say, “That’s a nice thing to say. Thank you,” and walk away.

    “If you leave out the concept of judgment, there’s no urgency to your gospel presentation.”

    Yeah. Right. Right. Exactly. Right. Yeah. Amen. Quickly got to move on.

    Yeah.

    In the verse where Jesus says “destroyed body and soul,” that word “destroyed”—because that’s where—yeah, this is our next question. Yeah, we’ll talk about this right now.

    Oh, you’re anticipating all my questions.

    I wanted to bring up for those of us who were not brought to the faith by evangelism because that was my experience. I read the Bible and because we believe in the sovereignty of God, that God has chosen—as he did something in my heart.

    Question 4: Best Arguments for Annihilationism

    Pastor Mark was mentioning that when I was reading the Bible, I really believed it. The idea that when I read the parts about it really scared me—something in my heart again—looks like God’s sovereignty in salvation is definitely still true. But we have to look at how Jesus presented it.

    To your first question here are some answers. Question number four was: what are the best arguments for annihilationism, and why do we not believe these best arguments? I went and tried to find all of the best arguments.

    Well, conditionalism annihilationism—just again, it means that all people are resurrected for judgment. But whereas you might be conscious for a time during judgment, they believe that the final state of the redeemed is destruction of body and soul. So you are no longer conscious or aware.

    Any suffering you undergo as a sinner in annihilationism is finite. The punishment is just irreversible loss of consciousness.

    We saw a little bit last time why that’s not biblical. But let me give you the best three annihilationist arguments, and then we’ll talk about them because you might hear these.

    This is the one that first came up for Kirk Cameron. In fact, this is the reason why he himself stated that he was tending towards annihilationism. He says that annihilation is more in alignment with God’s nature of love, and eternal conscious torment seems disproportionate and cruel.

    Argument 1: God’s Love Seems Incompatible with Eternal Hell

    This is a common argument for annihilationism: that a good God couldn’t send people to an eternal hell, and it just seems that a loving God would not do that. This always comes up essentially when annihilationism is debated.

    The simple answer to this question is that it’s not about our feelings at all. We don’t get to decide what’s fair or just based on how we feel. We can only read what’s in the Bible.

    As I said last time, I would be very happy if hell wasn’t a thing. If hell wasn’t real, I wouldn’t have to struggle with the fact that I have a bunch of unsaved family members and friends who may be ending up there, which is a horrible thing to think about.

    I would rather not think about that. But the Bible says otherwise and we just have to submit ourselves to that. This is an emotional argument, and it’s very effective because it’s very emotional.

    “The Bible says otherwise and we just have to submit ourselves to that.”

    Most people don’t want that to be true, right? We don’t want that to be true.

    This is an argument from emotion, and it comes from not fully understanding the holiness of God. We can’t really in this life fully understand that and the sinfulness of sin.

    Argument 2: The Bible Uses ‘Destruction’ and ‘Death’

    Okay. The second best annihilation argument is that the Bible uses the word destruction and death for hell often.

    I’ll just read a few to you. Arthur mentioned one, but Matthew 10:28 says, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell.” Matthew 7:13 says, “Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter it.”

    We talked a little bit about this last time, but the word destruction and destroy—there are actually two words used for this, and there’s actually a spectrum of meaning in these words if you look at how they are used in other parts of the Bible. So it doesn’t have to mean obliteration.

    1 Timothy 6:9 says, “For those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge people into ruin and destruction.” He’s talking here about the love of money and how it plunges people into destruction. Same word, destruction. Is it talking about annihilationism? Is it talking about being annihilated if you struggle with the love of money? No, it just talks about ruin.

    It’s talking about the ruin of anything that is useful, right? We’ve talked about how it’s used for old wineskins that had new wine in them. Well, that wineskin is no longer able to be used. It’s going to leak and it’s no longer useful, right? So it’s a loss of usefulness.

    Baldness is another example. It’s used to talk about baldness. It’s talked about in Matthew 26:8 when the disciples saw that the perfume was being wasted that was being poured on Jesus. They said, “Why this waste?” Well, that word waste—the same word destruction. Why is this waste?

    So the word destruction can mean different things in different contexts, and it depends on the context, but it simply doesn’t fit the context of hell.

    “The word destruction can mean different things in different contexts.”

    When we talk about hell, we see the word destruction. Let’s talk about 2 Thessalonians 1:9. I’ll just read this to you. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says, “To those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, these people will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power.”

    Think about the context. You’re going to pay the penalty of eternal destruction. If that word means annihilated, if that word means ceasing to exist, why would you even add this next point which is away from the presence of the Lord? How could you be annihilated away from the presence of the Lord? You can only be away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power if you exist.

    The Word ‘Death’ Means Separation

    When you look more carefully at a lot of these verses, you understand that he’s using the word destruction in a way to talk about ruin or loss of usefulness or even basically a waste, right? You’ve wasted your life.

    When you talk about the word death, it’s a similar thing. These words have a range of meaning and need to be interpreted from context. But I’ll talk briefly about the word death because you’ll hear this word a lot and they’ll bring up annihilationist arguments. They love to bring up Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life.”

    So here you say, well there’s eternal life and then there’s death. Those are the two things that are contrasted. And it’s true that humanly speaking, we have trained ourselves or we generally come to understand death as an ending or a loss of consciousness. But does it have to be that way? Does it always have to mean an ending or a loss of consciousness?

    Well, no. Because you were dead in your transgressions and sins, right? Were you annihilated in your transgressions and sins? No. What that word death is meaning in that context is simply separation from God. You’ve been separated from God.

    In the same way, when he says the wages of sin is death, it’s talking about a final separation from God, from God’s goodness and from God’s grace. And after all, was Jesus’ death the only thing that really saves us?

    “You were dead in your transgressions and sins — that word death means separation from God.”

    Well, what did he say before the cross? He says it is finished. Right? So in fact it is the suffering that he took upon himself, taking the wrath of the Father before even the physical death, that was the basis of our substitutionary atonement.

    So it’s not necessarily talking about physical death or loss of consciousness when it talks about death here.

    The Second Death in Revelation

    And the last verse they like to bring up is Revelation 20:14, where it says death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death. They’ll talk about this and take that word “second death” and say, well, this is the second death, so that means annihilation. But all they have to do—remember we talked about this a little bit last time—is turn back about four verses to Revelation 20:10.

    So what does Revelation 20:10 say?

    It says the devil who deceived them were thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. So you have the devil and then you have at least two other things: the beast and the false prophet. And they are tormented day and night forever and ever.

    So who are the beast and the false prophet? Well, we generally understand these to be real people. There are people who have been thrown in the lake of fire for which they describe they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. And then it talks about that being a second death.

    So you have to understand that second death is in the context of being tormented day and night forever and ever. The summary for this one—it’s definitely something you have to look at all the descriptors—but it’s a range of meaning and it doesn’t necessarily mean a sensation of consciousness.

    Revelation 20:10: “They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

    Okay, we did this one already.

    The devil and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. There’s a second death. Just turn back four verses and you see that’s talking about tormenting day and night forever and ever.

    Argument 3: God Reconciles All Things

    And okay, argument number three.

    This is the argument that gave me pause a little about it. I was like okay. But then after further thought I realize it sounds convincing, but it’s not actually convincing when you think about it.

    God says that he will reconcile all things to himself in Colossians, and that sin and death is defeated. But if hell is eternal, there will never be an end to death and sin because you will have sin, and then that will incur more judgment, and then sin and then judgment. So sin never ends. And this is brought up as an argument: well, then did God really reconcile all things to himself? And is sin and death really defeated?

    At first you might think this sounds like a good argument. But as Mark was saying before in Philippians 2, it says every knee will bow and every tongue confess Christ as Lord. Well, this can mean unwilling or defeated confession, right?

    So what we have to understand here is that the Bible only talks about the elimination of sin and death in the new heavens and earth. But it doesn’t preclude the idea of a lake of fire. And in fact, if you look at Revelation, you see that the lake of fire—at least those three entities that we just read—are being tormented day and night forever and ever.

    So there is a place where at least somebody is being tormented day and night forever and ever. It’s definitely not the case that the Bible says there will never be any sort of punishment or bad things in the eternal state, because the lake of fire and the new heavens and the earth are existing simultaneously. Both are forever and ever.

    So if somebody ever brings up this argument, you say, well, it’s true that the angels are actually being tormented day and night forever and ever. So it cannot be talking about the fact that in the eternal state there will be no hell, there will be no suffering. So people in hell are still brought under subjection and bow the knee. Sin is conquered.

    “The lake of fire and the new heavens and earth are existing simultaneously.”

    The fact that angels undergo eternal conscious torment is not controversial. Right? We just read that in the text. Nobody can really argue that.

    And so this ruins the entire argument.

    Okay. Do you mind if I go a little faster? Unless somebody has a real question on this one. Yes.

    Right. It’s resolved it. And in fact, it’s displaying God’s attribute of justice, which is also reconciling.

    Question 5: What Is Soul Sleep?

    Okay. Really fast. I’m going to try to move for the next one fast. This is soul sleep. What is soul sleep? And what does the Bible teach about soul sleep?

    There was a time where this was a very popular thought and idea, and this is held even today by Jehovah’s Witnesses, by Seventh Day Adventists, and by Christian Delphinism. I don’t think I’ve ever met any Christian Delphinists, but I’m sure somebody there has. There’s people there.

    So this is the doctrine that once you die, the soul sleeps unconsciously between death and the resurrection. You die and your consciousness winks out until you’re resurrected.

    So in support of that idea, people will bring up verses like Daniel 12:2, which is: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, those to everlasting life, but others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” He’s talking about while they’re sleeping.

    1 Corinthians 15:6: “Jesus appeared to more than 500 brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep.”

    There’s a few other verses like this. “We do not want you to be uninformed about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as indeed the rest of mankind do.” That’s 1 Thessalonians 4:13.

    So people will take these verses and say, well, that means that people have lost their consciousness like you would if you are sleeping. But when you think about it a little bit deeper and look at more of the scripture around it, you would realize that when they’re talking about sleep here, what are they talking about?

    They’re talking about physical death. They’re talking about the fact that when somebody dies, like if somebody dies in front of you, they look like they’re asleep. It’s the physical reality of what’s happening here.

    Scripture Teaches Immediate Consciousness After Death

    It looks like they’re asleep. But scripture clearly teaches that you are conscious even right after the point of death. And in fact, this is a wild thing to think about: if somebody dies right now, if you happen to drop dead right now, you would not lose your consciousness. You would be conscious right after the point of death.

    So how do we know that? Well, Luke 23:43, Jesus talks to the thief on the cross and it says, “Today you will be with me in paradise”—not when the resurrection comes thousands of years in the future, but today you will be with me in paradise.

    In 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, the Apostle Paul tells us, “Absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord.” Right? So once you’re absent from the body, you’re at home with the Lord.

    Luke 23:43: “Today you will be with me in paradise.”

    It’s not that you’re absent from the body and then several thousand years pass until the resurrection and then you’re at home with the Lord. This is an immediate conscious presence. And I think when pastor Bobby preached through Revelation 6, we saw these disembodied souls who are under the altar and they are not sleeping. They’re awake and they’re demanding judgment.

    They’re like, “How long are you going to let this sin go on in the world?” Right? They’re martyred. They’re disembodied souls. And they are conscious and they are demanding judgment.

    And I think the main nail in the coffin here is Matthew 17:3 during the transfiguration.

    “During the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appear — they are not sleeping but talking to Jesus.”

    So Jesus calls Moses and Elijah and they appear to Peter. Are Moses and Elijah sleeping? No, they’re walking around talking to Jesus. So soul sleep is not biblical, right?

    Okay, I think I’m going to move on to the next one. I’m going to try to get through this as fast as I can. Oh, sorry, I forgot my slides.

    All right, those are four things.

    Question 6: Will People in Heaven See People in Hell?

    Okay. Maybe we’ll not get through all of them. Will people in heaven be conscious of people in hell? Arthur, I think this was something you just talked about in the beginning. So how could there be no crying and weeping in heaven for people if we see our loved ones in hell? Are people in heaven conscious of people in hell?

    I believe the answer to this question is yes. We are conscious, and a lot of these things we have to kind of extrapolate from scripture. We can’t be completely dogmatic on it, but I still believe the answer is yes.

    Let me see if I have any of these verses. I’ll try to do this better this time.

    Lazarus and the Rich Man

    Okay. The first example that we have is Lazarus and the rich man. In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus tells this parable. There was a rich man and then there was Lazarus, a poor man. The poor man died and in verse 22 it says he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.

    Both of these two people are alive and conscious. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes being in torment and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. He cried out and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.”

    Abraham says, “Child, remember that during your life you received good things and likewise Lazarus deserves bad things, but now he is being comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed so that those who wish to come over here will not be able.”

    You see here there’s Lazarus and then there’s the rich man in Jesus’s parable. Even though there is a fixed uncrossable chasm in this parable, they can see each other at least in this particular example.

    “Even though there is a fixed uncrossable chasm, they can see each other.”

    A lot of people will look at this and say, “Well, this is just a parable. Maybe it’s not true.” But you have to think about whether Jesus tells parables that are not true. Is Jesus telling a parable that is fictitious? Is this fiction that Jesus is talking about?

    Maybe. But I don’t think that Jesus would give such a wrong idea of the afterlife if it was indeed wrong. So this is the first example.

    The second example of the awareness of people suffering in hell is in Revelation 6. We talked about this already—the martyrs under the throne. They’re aware of the injustice on earth and they’re crying out that God would hasten the judgment. So obviously these martyrs are aware in this case, not necessarily of hell, but of injustice on earth.

    So awareness of injustice and sin is not taken away from your head. I think this one is the one that strikes home the most to me.

    Torment in the Presence of the Lamb

    This is Revelation 14:10. I’ll just read to you Revelation 14:10. He says he will also drink.

    If anybody worships the beast and the image, he will also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

    Here you see the torment is happening in this particular scene in Revelation in the presence of the angels. So in the presence of Jesus. Jesus in fact is aware of what’s going on in hell, and so are the angels.

    The angels are also aware of what’s going on in hell. You have to realize that both angels and Jesus are holy, and their awareness of what’s going on in hell is not scrambling their brains, right?

    Revelation 14:10: “He will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.”

    Heaven’s Response: Praise, Not Sorrow

    And then this is one I think is another nail in the coffin: Revelation 19:1-3. This is heaven. The multitudes in heaven have just witnessed God’s judgment. They’ve just seen God’s judgment, right?

    Their response is not weeping, right? Because the idea here is like if we see people in hell, that would make us sad. But in fact, when judgment happens, the multitudes in heaven do not weep. In Revelation 19, it says this. They say hallelujah four times.

    It says, “After these things, I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven saying, hallelujah, salvation, glory, and power belong to God because his judgments are true and righteous. For he has judged the great prostitute who was corrupting the earth with her sexual immorality. He has avenged the blood of his bondservants on her.” And then they say again, hallelujah, her smoke rises forever and ever.

    You see that the emotion of the multitudes in heaven, which include people, is not sorrow, but it’s actually praise and triumph at God’s judgments, praise at God’s avenging. I think the answer is that in heaven, our affections will be so sanctified and so rewired that even when we see God’s judgment, we will give praise and glory to God. It will not be something that brings us sorrow or pain.

    We’ll say that is a right thing that God did. That is a just thing that God did. We will agree with God’s verdict and we will admire God’s justice and also his mercy to us forever and ever.

    “In heaven, our affections will be so sanctified that even when we see God’s judgment, we will give praise and glory to God.”

    Does that make sense?

    Yes.

    God’s holiness. In our state right now, we can’t fully understand it. If we are to experience God’s holiness, God as holy, then we’d also have to experience his wrath because the two are tied together, right?

    Yeah. It makes sense to me that we have to experience that wrath forever. We experience God’s holiness forever.

    Yeah.

    Again, the two are tied together. You take one out, then you have to take out the other, right?

    Yes.

    Righteous to eternal judgment, eternal destruction. Yes. Eternal punishment.

    Sure.

    Right.

    Yeah.

    Right.

    Sure.

    Right. Yeah. Steve brought up the point that holiness is really what undergirds all of the attributes of God, and that’s definitely true. In fact, holiness is the only attribute that’s mentioned—holy, holy, holy—not justice, justice, justice, right? That’s a great point.

    Yeah. Okay, we got four minutes. I’m just going to do one last one. This will be the last question. We’ll deal with this a little fast. I think somebody asked this, so I wanted to talk about this specifically.

    Question 7: Are There Degrees of Punishment in Hell?

    Somebody says, “I sometimes like to think of hell as having different levels, like a prison where worst offenders are thrown into the darkest area, but the ones who were misled or never heard about Jesus are thrown into a roomier place.” What does scripture say about that?

    Well, I think a lot of what our modern conception of this comes from is Dante’s Inferno, which is a great book, but it’s not scripture. But nevertheless, even though the details might be wrong, I do think there are degrees of punishment in hell. I think that scripture talks about this just as there are degrees of reward in heaven, right?

    The more faithful you are in this world, the more reward you get in heaven, but obviously the converse is true as well. Some of the places we see this is Luke 12:47-48.

    So here I’ll just read the bold part.

    Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required.”

    From everyone who has been given much will be required, and to whom they have entrusted much of him they will ask all the more. So here it seems like there are different levels of expectation, and this expectation will translate into judgment. The master will ask the servant who is faithful—I guess who knew his master—receives many stripes, and the one who didn’t few stripes.

    Okay. And the next one is, oh man, is this like out of batteries? I think it might be. All right, just press down if you can.

    Greater Knowledge Means Greater Accountability

    All right, one more. Matthew 11:20-24. Here it talks about woe to you, woe to you Bethsaida. For if the miracles that occurred in you had occurred in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.

    So here, Tyre and Sidon are gentile territories that didn’t have the knowledge that Jews did. And Jesus is saying it’s going to be more tolerable for them because they didn’t—they weren’t given all the oracles of God. They weren’t given all of the knowledge of the truth. You were given that and look at what you did with it.

    So here from both of these verses, we see that more knowledge means that you are more culpable. And often I don’t think this is the right way to think about it, but I’ve thought about it in this way: if somebody is on their way to judgment, perhaps it’s better for them not to hear the gospel. Because if you hear the gospel and you reject it, the judgment on you is more severe.

    “More knowledge means that you are more culpable.”

    Can you go to the next one? See if it’s going to work. Okay, all right. Hebrews 11:29. Here, how much more severe do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God? Same thing.

    And next one, last one. And let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we incur a stricter judgment.

    So we know that in scriptures we are judged according to our deeds. Revelation 20:13. So we are judged for what you have done. And you incur greater judgment if you are given greater revelation and you reject that, and also greater sin. The greater the sin, the greater the judgment it incurs.

    Closing: The Cup Christ Drank for Us

    But that said, I don’t think any part of hell is roomy or pleasant, right? All of it will be terrible. All of it will be horrible. All of it will be fire and judgment.

    For our last minute, I just want to end our time talking about eternal conscious punishment with this thought. To many of us, it’s a depressing thing to think about, but I do think that last week when we had communion, it gave me a greater understanding of what Christ did for me.

    No wonder then Jesus prayed in the garden, “If possible, let this cup pass from me.” What cup was he talking about? He was talking about the cup of judgment. In fact, scripture talks about this in Psalm 75:8: “For a cup is in the hands of the Lord, and the wine foams. It is well mixed and he pours out of this. Certainly, all the wicked of the earth must drain and drink its dregs.”

    He’s talking about the cup of judgment that the wicked will drink. And Jesus took that for us. In 1 Peter 2:24, he says, “He himself brought our sins in his body up on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds, you were healed.”

    As we end our time talking about this, I just want to remind you of John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. He who does not obey the Son does not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

    As we go to the mall or even in personal evangelism, we have to understand that this is the message that people urgently need to know. They need to know that judgment is not only possible for them, but is imminent and is coming if they continue on the path that they are on in their sins.

    “Judgment is not only possible but imminent for those who continue on in their sins.”

    Closing Prayer

    And with our understanding of the bad news, I pray that the good news to you will be all the more sweet. It will be all the more sweet and will drive us to worship with a renewed joy and a renewed zeal because we’ll understand that the gospel is good news indeed.

    Let’s close in a word of prayer. Father, we are thankful for your teaching here. Even though we are not—no part of this makes me want hell to exist because nobody. I don’t want anybody to go there. We know that you also don’t want anyone to perish.

    But Lord, it is the reality. Help us to have the opportunities and to have the wisdom to know how to warn people of this reality in our evangelism so that sinners can come to you and be delivered and experience so great a salvation.

    I pray this in Christ’s name. Amen.

  • Lesson 24: Eternal Conscious Punishment, Overview

    Lesson 24: Eternal Conscious Punishment, Overview

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    The doctrine of eternal conscious punishment (hell) is examined from a comprehensive survey of Scripture spanning both Old and New Testaments. The Bible is unmistakably clear that the fate of those who reject Christ’s offering is not annihilation, not mere separation from God, but conscious, eternal torment. We are reminded that most of what we know about hell comes directly from the mouth of Jesus — the same compassionate Jesus who wept over Jerusalem.

    Key Lessons:

    1. Hell is not mere separation from God but an active, conscious punishment involving fire, agony, darkness, weeping, and pain — as described repeatedly by Jesus himself.
    2. The word “eternal” in “eternal punishment” is the same word used for “eternal life” — if one lasts forever, so does the other, making annihilationism impossible to sustain from Scripture.
    3. The severity of hell reveals the magnitude of what Christ suffered on the cross for us — He bore the full weight of this punishment not for one person, but for all who would believe.
    4. Refusing to warn people about hell out of fear of offending them is not love but cruelty — like a doctor withholding a cancer diagnosis when a cure exists.

    Application: We are called to be spurred on by the reality of hell to urgently warn others of the coming judgment, to renew our love for Christ who suffered this punishment in our place, and to approach communion with a deeper sense of awe at what was accomplished on the cross.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How does understanding the full reality of eternal conscious punishment change the way we approach evangelism and conversations with unbelievers?
    2. Why do you think Jesus spoke more about hell than almost anyone else in Scripture, and what does that tell us about true compassion?
    3. How should the doctrine of hell deepen our gratitude for what Christ accomplished on the cross, especially as we take communion?

    Scripture Focus: Deuteronomy 32:22 (fire of God’s anger), Isaiah 66:22-24 (unquenching fire and undying worm), Daniel 12:2 (everlasting contempt), Matthew 25:46 (eternal punishment paralleled with eternal life), Revelation 14:9-11 (smoke of torment forever and ever), Revelation 20:10-15 (lake of fire as final judgment).

    Outline

    Introduction

    Let’s start with a word of prayer. Father, as we consider this weighty topic and these verses that you have for us, we pray that it would settle in us a sense of awe and wonder at what Christ did for us on that cross. That we would leave this morning with a renewed sense of love for you, that you would suffer such a penalty for us. Bless the rest of our time this morning in Christ’s name. We pray. Amen.

    In Acts 4:12, the Apostle Peter was talking about Jesus and he said that there is no other name by which we must be saved. Right?

    There is no other name by which we must be saved. If you look at that verse in Acts 4:12, which we won’t take the time to do right now, you realize that he never really specified in that particular passage what we are saved from.

    What are we saved from? Is it just the trials of this life? The context of that verse is he had just made a lame man walk. Right? So is it just the physical ailments that we’re saved from?

    Is it maybe the trials of this life? Or is it something more that we’re saved from?

    The Bible tells us that we are saved from hell. We’re actually saved from God, right? Because it’s God who throws us into hell.

    So our topic today is going to be eternal conscious punishment, which is hell. And it is a heavy topic.

    We believe at Calvary, just as the historical church has believed for probably 2,000 years, in eternal conscious punishment—that hell is a place where you are relegated eternally to conscious punishment.

    Why We Must Talk About Hell

    This is a terrible thing to think about, and it’s really deeply disturbing. In fact, one of these things is you can’t really come to this topic without just being maybe heartbroken. Maybe terrified.

    Maybe if you think too hard about it, it might even drive you insane. I mean, eternal conscious punishment is perhaps the worst possible thing that could ever befall any person. And it is something that I wish was not true. In fact, if I were God, I would not have designed it that way. But you can wake up every morning thanking the Lord that I am not God.

    I don’t want to go there. I don’t want any of you to go there. I don’t want any of my friends or my relatives to go there.

    But unfortunately, we don’t get to choose that. We don’t get to determine that. We only get to read what’s in the Bible.

    And what we’ll see this morning is that the Bible is clear that the fate of those who have not accepted the offering of Christ on their behalf is eternal conscious punishment.

    “The Bible is clear that the fate of those who have not accepted Christ is eternal conscious punishment.”

    It’s a heartbreaking reality. Disturbing.

    We’ll also see that there are two phases of eternal conscious punishment. The first phase is sort of a temporary holding period from now to when final judgment occurs.

    When you die today, just like if you died in the Lord, you would be in heaven, but that’s not the final state. The final state is a new heavens and a new earth.

    Well, if you had died without the Lord, then you would have a time period where you are sort of in a holding period, which is also conscious punishment. And then after the final judgment, you will be thrown into the lake of fire, which is also conscious punishment, but now eternal.

    And again, this is one of these things where you think about it too long, you may go crazy. But it’s so disturbing that many churches would rather not even talk about it, or many people would rather not even talk about it or bring it up. They really shy away from this doctrine.

    But I think this is precisely why we must talk about it, because it is so terrible and so horrible that if we don’t tell people about it, if we don’t warn people, then that’s not love—that’s hate, right? That’s cruelty to not warn people on their way to eternal conscious punishment that they are really at the precipice of eternal damnation.

    The analogy is: if you’re a doctor and your patient has cancer, yet there’s a cure—there’s a known cure for this cancer—but you don’t want to break the news to them because you don’t want to offend them and you don’t want to hurt their feelings. So you don’t tell them that they have cancer. All along there’s a cure for it, and you don’t tell them, and then they die of cancer.

    “If we don’t warn people, that’s not love — that’s cruelty.”

    That’s not love. That’s cruelty.

    Four Major Views of Hell

    It is so disturbing though that it is understandable that there are some deviant views of this doctrine. There are some people who want to sweep hell under the rug or maybe redefine the doctrine of hell into something a little bit more palatable, a little bit more well, maybe just a little bit less disturbing. We’ll talk about those.

    Here are the four major views of hell. First is eternal conscious punishment. That’s what we believe.

    But there’s also universalism. Some people are so disturbed by this doctrine that they basically say there isn’t an eternal hell. Now, the interesting thing is that just because you don’t believe in eternal conscious punishment doesn’t mean you don’t believe in any punishment.

    So there are many religions who believe in some sort of purgatory or some sort of place where you kind of work off your sin, but that’s a limited duration and then you will all go to heaven. Eventually, everybody gets to heaven, everybody gets to a paradise. Mormons are basically in this camp.

    So universalism—I don’t think many of us today in this church at least believe in that.

    “There are some who want to sweep hell under the rug or redefine it into something more palatable.”

    Annihilationism

    But annihilationism is a theory also known as conditionalism or conditional immortality, referring to the conditional immortality of the soul.

    You’re immortal if you’re saved, but you’re mortal if you’re not saved. This doctrine has, every say 15 to 20 years, a new proponent and a new resurgence. When it comes up, people forget and have short-term memories—they forget that this came up 20 years ago and it just keeps coming up like clockwork.

    In my day, because I’m older than I look, there was a man named Harold Camping who deviated from the faith mainly because of this particular doctrine of annihilationism—the idea that you cease to exist after you die.

    A few months ago, unless you’ve been living under a rock on social media, there was a very famous personality named Kirk Cameron. Many of us thought he was friendly and hung out with Ray Comfort, and many people respect him. We still respect Kirk Cameron, but he came out and said that he was leaning towards this doctrine.

    You guys have all seen that presumably on social media. This sparked a firestorm, and all these other annihilationists came on this program and tried to justify this doctrine. So it is top of mind for us today, and we’ll talk more about that.

    The one thing we want to know about it right now is that there are many modern-day proponents of this. The most famous cult that promotes annihilationism is Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are some verses in the Bible where you look at them and they talk about words like death, destruction, and consumed. If you simply look at that verse in isolation, you might be tempted towards the annihilationist reading.

    For example: “The wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life.” You might be tempted towards interpreting that as annihilationism—your spirit, your soul dies.

    The problem is that there are many other verses that are clear that there is a conscious eternal punishment. You can look at the verses that the annihilationists will come up with, and you can fit this into the eternal conscious punishment reading.

    “You can’t interpret the verses about eternal conscious punishment with an annihilationist reading.”

    But you can’t do the other way around. If you look at the verses where it talks about eternal conscious punishment, you simply can’t interpret those with an annihilationist reading. That’s what I’m going to try to show you today. But we’ll talk more specifically about annihilationism next time.

    Spiritual Separation View

    And the fourth main view, I would say in a soft way, is the spiritual separation view. This spiritual separation view is a way to soften the horribleness of hell. Recently Joel Osteen was interviewed by a bunch of social media influencers and he was asked what he believes about hell. He said, “Well, I don’t know much about it.” He doesn’t seem to know much about a lot of things, but he says that it’s a place where you’re separated from God. That must not be a good thing, right?

    This is a very common and very popular answer, but it fails. It is true in some sense that hell is a separation from God, but that is not the full truth. It is an actual active punishment by God. Without understanding that it’s an active punishment, it’s not just that God is ignoring you because many unbelievers today basically feel that they’re living without God anyways.

    “Hell is not just separation from God — it is an actual active punishment by God.”

    So they feel like hell is not so bad, right? We’re already living separated from God. What difference does it make? But no, it’s an active punishment. We need to be clear about that.

    These are the major views. This is 9:00 a.m. and we are in what we call Sunday school, right?

    I just want to lay that out for you.

    Approaching the Scriptural Evidence

    This is not a sermon where the preacher gives you things in bite-sized chunks. I’m assuming that you guys are all very sophisticated individuals and theologians, and normally I wouldn’t do this, but this is the kind of doctrine I was really thinking about. How do I present this? How do we talk about this?

    This is the kind of doctrine where we need to see this from Scripture because it’s just so horrible. I would not have invented this doctrine. I would not have done it this way. And part of me wants annihilationism to be true, right? Because when you consider this fate befalling those you love, it is a horrible thing.

    “This is the kind of doctrine where we need to see it from Scripture because it’s just so horrible.”

    But again, we have to go to Scripture. Let’s go through these. Now I didn’t want to put all of these on a slide. Some of these are kind of long, and I want you to actually see it from the pages of the Bible. So that’s what we’re going to do today. For the rest of the time, we’re going to look at some of these verses and talk about them.

    If you can open up your Bible to Deuteronomy 32. Before we go on to it, what do you notice about these verses? What’s something that sticks out to you?

    Anything?

    Old and New Testament.

    Old and New Testament. What else?

    It’s like a lot of Matthew.

    That the truth is that most of what we know about hell comes straight from the mouth of Jesus.

    Deuteronomy 32:22 — Fire of God’s Anger

    Okay. That’s something we’ll talk about later. Let’s go first to Deuteronomy 32:22.

    This is perhaps the first verse in the Bible where we encounter the idea of a hell. Now, while we talk about this, I’m going to write some things on the whiteboard here.

    Deuteronomy 32:22. Let me read it to you. It says, “For a fire is kindled in my anger and burns to the lowest part of Sheol.” Sheol is just a place of the dead. But what do you see about hell here? What characteristic do you see about hell here? It has what? Fire.

    Deuteronomy 32:22: “A fire is kindled in my anger and burns to the lowest part of Sheol.”

    So let’s write down some of the things we observe. Fire. What else? What is happening to you in that fire? Burns. Okay. A fire is kindled in the anger of God.

    So this is the first verse that we see.

    Isaiah 66:22–24 — Unquenching Fire and Undying Worm

    We see something about fire, something that burns, something about anger. Let’s turn to Isaiah 66:22-24.

    Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy.

    Isaiah 66:22-24 is a critical verse that we’ll talk about in a little bit. I’m just going to read it now. It says, “For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before me, declares the Lord, so will your descendants and your name endure. And it shall be from new moon to new moon and from Sabbath to Sabbath. All mankind will come to bow down before me, says the Lord.”

    Before we go to the next verse, the context of this verse is not right now. It’s the end, when all mankind comes to bow. Everybody’s going to be worshiping the Lord in the new heavens and the new earth.

    Next verse: “Then they will go and look at the corpses of the people who have rebelled against me. For their worm does not die and their fire will not be extinguished and there will be an abhorrence to mankind.”

    The first thing we have to know about this verse is that it is in an eschatological context. An annihilationist would look at this and pick out the word corpse and say this is a dead person. So that must mean they’re dead, their soul is dead. But notice what it says: their worm does not die and their fire will not be extinguished.

    Isaiah 66:24: “Their worm does not die and their fire will not be extinguished.”

    Just think about it. If these corpses are finally dead and completely unresponsive, what does it matter if the worm dies or not? What does that even mean? Wouldn’t the worm die after it runs out of food?

    And the fire will not be extinguished. Well, what good is the fire if the corpse is gone? What good is that?

    As you’ll see later as we go, it’ll become clear with other verses. But the picture he’s painting here is a corpse that is still able to feel and sense everything around them, what’s happening to the corpse.

    What are some of the things you notice about hell here? What is not dying? A worm, right. And what else is there? We see fire again. And what was it? Unquenching fire.

    And then we also see abhorrence, right? You might ask yourself, what does it matter if you’re an abhorrence or not? If you’re dead, does it matter?

    The abhorrence is only meaningful if I am there to understand that I am abhorred.

    Daniel 12:2 — Everlasting Contempt

    All right. Next one. Daniel 12:2. Trying to move through these pretty quickly.

    Remember this is Sunday school. When I teach the kids Sunday school, we have fire drills. I give them a verse and then they go see who gets there first, right? Let’s see if we can do it. Daniel 12:2.

    I got there first.

    Okay.

    Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, leads to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

    First thing to notice about this verse is that it starts out talking about dead people, people who are dead in the body, right?

    And what’s going to happen to them?

    They’re going to wake up.

    What does that mean?

    Resurrection. Okay. So they will be resurrected and then the people who have a portion in it—these are going to everlasting life and the others are going to disgrace and everlasting contempt. Now a critical thing to realize here is that the word everlasting when it talks about everlasting life is the same word as everlasting contempt. Everlasting life, everlasting contempt. These are parallel ideas.

    Daniel 12:2: “Some to everlasting life, but others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”

    The word everlasting in the Hebrew basically means long duration, futuristicity. Most of the time it means everlasting as in forever.

    The thing to know about this is that this is after the resurrection. So the annihilationist would say, well, you don’t have to be awake for the disgrace and the everlasting contempt part, right? You can be annihilated.

    However, as we said before, what do I care if I’m disgraced if I’m not there to see it? This is an experience of disgrace.

    An experience of contempt, right? So we’ll say disgrace.

    Contempt.

    Sorry. I’ll have you guys give me those words.

    Jesus as the Primary Teacher on Hell

    You will be awake. And the other thing is, what good is it to wake you up and then destroy your soul?

    Now we come to the New Testament verses. By the way, I only picked out about 20 verses to go through, but there’s probably around 40 in the Bible about hell. We just couldn’t go through all of them because we’re going to run out of time. We may even run out of time for this, so we’ll see.

    But again, what we said before was most of what we know about hell comes straight from the mouth of Jesus. And this is the same Jesus, remember, that wept over Jerusalem. He’s a compassionate man.

    “Most of what we know about hell comes straight from the mouth of Jesus — the same Jesus who wept over Jerusalem.”

    Yet this compassionate Jesus stresses eternity and he stresses hell whenever it comes up. Whenever he talks to anybody, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a place where he’s not talking about judgment in some sense. That really is his evangelistic strategy: to warn people about the coming judgment.

    So let’s see that from the text. Don’t take my word for it. Matthew 3:12. All right. Bible drill. Matthew 3:12.

    Matthew 3:12 — Unquenchable Fire

    Now we have our smartphone, so that’s cheating, right? You got to use the real paper. Matthew 3:12. I’ll just read it because of the mic.

    His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor, and he will gather his wheat into the barn, and he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

    By the way, whenever Jesus talks about hell, he never has to define it. You might ask this question: in the Old Testament, we saw a few verses. You can’t really develop necessarily a very full theology about hell from that, and that would be true.

    I think that people, looking at some commentators, said this theology of hell was actually developed from those verses and a few others by the time Jesus came on the scene. This was going to be an eternal punishment for the wicked, and Jesus essentially just affirms that theological understanding at the time.

    It was controversial, of course. The Sadducees would even say there is no resurrection, but this was obviously something that was in their minds. Okay, so what do you see from here? What is the characteristic of hell we see here?

    Okay, burn up.

    And unquenchable fire again.

    Right now, annihilationists would take a look at this verse and say, well, it’s the fire that’s unquenchable. And so you could still be annihilated at this point. But what good is unquenchable fire if the fuel is consumed? Why is that something that’s scary or significant to mention if it’s unquenchable and there’s nothing to consume anymore?

    Obviously it is talking about the experience of somebody inside that unquenchable fire in a conscious way, and it’s unquenchable for eternity.

    “What good is unquenchable fire if the fuel is consumed? Obviously it’s talking about conscious experience.”

    Matthew 5:22 — Fiery Hell

    Matthew 5:22. All right, this is easy because it’s just the next page.

    Matthew 5:22. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court. And whoever says to his brother, “You good for nothing,” shall be guilty before the Supreme Court. And whoever says, “You fool,” shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. All right, fiery hell. We already have fire here.

    We’re going to talk about this later.

    Here you can see Jesus’s approach to this. He is warning people that if you break God’s law, right? If you’re angry with your brother, not just murder, but if you’re angry with your brother, your fate is going to be in the fiery hell. He actually says the word hell, which we’ll talk about in a second.

    “If you break God’s law — not just murder but anger — your fate is the fiery hell.”

    Matthew 8:12 — Outer Darkness, Weeping, and Gnashing of Teeth

    Matthew 8:12. Let’s just keep moving on.

    But the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, and in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Matthew 8:12: “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

    What characteristic do we see here?

    Darkness. Some sort of outer darkness.

    What else?

    Weeping, gnashing of teeth.

    #### The Meaning of Outer Darkness

    Okay, let’s talk about these for a little bit. What does darkness mean?

    Well, darkness is separation from God. The outer darkness, right? You’re being tossed out, you’re being thrown out from the kingdom. And now you are in darkness. Darkness here is separation from God and everything that is good from God—God’s goodness, his common grace, right?

    If you go outside today on a beautiful day, you feel a breeze on your face, the sun on your skin, and no matter what else is going on in your life, that’s some common grace. Or the rain that comes down and refreshes you. None of that is going to be in hell, right? All of this common grace is gone because you’re separate from it.

    Not only are you separated from that, but you’re separated from any mercy and you’re separated from any creativity. You’re separated from any learning. There’s no more innovation, no more entertainment, no more companionship, no happy family reunions.

    The outer darkness is a place completely separate from all the good things that God gives you. Right? Every good and perfect thing comes from God. But those things will not be available for you in hell.

    “Every good and perfect thing comes from God — but those things will not be available in hell.”

    Jesus showed us a little bit of what this meant on the cross when he uttered those words. He said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This is when Jesus was undergoing the forsaking of God that we would have experienced in hell.

    #### Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth

    But it’s not, as I said before, it’s not just separation from God. If you tell an unbeliever that they’re only being separated from God, they’ll say, “Well, I’m already separated from God. How bad could that be?” Right?

    But you see, there is weeping. There was weeping. And by the way, what do you need to have to weep? You got to be conscious. Weeping means that you’re feeling something. You’re not just weeping as a mechanical act. You’re weeping because you are feeling deep sorrow, deep shame.

    And this tells us that in hell you will retain your ability to feel emotion. In fact, it’ll be amplified, but you’ll only be able to feel the emotion of sorrow.

    “In hell you will retain your ability to feel emotion — but you’ll only be able to feel sorrow.”

    Some translations will say that instead of weeping, they’ll translate it as wailing, right? You’re not just weeping silently. You’re wailing. You’re screaming because you’re so emotional you just can’t take it. So deep that it bubbles up into your throat as a scream, right?

    And why are you weeping? Well, you’re weeping because of a sense of deep loss. You’re also weeping out of a sense of deep shame. And maybe some of you have struggled with depression. That’s a little bit of what it feels like. It’s deep depression, dark depression, dark despair. And the worst part of it is that there is never going to be any end. There will never be any light at the end of the tunnel, right?

    Weeping, but also gnashing of teeth. What is gnashing of teeth? What would make you gnash your teeth? Anger. What else? Pain. It’s really pain, maybe a little bit of anger, but it’s really pain.

    This is really talking about back before there was anesthesia. You’ve seen some of the movies, right? Like what would they do? They’d have a big wound or whatever and they would just pour a bunch of whiskey on it and then they’d give you something to bite on. Because the pain is so bad that if they didn’t do that you would bite off your own tongue, right? You’d be gnashing your teeth. It’s such a deep pain that you’re basically biting down on your jaw. I can’t do this, right?

    So that means you’ll be able to feel pain in hell. Some of you have felt the pain of childbirth, and I’ve been told that’s pretty bad. For me, I’ve had this experience of pain where I stubbed my toe. That was really bad a few days ago. And even that for me was like, “Oh, how could this be the worst?” But hell is much worse than that.

    I used to have a phase where I was interested in exotic diseases because I was convinced I had some. There’s this one disease called man on fire syndrome which makes you feel like you’re burning up. People who experience it essentially say that it feels like they’ve just touched a hot stove, but it’s all over their hands, all over their eyes, all over their ears, all over their limbs. It’s one of these diseases that I hope you never have. But that’s a little bit what it’s like in hell.

    So there’s going to be pain and weeping.

    Matthew 10:28 — Destroy Both Soul and Body

    Matthew 10:28.

    See if we’re going to get through this.

    Matthew 10:28.

    Next page. I told you Jesus talks about hell a lot.

    Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Matthew 10:28: “Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

    Okay. He is talking about hell again and he says don’t be afraid of people who can kill just the body, right? But be afraid of God because he can throw not only your body but also your soul in hell. There are a few things that are interesting about this.

    This is one of your favorite annihilationist verses where they say the word destroy.

    However, this word destroy has a range of meaning. In English we say destroy and we might think annihilation, right? But in the Greek, that’s not how it is. It’s a range of meaning. This word can also be used to talk about ruined wine skins.

    It can also be used to talk about loss of hair. Right? Your hair is destroyed. I’m not looking at anybody in particular here.

    In Luke 5:38, that’s where you’re talking about wine skins. If you put new wine in old wine skins—sorry, the other way around—it’ll burst them. And notably in Luke 15, he talks about the lost sheep, and Luke 15 also talks about the lost coin, right? If you guys remember those things, the coin is lost, and well, that word lost is also destroyed. It’s the same word.

    Obviously the coin is not annihilated, right? It’s not talking about that. And your hair is not—well, maybe your hair is annihilated, but you’re not annihilated. It’s also this sort of idea of just a lost or a perishing condition. And the sheep is found, the coin is found, right? So it’s not as if you’re annihilating these things. There’s a range of meaning to this word destroy.

    It doesn’t have to necessarily mean annihilation.

    Another thing to note about this is that Jesus could have said, “Rather fear him who is able to destroy your soul in hell.”

    But he actually says body as well, right? So why does he say that? Why does he say body? Well, because in hell you’re going to have a body. That’s what’s going to feel pain. That’s what’s going to feel sorrow.

    Without that, your soul doesn’t seem like it has a lot of nerve endings.

    #### The Meaning of Gehenna

    But the other thing that’s noticeable here, and he used it again—we already saw this when he used it before—is this word gehenna for hell, which is really the word gehenna. What gehenna really is, is a little controversial, but this was definitely a valley outside of Jerusalem. So when he says hell, he’s really referring to this valley, gehenna, the valley of Hinnom.

    This is the place where we know for sure there was child sacrifice to Moloch. Moloch is this idol where you have to sacrifice children. Because of that, it got a hugely negative reputation. This is the place you go essentially to where people are committing unspeakable acts of atrocity. It’s also a place where they would dump the dead criminals, animals, dead animals. They would dump them there.

    The thing that’s controversial is that many people also say that it’s like a trash heap, sort of the landfill. That part is a little bit debated, so I’m not too sure. But anyways, there is fire in this place because you’re burning these dead bodies—mostly dead bodies actually, so maybe trash.

    This place outside of Jerusalem, everybody can see it. It’s not hard to find, and everybody knows about it because that’s where you dump these things. When I was growing up in New Brunswick, there was a landfill right next to our house—not maybe not right next to, but it’s called the Edgeborough Edge Landfill. If the wind was blowing in the right direction and you drove past it, you would be like, “What is that stench?” Right? Because they’re burning the trash.

    That would be kind of like what it is. Sometimes the wind would be blowing in the right direction and people would be like, “Oh, okay, that’s the valley of Hinnom.” Right? So this is the imagery that Jesus uses for hell—a place where things are burned.

    Now, if you talk to a Jehovah’s Witness, which I have before about this exact topic, he’ll say to you, “Well, that means that they’re dead, they’re annihilated. Right? The valley of Hinnom are full of dead people.” But that’s not how Jesus uses the analogy. He uses it as a place where you will experience the actual destruction. You will continually experience the destruction.

    “Jesus uses Gehenna as a place where you will continually experience the destruction and the fire.”

    Matthew 13:41–42 — The Furnace of Fire

    You will continually experience the fire. All right, let’s look at Matthew 13. Let’s keep going. Matthew 13:41-42, just the next page or maybe two pages.

    The son of man will send forth his angels. Verse 41. The son of man will send forth his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks and those who commit lawlessness and they will throw them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    All right. Very similar to what he said before. Do we see anything new here?

    Okay, I got this furnace. We’ll write that down.

    But you’re—what’s being—who’s throwing you in? His angels. But on whose command?

    Yeah, it’s Jesus.

    Jesus is commanding that you get thrown in there, right? It’s not something that just simply happens to you. It’s God actively throwing you into this place. He’s discarding you, right? That’s what it is. Just like you would discard a dead criminal that you just executed.

    “This is not something that just happens to you — it’s God actively throwing you into this place.”

    Matthew 18:8 — Eternal Fire

    All right. Matthew 18:8. If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

    What do we see from here?

    Eternal fire. Why is the fire eternal?

    “What good is eternal fire if you’re not there to experience it? Why would He even say that?”

    It’s never going to run out, right? And again, what good is it if it’s eternal if you’re not there to experience it? Like why would he even say that? It’s the eternal fire and also the fiery hell. So again, he’s talking about hell, but he’s specifically talking about the fiery fact that you will burn, the fact that you will feel the burning. That’s why it’s worth plucking out your eye.

    We say we’re very careful whenever we preach this verse to say this is not literal. Don’t pluck out your eye. Don’t cut off your hand. But in a sense, he’s really saying if the comparison is getting your whole body thrown into hell, okay, like if you have to do that, you have to do what you have to do, right?

    Matthew 25:41.

    Matthew 25:41, 46 — Eternal Punishment

    There’s a few pages through. I actually skipped a few because we don’t have time. There’s a few in the middle.

    Matthew 25:41 says, “Then he will also say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

    What do we see here? What additional information do we get about hell from this verse?

    Devils and angels. Good. It’s not just humans here. It’s prepared for the devils and the angels. This is really important because later in exactly ten minutes we’ll see that the devils and the angels are destined for eternal, ongoing punishment, and it’s the same fire that you’re going to be thrown in. It’s the same fire for humans as well. Same fate as the devils and angels.

    Now the annihilationists will have a problem with this first, and they will have to say that humans are treated differently, right? Because it’s the same fire. The devils and the angels are going to be thrown in and they’re going to suffer eternally because that’s what it’s going to say. But humans are not going to—that’s what they would say. That doesn’t make any sense. That’s just reading in your preference to this text. It’s the same fire. In fact, we’ll see that very clearly later on.

    Matthew 25 again, but verse 46. This is possibly the most devastating verse for the annihilationist position. Now, as I said at the outset, I wish annihilationism was true. I’m not—it’s just these verses I can’t get around. And if it wasn’t for these verses, maybe I would be an annihilationist.

    But look at Matthew 25:46. It says, “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    What do we see here? What is that word that we haven’t seen yet? Eternal what?

    Punishment.

    And the righteous to eternal life.

    So here again, just like in the Daniel verse we saw eternal and eternal parallel. You have eternal life and eternal punishment. Jesus is purposely drawing a parallel here. There’s eternal punishment, eternal life. You want eternal life, right? You’re hoping that that’s going to be eternal, forever and ever, with no end, right? It’s not. God’s not lying to you. He’s not going to cut it off at a thousand years. Well, that’s the same thing. Eternal punishment. Same word. It’s going to last the same amount of time.

    “Eternal punishment — it’s going to last the same amount of time as eternal life. Same word. Purposeful parallel.”

    What do I say if I’m an annihilationist? Well, I might have two outs. One is that the punishment is death. So it’s the death that’s eternal. Why would he use the word punishment then? Why wouldn’t he just say eternal death? That doesn’t hold water.

    The other thing they would say is they would look at the word punishment. What does that word punishment actually mean? If you look at how it’s used in other places, it’s actually penal infliction. From a legal standpoint, it’s like going to jail. It’s the punishment you’re getting for your crime, even in a judicial setting, right? It’s torment. It’s a place that’s a Department of Corrections, right? That’s what it means. You can’t really say that’s just death, right?

    And of course, you could have just used the word death if that’s what he meant.

    Mark 9:47 — Their Worm Does Not Die

    All right. Let’s move a little faster. Mark 9:47.

    I’m not going to wait for you to turn there. I’ll just read it. If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than having two eyes and be cast into hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.

    Is there anything new in this verse?

    Isaiah. All right, good. This is a fact we saw this verse already. Right now in the Isaiah verse we saw that he was talking about maybe corpses and there was some—we said maybe an alist would look at that and say well these corpses are dead. What about in this verse?

    There’s no such implication here. Jesus is using that same imagery here, but the words there are interesting.

    It says where their worm does not die. It’s like the worm assigned to them almost. Maybe not assigned to them personally, but the worm assigned to torment them. The worm assigned to give them pain. It’s being eaten from the inside out.

    “Their worm — the worm assigned to torment them — a worm of judgment that does not die.”

    This worm is a worm of judgment. It’s their worm, right? Given to them for judgment.

    Luke 16:19 — The Rich Man and Lazarus

    And so this is a clarification of Isaiah 66:24. Luke 16:19.

    Sorry, I haven’t been switching back. I should probably do this. Luke 16. We will get through this. Luke 16:19. Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen. This is a rich man and Lazarus.

    This is too long. I’m not going to read the whole thing. I’m just going to tell you what it means. This is the rich man and Lazarus. We know the story.

    There’s a rich man and the poor man, but then they both die.

    Then in verse 24, you see this rich man in hell. And he says in verse 24, “And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’” So this is one of the most vivid pictures Jesus is painting of somebody in hell.

    We can see this very clearly. What is happening to the rich man in hell?

    What is happening?

    He’s being tormented by fire, by flame.

    He’s in agony, right?

    He’s in agony in this flame. And he’s also thirsty. He wants water. So this is interesting because later you’ll see that they said, “No, you can’t actually have any water. You can’t even have one drop of water. There is no mercy in hell.”

    “He’s in agony in this flame. Not even one drop of water. There is no mercy in hell.”

    None. It’s just one drop of water. No.

    So this guy is in agony. He’s tormented and he is trapped and he is conscious, by the way.

    And this is talking about this intermediate place of the dead, Hades. That’s why he uses this word Hades. But the important thing here to realize is that this man in hell is able to perceive. He’s able to feel. He’s able to be in agony.

    And the annihilationist will have to look at this verse and say, “Well, this is just a story. It’s just some sort of parable. It’s not true, right? It’s not really how it is. Would Jesus tell a story that is really far off from the reality, right, just to make a point? That’s not how he does it, right? This is not how God does it.”

    The Epistles on Eternal Punishment

    Okay, let’s look at the epistles now.

    I’ll just read a few of these. Maybe you can try to turn them. Second Thessalonians 1:8-9. “And those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, these people will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and his glory forever.”

    I just want to point out that this word “destruction” is actually yet another word. It’s not the same word as we saw before for destruction. And it also has a range of meaning.

    In 1 Corinthians 5:5, Paul talks about a person who is committing sexual immorality in the church and he says, “I have decided to turn this person over to Satan for the destruction of his body.” Is he turning the person over to Satan for the annihilation of his body?

    No. He’s just saying the sexual immorality is going to reap a consequence and that consequence is going to be corruption. He’s going to be corrupting his body. He’s not saying, “I’m turning this person over to Satan for the annihilation of his body.”

    So this word “destruction” in 1 Thessalonians is not talking about annihilation. It’s talking about defilement. It’s talking about corruption.

    Another verse is 1 Timothy 6:9. “Harmful desires plunge people into ruin and destruction.” Is he talking about harmful desires that you may experience plunging you into annihilation?

    No. That’s not how this word is used. So the point is that the word “destruction” here has a range of meanings.

    “The word ‘destruction’ has a range of meaning — it speaks of corruption and ruin, not annihilation.”

    Hebrews 6:2 says, “A foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.”

    Here we have the word “eternal judgment” and the annihilationist would have to say eternal judgment means that the death is eternal. Well, then why not just say judgment? Why not even just say death? What’s the eternal about? Why do you have to say eternal? You have to really struggle with this text to make it say what you want.

    I’m just going to read to you 2 Peter 2:4-9.

    “The angels cast into Tartarus kept for judgment. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness held for judgment.” That’s 2 Peter 2:4.

    He’s talking about how he didn’t spare these angels, but he cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment. This is the first phase of hell, the holding period. He’s committed the angels there.

    But then in verse 9 he says, “Then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment.” So this holding period is also for the unrighteous. There’s a holding place for the unrighteous just as there is a holding period for the angels. There’s a holding place for humans for the day of judgment and it is under punishment. So you are undergoing punishment as you wait.

    How long will that last? At least the minimum amount of time that can last is a thousand years. So eschatology matters. This is coming together.

    Jude 7 says, “And the angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place, those he had kept in eternal restraint under darkness for the judgment of the great day.”

    Again, we see the darkness for the judgment of the great day. Then he brings that analogy back to men. “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these angels indulged in sexual perversion and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example of undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

    You might have to read that a few times to understand it, but he’s making an analogy between the angels held under restraints under darkness for judgment and people undergoing the judgment of eternal fire.

    The Killing Blow: Revelation 14:9–11

    We’re going to get through this. The last three verses are essentially the killing blow for annihilationism, right?

    This is where we cement our understanding of eternal conscious punishment. If you were drifting off because I’m using too many verses, come back for these verses. Turn to Revelation 14:9-11.

    Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or his hand, he will also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone.”

    That’s the first time we saw brimstone, right? In the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. Here we see the word brimstone. Brimstone is basically sulfur, and it was known back then to burn in a very pungent sense. It’s smelly. When it’s burning, it stinks, right?

    So brimstone is in the presence of the holy angels. You’re being observed by the angels and Jesus.

    Not only are you suffering, but Jesus is watching you do it, right? That’s something to think about.

    And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever. This is really hard because this is very clear. You can’t play some annihilationist games with this, right? How long is that smoke going to ascend? The smoke of their torment forever and ever. It’s not the smoke of their death. It’s not the smoke of their corpses. It’s the smoke of their torment, and it’s going to be forever and ever. This is the killing blow. You can’t get past this verse.

    Revelation 14:11: “The smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever.”

    You have no rest day and night. They have no rest day and night. No rest.

    Those who worship the beast and his image and whoever drinks of the mark of his name. Now we see torment ascending forever and ever. There’s smoke. Why is there smoke? Because there is something to burn. You might say, doesn’t that body get consumed? No. God will give you a new body specifically for this. It’s a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction.

    Revelation 20:10–15 — The Lake of Fire

    But what’s important is that this is the key to interpreting the word “second death” that’s going to come up. All right? Revelation 20:10-15.

    And the devil, this is talking about the devil, and the devil who received them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. That’s the demons, right?

    Remember previously we saw a verse that said, “You will be thrown into that same lake.” Remember we saw that verse. Okay. Then I saw verse 11. Then I saw a great white throne, and him who sat upon it, whose presence the earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them.

    And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. The books were open. Another book was open, which is a book of life.

    And the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books according to their deeds. Verse 13. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it.

    Death and Hades, remember before we talked about Hades being the holding period. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

    This is the second death, the lake of fire.

    And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. So we knew from Revelation 14 that what happens in the lake of fire is that you are tormented forever and ever. That’s why you can’t interpret this word “second death” as actual final annihilation.

    You have to interpret this in the same light as Revelation 14 which we just read. In that fire the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. Okay. Last one. Revelation 21:5-8.

    Revelation 20:15: “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

    Revelation 21:5–8 — A Portion in the Lake of Fire

    Okay, I’ll just read the last verse.

    Verse eight: “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexual immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

    This fire does not cause annihilation because it says here that you will have a part in that lake. How can you have a part in that lake if you are annihilated?

    You have a part in that. What this means is that you have a portion of that lake of fire reserved just for you. That is your corner of the lake of fire.

    “You have a portion of that lake of fire reserved just for you — your corner of the lake of fire.”

    The Full Picture of Hell

    Something really terrible to think about. And there’s also conscious signs of actual torment.

    Okay. We’re out of time. Look at this chart here. This is all the things we talked about as we went through hell: fire, anger, abhorrence, pain, contempt, burning, outer darkness, no rest, unquenching fire, agony, weeping, thirsty, no mercy, disgrace.

    We’re thrown into it by Jesus. You’re awake and there’s eternal punishment. I think we even—yeah, worm. All of these things is what hell looks like.

    “Fire, agony, pain, contempt, darkness, no rest, no mercy, weeping — all of this is what hell looks like.”

    Christ Suffered This for Us

    And just to close with this one thought: Christ suffered this for us on the cross. Now he may not have suffered that in our concept of duration. Right, eternity is a long time, but Jesus is an infinite God. Whatever we have to say about that, sometimes we think about this like it’s just three days. I could probably suffer for three days too, like no, that’s not how it is.

    Jesus suffered in a way that is almost impossible to comprehend. It’s not less than what you suffered in hell. It’s not less than hell. It’s not less than how you would have suffered in hell for eternity. In fact, it’s all of that crammed together, and in some way we don’t understand, he took all of that punishment.

    And not just for one person, but for all who would believe. That’s like millions. And that’s what he did on the cross for us.

    So hopefully as we take communion today, that will give us something to think about. Tomorrow, next time I’m going to be talking a little bit more about the consequences of these and maybe a little bit more directly addressing annihilationism.

    If you have questions, please send them to me. The better your questions, the better I’ll be able to prepare for them for Sunday school next week. But if you don’t send me any questions, that’s great. We can just have a party or something, right?

    All right, let’s pray. Father, thank you for this word. Even though it is a hard word, it is really just so sobering, and we just really needed to read it from your scripture because we had to be convinced of this because of the horribleness of it.

    We don’t like to think about this. I don’t even like to think about this. We don’t like to talk about it. We don’t like to contemplate it because if we do for too long, we go absolutely crazy.

    “Christ suffered in a way almost impossible to comprehend — not less than how you would have suffered in hell for eternity.”

    Closing Prayer

    But we pray, Lord, that we would be spurred on to really warn people of this impending judgment. What could be worse than this?

    We pray, Lord, that you would save many even here today. I pray in Christ’s name. Amen.

    Thank you everyone.

  • Lesson 23: Pre-Millennial Return of Christ, Questions

    Lesson 23: Pre-Millennial Return of Christ, Questions

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This rough transcript was automatically generated by YouTube’s AI algorithm. We provide it here for your convenience, but know it will surely contain errors as it has not been proofread or edited by a human.

    Welcome back to Sunday school and to our defending doctrinal distinctive series.

    Today’s part two of our look at our church’s doctrine of the premillennial return of Christ. And I’ll be looking to address common questions and objections to this doctrine. Just for review, what do we mean by a premillennial return of Christ or premillennialism?

    Well, we referring to that teaching in esquetology or the study of last things as to when Christ will return to the earth. Premillennialism is the teaching that Christ will return before the millennial kingdom. That is before the earthly messianic 1,000-year kingdom. Jesus will return before that to set it up and to extend its worldwide dominion.

    Premillennialism opposes postmillennialism.

    Postmillennial millennialism is the teaching that Christ will return after believers set up and rule over Christ’s kingdom in hisstead. He comes at the end of that kingdom to finish it, administer the last judgment, and begin the eternal state. That’s the postmillennial view.

    Premillennialism also opposes a millennialism, which teaches that Christ will come in the future finally to judge the world and usher in the eternal state, but without a literal 10,000-year kingdom. This is because Christ’s kingdom, in their view, is spiritual or is already here in the church.

    Now, my main assertion to you last time is that premillennialism is the teaching that best fits what the entire Bible has to say about the last days. And I presented to you a pyramid of biblical support for pre-millennialism.

    The bottom layer, the most foundational layer of this pyramid argument is the kingdom mandate from Genesis 1:26-28, which can only be fulfilled by the perfect man, Jesus Christ, perfectly ruling over the earth from the earth.

    The second layer of support is Old Testament prophecies of a future earthly messianic kingdom. These many and detailed prophecies have not yet been fulfilled. Nor can they be justly said to be fulfilled spiritually in the church or in Jesus first coming.

    The third layer of Old Testament or the third layer of support is Old Testament prophecy of imperfect kingdom conditions. We have passages in the Old Testament clearly foretelling a messianic kingdom with far better conditions than we see now on the earth.

    Yet not perfect. not perfect like we know will be the case in God’s eternal state. This is because Jesus coming kingdom has two phases. A first intermediate phase, a much better than now phase that we call the millennial kingdom which is then followed by the perfect eternal state. The fourth layer of support is New Testament prophecy of a future earthly messianic kingdom. And in the New Testament, as we saw this kingdom, Christ’s kingdom is still said to be future. It’s still coming.

    It’s not yet fulfilled. Even after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, we’re told the kingdom is still coming.

    And then the fifth and final layer of support is the explicit description of the millennial kingdom in Revelation 20.

    And when you combine the text of Revelation 20 with the sequence of events in Revelation 19, it fits exactly with the expect expectation of Christ’s return and the kingdom from the Old Testament and New Testament.

    So this is where we’ve already been, but let’s get to some questions and objections to this doctrine of premillennialism. And before that, allow me to pray.

    Heavenly Father, we love you and we love your son and we love his kingdom. God, I pray that you would grant us more understanding about this kingdom and Lord, more understanding about the doctrine of premillennialism and help us not just to be convinced, persuaded theoretically of these things, but that it would inform our hope that it would grab our hearts and make us love you, worship you more, and look forward to being with your son Jesus in his kingdom. Amen.

    Okay, first question.

    What is the difference between historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism?

    I clarified for you last time that the argument that I was presenting for premillennialism was particularly for dispensational premillennialism rather than historic. Okay, what’s the difference? Well, let me show you a handy chart which you might not be able to see from where you’re where you’re sitting. So, if you can’t, just check it out later.

    Both historic and dispensational premill premillennialism fundamentally agree that Jesus will return before his earthly messianic 10,000-year kingdom to set it up and rule. The top one is uh it’s called post-tribulational premillennialism and that is historic premillennialism. And then you see pre-tribulational or dispensational premillennialism underneath it. So both of them agree that Jesus will return before his 10,00ear kingdom. But where they differ is what happens before that. What happens before Jesus return and setting up the kingdom. Generally speaking, there’s plenty of variation among different premillennialists around the world and across time, but generally speaking, historical premillennialists interpret the prophesied judgments of Revelation partly symbolically.

    They see them as taking place now. The tribulation judgments are taking place now in the present age, but getting much worse in the period right before Christ’s return.

    Historic premillennialists therefore also assert that the church will go through the judgments rather than be raptured away.

    And historic premillennialists hold that though Israel will one day be saved nationally, Israel has no special role in the millennial kingdom because it is incorporated into the church.

    Now, why is one view called historic and the other called dispensational?

    Well, the answer has to do with when historically these two different viewpoints became prominent, which is part of my answer to the next question.

    Isn’t dispensational premillennialism a relatively new teaching?

    Why should we accept dispensational premillennialism over the amillennialism that the global church has believed in for most of its history?

    Okay, we must be careful with well you’re going against what the church has always taught type of argument. This is the same argument that is routinely mustered out by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church against Protestantism. They say look for most of its history or from the beginning this is what the church has taught. We believe in baptismal regeneration or other things and you’re going against what the church has always taught.

    Is the witness of church history worth considering?

    Yes. Is there value to the adage, if it’s new, it’s not true, but if it’s old, it’s gold?

    Yes. We must beware of complete novelty.

    But what is the oldest authority to which we must ultimately look? Is it church history? No. What is it?

    It’s the scriptures.

    May God be found true, though every man be proved a liar. Romans 3:4.

    Our consciences must ultimately be held captive to the scriptures, not church tradition.

    Remember, there was already error and heresy in the apostolic church before the scriptures were even finished being written. If you want proof of that, just read the scriptures. Look at the things that the apostles and their associates were dealing with. So if that’s true in the Bible, why should we assume that the early church or the reformation church must have been perfect in their understanding and unpolluted in their understanding of doctrine?

    Actually, church history is enlightening as to what extra biblical influences have partly shaped Christian thinking about Christ’s return.

    And allow me to briefly sketch the history of esqueological belief in the church to make this point.

    Though there has always been some variety in Christian thinking on esquetology, the early church between the first and fourth centuries was predominantly premillennial but of the historic pre premillennialism variety. Hence the name historic premillennialism.

    Early Christians believe that Christ would come back to establish an earthly 10,000-year kingdom after the church suffered through an intense period of tribulation.

    And why should this esqueological stance in the early church not surprise us?

    Because that’s what they were experiencing. They’re like, it just keeps getting worse in the Roman Empire.

    These emperor-led persecutions just keep getting worse. We must be heading towards Christ’s kingdom. It must be about to arrive. We’ve got to go through the tribulation first.

    But in the 4th century, historic premillennialism began to give way to a millillennialism in the thoughts of many Christians. There was now the there was more and more the prevailing belief that Christ’s kingdom had already come and exists spiritually in the church. And for those of you who know your history, what great change took place for Christians in the 4th century?

    Constantine gained control of the Roman Empire and he legalized Christianity.

    Persecution against Christians stopped.

    Add to that the increasing popularity by that time of an allegorical hermeneutic for studying the Bible, the bizarre speculations of some premillennialists as to what the kingdom would be like, and the heretical claims of other premillennialists that the promised kingdom had already arrived and premillennialism gradually came under disrepute.

    To many Christians in the 300s and 400s AD, the doctrine of the chiliasts, which is what they were called back then, not premillennialists. The doctrine of the chilass didn’t seem to accord with reality and it seemed crassly materialistic compared to the spiritual interpretations of the amillennialists.

    Thus the great Augustine of Hippo.

    He was a chiliast but he became an amalennialist and his theology largely set the course for the medieval church including in esquetology.

    The church would remain generally though not universally amillennialist through the medieval period and into the reformation period.

    You might ask, well surely the great reformers like Luther and Calvin as they recaptured proper Bible interpretation, they would rediscover premillennialism, right?

    Well, no. The reformers were largely content to accept the amillennialism of the medieval church. And they could do this because their literal hermeneutic was really what we would call today a redemptive historical hermeneutic or New Testament priority hermeneutic. The reformers were great at teaching New Testament passages in a plain sense way.

    except for maybe Revelation. But whenever they encountered an Old Testament passage, especially foretelling the millennial kingdom, they did not interpret it according to its original context, but they spiritualized it according to New Testament truths.

    Meanwhile, pre premillennialism once again came under suspicion during the reformation period because the doctrine became associated with radical anabaptists who preached violent revolt to usher in Christ’s return and kingdom.

    So amalism remains dominant into the reformation period. By the modern period, however, or the 1700s, 1800s, premillennialism became resurgent and another esqueological point of view was on the rise and that is postmillennialism.

    Though some of the English Puritans were already trending in a post-millennialist direction, the two theologians who brought this view to new prominence were Daniel Whitby and Jonathan Edwards. Yes, the Jonathan Edwards, the great American theologian.

    Taking a s symbolic view of revelation and majoring on statements in the New Testament about the gospel being preached throughout the whole world in the power of the spirit. The early postmillennialists taught that the world was going to get better and better. The Protestant Reformation had kicked off a chain reaction leading to the decline of the papacy which Edwards saw as the antichrist.

    With Antichrist defeated then in the Roman Catholic Church, true believers would now Christianize the whole world until the earth entered a golden age of peace and prosperity just like the prophets foretold.

    In the end of it, end of which Christ would return.

    And by the way, if you know your history, what other events of the 1700s and early 1800s would have encouraged optimism for the worlds in Christianity’s future?

    First great awakening in the mid 1700s, the American Revolution, which amazingly was victorious, the second great awakening in the early 1800s, and then in the background, the enlightenment. Even people who were not true believers, they were looking at the scientific revolution and the new philosophical thought like we can make the world better if we just think about it, educate ourselves, practice science, we can fix all the problems of the world. And Christians reflected that in this new postmillennialism.

    tellingly, postm millennialism would fall out of popular favor by the early 20 20th century as bleeer world realities such as the American Civil War, industrialization, urbanization, failed social reforms, they made people more pessimistic about the future.

    As support for postmillennialism began to decline in the mid 1800s, a new form of premillennialism emerged from the theological system of John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. And this system was called dispensationalism.

    Now, it wasn’t called dispensationalism at first, but it was later given that label because the teaching was marked by a view of different dispensations or ages of history in which God interacts with his chosen people differently.

    Dispensational premillennialism. So, we’re talking about the esquetology of dispensationalism. It became marked by two clear features.

    a obvious distinction between Israel and the church and a pre-tribulational rapture. That is the teaching that the church would be raptured from the earth before the tribulation judgments while God continued his plans with Israel.

    Dispensational premillennialism soon became quite popular in America partly due to the ministries of evangelist DL Moody and steady Bible writer CI Scoffield.

    Today in American evangelicalism at least you can find adherence of all four escatological views main esqueological views though postmillennialism remains in the minority.

    Now what are some important takeaways from this church history sketch? Well first hopefully you’ve noticed this.

    Generally speaking Christian esquetology has not been strictly based on God’s word but has been heavily influenced by the cultures and circumstances in which Christians find themselves.

    We cannot therefore simply say well the earliest view must be correct or the majority view must be correct.

    We must instead be extra careful to make sure that our view is truly based on the Bible and not just culture and circumstances.

    Second though a late comer dispensational premillennialism is the only one that emerges from a consistently applied literal hermeneutic.

    All other main forms of millennialism, they require some level of allegorism either of revelation and or the Old Testament prophets.

    And then third, you may have noticed dispensational premillennialism has gained certain negative associations that are not due to the teaching itself, but due to the extreme positions or actions of some of its adherence. That’s true historically, and I’d say it’s still true today. There are some things associated with this doctrine that actually aren’t part of it that some people don’t like. Anyways, that’s all the time I have for this question right now.

    But a related question for number three.

    John MacArthur once called himself a leaky dispensationalist.

    What does that mean? And would Calvary hold to a similar theological position?

    Okay, so probably most of you know who Pastor John MacArthur was. Influential pastor at Grace Community Church in Los Angeles, California, founder of the Master Seminary, where I received my formal training.

    John MacArthur used this label and explained this label and several sound bites that you can find on the internet.

    Basically, what he meant by being a leaky dispensationalist is that he was dispensationalist in his esquetology, but he didn’t necessarily buy into the whole theological system of dispensationalism.

    In one clip, I heard Pastor MacArthur say the following. Here is my dispensationalism.

    Israel and the church are different.

    That was it.

    So, if that’s what’s meant by a leaky dispensationalist, then yeah, the elders at Calvary take a similar stance. While we are dispensational premillennialists, we don’t hold to the whole theological system of dispensationalism like it’s seven dispensations or whatever.

    Actually like pastor MacArthur we here at Calvary are a bit of a exotic hybrid animal. We are reformed in our sotiology that is in our understanding of the doctrine of salvation and God’s sovereignty in salvation. But we are dispensational in our esquetology. We are pre-tribulation rapture premillennialists.

    Normally those two doctrinal stances don’t go together. If you’re reformed, you’re on millennialist or reformed in your salvation understanding. Well, if you’re dispensational or esquetology, well, then you’re not necessarily reformed.

    But we are we are those two things and we don’t embrace a millennialism. Well, how can that be? Well, that’s because we want our doctrine to be informed by the study of scripture itself rather than by a tradition or an impressively organized theological system.

    Not necessarily saying that we’re perfect in every single area, but until you show us from the scriptures, until we learn it from the scriptures, we’re not just going to go with the system, nor are we going to follow tradition.

    So, we are content to be this hybrid, this grouping of reformed sitiology with dispensational esquetology.

    Okay, speaking of MacArthur’s quote, fourth question, are the church and Israel really separate?

    How does such a teaching fit with the New Testament teaching of Jew and Gentile being fellow inheritors in Christ’s church? Is the New Testament constantly emphasizing Jew and Gentile coming together? We’re all one. We’re all fellow inheritors.

    So why are we saying that the church and Israel are separate?

    Well, this is a common objection from amillennialists against dispensational premillennialists. You see, amillennialism is an outgrowth of superessionistic theology.

    Superessionistic theology. What is supersessionism?

    Also called fulfillment theology or replacement theology. Supersessionism is the teaching that the church supersedes Old Testament Israel as the new people of God. Consequently, the church is the new spiritual Israel and the fulfillment of all God’s original designs for Israel.

    Superersessionism is a huge topic and is at the heart of the debate between dispensational premillennialists and amalillennialists.

    There’s no way I can offer a thorough critique of superessionism right now, but I will present a briefly outline response and I’m borrowing this from Dr.

    from Michael Lockach as I was taught in his theology course at seminary.

    Here’s a briefly outlined response as to why the New Testament while stressing Jew and Gentile unity in the church does not teach supersessionism that the church becomes the new Israel. Got six points here. Number one, the church is never called Israel in the New Testament.

    Rather, even after the eklesia, the church is born, the New Testament writers are careful to maintain the distinction between ethnic national Israel and the church.

    The title Israel is used 73 times in the New Testament. And outside of a couple of disputed verses, it is always clearly used of ethnic Jews. Israel refers to ethnic Jews. Now, what are the two disputed verses? Galatians 6:16 is one.

    Galatians 6:16 says, this is the close of the book of Galatians or near the close. And those who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God.

    Okay, the supersessionist interpretation of this verse is that the and in Galatians 6:16 is epexetical, which means that it has the sense of even. It’s just further describing the group that was just mentioned. So those who walk according to this rule, which in context would be the Galatian Gentiles, they are seen as the same as the Israel of God.

    Uh peace and mercy be upon those who walk upon the walk with this rule, even the Israel of God.

    Thus, the New Testament church must be the new Israel of God.

    But this interpretation is weak for several reasons. First, as noted, the normal use of Israel in the New Testament is for ethnic the ethnic nation of Jews. So why should this one verse be the only exception?

    Second, the Greek word for and kai, it usually has the sense of and rather than the epexetical sense of even. So why are we reaching for the rarer sense here in this verse? Why can’t it just be and talking about two different groups?

    Third, the immediate context and the context of this letter is the Judaizing menace in the Galatian church. That is, there were Jewish Christians teaching Christian Gentiles that those Gentiles better keep the law of Moses or they’re going to lose their salvation.

    And by the end of the letter, Paul has thoroughly repudiated the Judaizers. But in these closing words, he acknowledges that not all the Jewish believers in Galatia have taken up this Judaizing stance. So Paul pronounces a blessing on two different but related groups. Peace and mercy upon the Gentiles who walk according to the apostles rule rather than the rule of the Judaizers. And peace and mercy upon the Jews, the Israel of God who do likewise.

    This interpretation makes better sense than the supersessionistic one.

    The other disputed verse is Romans 9:6.

    Romans 9:6 reads, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” The supersessionist interpretation is that Paul’s distinguishing between two Israel. The first Israel is the Israel of God composed of believing Jews and Gentiles. It’s the church. It’s the new Israel. And the second Israel that is ethnic and not necessarily believing Israel.

    But again, this superstition, the supersessionist interpretation is unjustified. Paul is indeed making a distinction here in Romans 9:6, but not one involving the church. Paul is saying within ethnic Israel there are believing Jews who are in one sense the true Israel and the real inheritors of God’s ancient promises to Israel.

    And this sense would be the exact same as Paul’s in Galatians 6:16 that I just argued for. There’s no need to import a supersessionist idea into Romans 9:6 or into Galatians 6:16. All right, so this is the first point. The church has never called Israel the New Testament. Two, the New Testament affirms a future for the nation of Israel and thus cannot also have the church be the new Israel.

    Several passages I can point to as examples and some of them some of them are paralleled. So you see it in Matthew, but then you see it repeated in Luke or uh something like that. In Matthew 19:28, Jesus promises his disciples that they will rule over the 12 tribes of Israel after the coming restoration.

    Okay? So there is a there must be a future for Israel because the disciples are going to be ruling over them. The 12 tribes in Matthew 23:37-39 and it’s Luke parallel. Jesus warns Jerusalem or Jesus promises Jerusalem that it will be judged for rejecting God’s prophets, including the Messiah, your house is left to you desolate, but also that it will one day be restored so that the inhabitants will one day say to the Messiah, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Okay, if he’s going to promise both of those things, then there must be a future for Israel.

    And Luke 21:24, Luke 21:24, Jesus says, “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” That little word until is key because it means there must be a future for Israel.

    There won’t Jerusalem and by extension the nation of Israel, it will not always be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles.

    And then Acts 16-7, which are verses that we covered last time. From Acts 1:6-7, the disciples ask Jesus after 40 days of teaching about the kingdom of God whether Jesus is about to restore the kingdom of Israel.

    And though Jesus tells the disciples not to worry about God’s timing, Jesus does not correct their expectation, which strongly suggests that there is a future for the nation of Israel that’s separate from the church.

    Three, the New Testament explicitly affirms that the covenants and promises still belong to the nation of Israel.

    Romans 9:3 and4. Romans 9:3 and4. This is Paul.

    For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the temple service, and the promises.

    Notice the word belongs in the text I just read to you. It’s present tense, not previously belonged to. Belongs currently. Despite the inauguration of the church, despite the Jewish nation’s ongoing unbelief, the covenants and promises, Paul says, still belong to the nation of Israel.

    Four, the doctrine of election ensures Israel’s continuing role in the plan of God.

    Consider, why did God choose Israel in the first place?

    Did they earn their way into God’s favor, God’s selection?

    No. Deuteronomy 7:7 to8 clarifies that Israel was the weakest of all peoples when God called them.

    Yet they were the ones on whom God chose to set his love.

    In Romans 11:1-2, Romans 11 1-2a, it reaffirms God’s special choice of the people of Israel.

    Paul says there, I say then, God has not rejected his people, has he? May it never be. For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he forneew.

    Now notice twice in these two verses Paul says that God has not rejected his people.

    Not merely believing individuals among his people, the remnant of Israel that Paul will go on to describe in verse 5 of Romans 11, but rather God has not rejected his entire people, the people of Israel.

    And notice also he calls these people Paul describes these people as the people whom God forneew and forneew is a loaded term in the New Testament when describing God because it does not refer to simple fornowledge as amazing as that would be that God forneew all of Israel’s sin and rejection and yet still chose them. No, God’s fornowing in the New Testament is only used of those beloved by God and destined for salvation.

    As one theologian said, to be for to be fornown by God in the New Testament is to be for loved by God.

    And Paul says Israel is fornown. The people of Israel are fornown for loved by God as a chosen people.

    They are elect.

    This divine election therefore of a whole people distinct from the church.

    It cannot fail. Just as divine election and salvation cannot fail, so God’s divine election of the people of Israel.

    For one day being redeemed and used by God according to his original purposes, it cannot fail. The faithfulness of God demands it.

    Five, Romans 11:26 explicitly affirms a salvation future for national Israel.

    Romans 11:26, “And so all Israel will be saved.” Can you get a clearer statement in the New Testament about Israel’s future salvation?

    Of course, supersessionists will say, “Well, this just refers to spiritual Israel. All the elect Jews and Gentiles in God’s new spiritual Israel will one day be saved.” But this interpretation is just special pleading.

    As already noted, the New Testament only uses the term Israel to refer to ethnic Jews. Furthermore, the previous 10 references to Israel in Romans 9:11 must refer to ethnic Israel. So why would Paul suddenly refer to spiritual Israel in Romans 11:26?

    Finally, and most importantly, the whole flow of thought in Romans 11 demands that verse 26 refer to national Israel.

    Because what is Paul’s main point? That God’s election of Israel has not failed.

    The partial hardening of Israel from God is just temporary and it is accomplishing a great good. It is so that God can bring the Gentiles into salvation also.

    But is that it? No. Romans 11:15. For if there that is Israel’s rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

    Now, did you catch that? Paul’s implying that Israel’s acceptance of God and his Messiah will happen one day. And it will be like life from the dead for the world.

    And consider how good Israel’s rejection of Jesus has been for the world. We’re all saved because of that. The the gospel came to the Gentiles because of that. And yet he says, “It’s going to be so much better when Israel accepts, when Israel believes.” Paul repeats this idea in verse 25, right before verse 26, that informs what verse 26 must be about. And as if that weren’t enough, what right after that statement in verse 26, what does Paul say as he goes into verse 27? Paul cites Old Testament prophecy about how Israel, Zion, Jacob will one day be saved as a nation.

    So, no, all Israel in Romans 11:26 is not the church. It’s all Israel, the nation finally saved and restored to be what God has always meant for them to be, a blessing to the whole earth.

    Six, the use of certain terms for the church when those terms were previously used for Israel does not automatically mean that the church is Israel.

    In 1 Peter 2:9-10, we see some descriptions that were previously used of Israel used to describe New Testament believers. Believers are, Peter says, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, the people of God.

    Those were all things that were said of Israel before.

    However, it does not follow that using these same descriptures means that the two groups are now the exact same.

    Rather, it just means that the things that Israel was, the church is now, too.

    Or at least in these particular descriptors. To say that another way, the people of God may expand without all those people becoming Israel.

    Galatians 3:7 and Galatians 3:29, they also describe Christians as sons of Abraham and Abraham’s descendants, which supersessionists take as proof that Christians are now spiritual Israel.

    Look, you’re descendants of Abraham and Abraham was the father of Israel, so you are now Israel.

    But this interpretation forgets Romans 4:9-12. Romans 4:9-12, which stresses that Abraham believed and was accounted righteous when while uncircumcised.

    Which then Paul explains this enables Abraham to be the father of faith for the uncircumcised, the Gentiles, and because he was later circumcised, the father of faith to the circumcised, to the Jews.

    In short, being a spiritual son of Abraham does not make you a spiritual does not make you spiritual Israel because Abraham is the father in terms of faith of both Jew and Gentile.

    Okay, so that’s my brief argument, my outline defense.

    In conclusion, if the New Testament indeed maintains such a clear distinction between the church and Israel, what business has any theological system or esqueological belief have in erasing that distinction?

    Only dispensational premillennialism properly maintains the biblical distinction between Israel and the church.

    Okay, my last prepared question and then we might have time for some extras.

    Doesn’t premillennialism represent a cosmic step backwards in God’s plan for the world? I mean, why would God bring all peoples to worship him in spirit and truth in the church and then go back to a millennial kingdom with ethnic distinctions, temple sacrifices, and material prosperity?

    Isn’t that a step backwards?

    This is an important question, and it is a common objection to premillennialism.

    I remember even while I was in seminary, I had classmates struggling with this idea.

    Is God going backwards?

    Let me give a multi-part response to this question.

    Once again, one, we must be careful to let God explain to us from his word what he thinks is proper and not impose on him and his word what we think is proper.

    This concept is basic to Christianity and it’s part of why we glory in the cross.

    That’s not natural. According to 1 Corinthians 2, the world sees no wisdom or glory in the cross of Christ. But we do.

    And why is that? Is it because we’re naturally smarter, naturally holier than other people?

    No. It’s because God has graciously revealed that glory to us. We have allowed him to teach us, or rather, God has worked in our hearts so that we we want him to teach us. And now we we cannot help but say, “The way you’ve done it, God, is glorious. It’s way more glorious than anybody could have come up with.

    God caused us to give up our own ideas as to what salvation or God should be so that we embrace what he’s actually done as perfect.

    We must take a similar approach to esquetology.

    You cannot look at a passage of the Bible, some prophecy, and say, “Well, surely God cannot mean this because this is too” and then fill in the blank.

    Do your proper exes Jesus of the passage. Compare it to other scriptures, but ultimately let God explain to you from the text what he’s doing and why.

    Don’t bring assumptions. Especially don’t bring a theological tradition or system and then impose it on the text because this must be what God would do.

    Along these lines, I always remember something that Pastor Greg said to me years ago. I don’t remember the conversation, but I remember the quote.

    He said, “When it comes to theology, you can either be biblical or you can be consistent. You cannot be both.” That is to say, if you have a nice, polished, fully satisfying theological system in your mind, you’re probably not being completely biblical.

    Yes, the Bible does agree with itself.

    Scripture cannot be broken, but it has plenty of details that we do not fully understand. It has plenty of surprises as to what God has chosen to do. So, if you fit all of that cleanly into your system, you’ve probably chopped off a few pieces. You probably smoothed out some rough edges to make it fit so nicely. We have to beware of doing that.

    Let’s let God be God. Let’s let him teach us what he’s going to do.

    Two, beware Christian Plattonism affecting your esquetology.

    What is Christian Platonism? Multiverse of Platonism. What is Plonism? It’s the philosophy of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who most famously taught that there is a perfect world of mental forms that was different and separate from the imperfect world of matter in which we all live.

    If you can’t follow what that even means, don’t worry about it. Just know that the practical effect of Plonism was dualism.

    Plonists learned to see the material world as inferior and even evil while the spiritual world was superior and good.

    In the third and fourth centuries of the church, platonism found its way into Christianity, especially by way of the allegorical hermeneutic. The allegorical hermeneutic itself was a style of interpretation popular in Greek philosophy that looked for hidden spiritual meaning over the literal one. in texts.

    Christian Plattonism in the third and fourth centuries, it began to undergur many of the church’s attitudes and practices going into the medieval period period. This is why many Christians were driven towards aeticism and celibacy.

    This is why Christians look for extra spiritual meanings in the Bible beyond the literal. And this is partly why Christians turn from premillennialism to a millennialism. Because after all, doesn’t the Bible teach that the spiritual is superior to the material?

    But actually, let me ask you, does the Bible teach platonic dualism?

    Yes, you’re actually going where I was looking to go, Mark. So, you mentioned that in second Corinthians.

    Second Corinthians does talk about the things that are unseen are and and eternal are superior to the things that are seen and temporal. Yes, there are certain ways in which Platonic dualism does seem to fit the scriptures and this is why Christians integrated it in the early centuries.

    The Bible does teach that you are not to neglect the spiritual for the material, nor should you sacrifice the eternal for that which is merely temporal.

    But what does the Bible say about physical enjoyments like food or sexual intimacy in marriage? Does it say h I suppose we can allow these for you unspiritual carnal people out there? Is that what the Bible teaches? No. It says enjoy these to the glory of God. Stop forbidding these out of some false spirituality or vain aestheticism.

    And consider where the Bible says that we’re going. What is the final destination of the redeemed?

    Is it heaven?

    No. What is it?

    It’s earth. It’s the new earth.

    And what will be our makeup on this new earth? Will we be freed as our true selves as disembodied spirits?

    No. What will we be instead?

    We will be souls and resurrected bodies.

    Indeed, our makeup from the beginning as humans has been a mysterious mixture of body and soul. We are not souls trapped in a body like Plato taught. We are body and soul. This is why there’s a a a level of anxiety almost when Paul in the New Testament talks about our need for resurrection. We want to be clothed. We don’t want to stay unclothed. We need those bodies. We need those glorified resurrected bodies.

    I say all this because I don’t want you to get caught in the error of many Christians over the centuries to believe that God’s plan has been to gradually free us from this physical world into a timeless spiritual existence.

    Many otherwise sound preachers have taught that our ultimate destiny is just the beific vision. The beific vision like a blessed vision. That is to say that where we’re going is that we’re just going to arrive at this place where we stare at and are thrilled by the glory of Christ in a moment of worship that never ends.

    That’s it. That’s what eternity is going to be all about. We’re just going to be looking at Christ. Time’s going to stop and we’re just going to be so fully satisfied.

    Is that what the Bible teaches?

    No. The Bible does not say that we are destined for some mysterious ether.

    before an actual city on an actual earth where there’s physical delights like rivers and trees, dazzling gold and jewels and food and drink.

    Didn’t Jesus promise his disciples in the last supper, I will not drink this fruit of the vine again until I drink it new with you where in my father’s kingdom in the kingdom of God. Jesus himself is going to eat and drink with us in the coming kingdom.

    Now of course these physical things are not what the millennium or the eternal state is all about. There is some truth to the botific vision idea because it is eternity is all about Christ. It is all about the trinity. We will be fundamentally enjoying the trinity in worship forever as we rule and reign with Christ.

    But these material things in the coming kingdom which the Bible clearly says will be there, they are not a replacement of God. They’re not to detract from our worship of God. They assist in the worship of God. Just as the material things are meant to do right now, premillennialism with this expectation of an earthly kingdom and bumper crops and animals at peace with one another instead of a merely spiritual kingdom that only exists in the heart of God’s people. This is not a step back in God’s plans that we better spiritualize because that’s that’s no good. No, it’s a purposeful progression for this body soul creation that God has made and called mankind.

    God has destined us. He has foretold us that we are going into a kingdom that is both physical and spiritual as that corresponds to what God made us to be, what God made us as. We are physical and spiritual beings and all that will be ultimately to the glory of God. And honestly, that’s a lot easier to look forward to than some abstract spiritual existence. It’s really hard to get excited about this idea of we’re just going to stare at Jesus and time’s going to stop. That’s totally different than anything that we know now. It’s definitely going to be different than the things we know right now, but there will be some things that are familiar and yet so much better.

    And that the scripture gives us that for our hope. Okay, that’s two points so far. I think I have two more. Three, even if we don’t immediately understand why God goes back to Israel and certain Israelite institutions, the Bible’s abundant testimony is that he will in faithfulness to his promises.

    The Bible’s clear. The people of Israel will again be brought back into their land as in a second exodus from all the corners of the world. There will again be a kingdom in Jerusalem with a temple and priests and animal sacrifices. There will again be yearly religious feasts like the feast of booze. There will again be the concepts of ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness related to God’s temple.

    And you say, “But why?” We don’t get a full explanation in the Bible, but we do learn in detail that this is what God is going to do.

    And to that response, I must quickly add one other observation.

    God, this is number four. God will not truly go back to what Israel used to be because restored Israel will be different.

    Don’t get the impression that dispensational premillennialism means that Israel will be like it was in the old covenant.

    Not at all. rather as Jeremiah 31 prophesied, Israel will finally be under the new covenant. That’s kind of an amazing thing. We we we glory in the new covenant as New Testament Christians, but do you realize the passages that foretell it are speaking about Israel, including Jeremiah 31?

    So, we’re not going back to the old covenant. Israel is proceeding into the new covenant just like God foretold it would. What does that look like? Well, from what God reveals in the Bible, some features of the old covenant or life under the old covenant return, but with some pretty clear differences.

    Case in point, the description of millennial Israel in Ezekiel 40 to48.

    If you’ve never read these chapters, Ezekiel 40-48, they are so interesting.

    They seem at first glance just to be a tedious retelling of the temple and the sacrificial system one day being restored for repentant Israel.

    Except they aren’t because on closer examination, the details have all changed. The temple measurements are completely different than what they were earlier in the Old Testament. The sacrifice rules are different than what was earlier in the Old Testament. The topography of Jerusalem is completely different than what it was in the Old Testament. Even the tribal allotments of the different tribes of Israel, they are different than what they were in the Old Testament. Oh, and God himself is dwelling in and ruling from Israel’s temple.

    So don’t misunderstand the restoration of Israel in the millennial kingdom is not really going back again. It’s a progression forward.

    Yes, in fulfillment of certain things that were never totally fulfilled for Old Testament Israel, but not the same as before. It’s different. It’s better.

    It’s under the new covenant rule of Christ.

    A lot of people struggle in particular over the return of animal sacrifices in the millennial kingdom. Isn’t Jesus the once and for all sacrifice? Why are we having animal sacrifices again?

    Well, certainly these new animal sacrifices, they’re not going to ignore or compete with Jesus once and for all sacrifice for his people. Again, this is going to be Israel under the new covenant. That’s basic to the new covenant. Jesus said, “This is the new covenant in my blood.

    these animal sacrifices are not going to compete with that. But what exactly these sacrifices will mean or what they’re for, I don’t know if we can fully say. There are some good people who who’ve thought about this well and they’ve offered different theories, but I don’t know if we can fully say. But what we can say is it’s not going to be like it was before. It’s going to be different. It’s going to be better.

    And the amazing thing is that we will be there to see it.

    Don’t misunderstand from all I’ve shared with you thus far. It’s not like when we get to the millennial kingdom, church goes to the sideline and now Israel gets the spotlight for a thousand years. Oh no, we’re going to be part of this worldwide kingdom, too, just as Jesus promised his disciples who, by the way, were part of the church. You will judge the 12 tribes of Israel in the restoration. We’re going to be part of that administration as well. Where exactly how exactly? I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t fully tell us. But we’re going to be part of that kingdom. Yes, we the church, we Jews and Gentiles in the church today.

    And just consider, maybe this comes up too. Well, why a thousand years? Like what’s the whole point of that?

    In our existence, in church history, we have seen the impact of generational generational wickedness on the peoples and cultures of the world.

    This is one of the reasons why Solomon can say in Ecclesiastes, “What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is I forget what the second one is,” you can’t fix problems in the world easily because they have become embedded across generations.

    You have to time travel or you have to begin new policies, but then say it’s probably not going to change things for maybe a hundred years.

    But in the millennial kingdom, we’re going to see the opposite. Wouldn’t it be awesome to behold the impact of generational righteousness on the peoples and cultures of the world?

    And not just over a century, but over a span of 1,000 years.

    The Lord has some special glory to put on display in the millennium that we haven’t seen yet. So, we should look forward to that and not dread that or be apathetic about that as if that were some kind of backwards step.

    Okay, that’s it for my prepared questions.

    We do have a little bit of time left.

    What are some additional questions that you have based on what I’ve said or just your own study descriptures asking for questions first if you have comments and come back later? Arthur?

    Yeah, my question is this.

    Um in the Old Test a stranger or gentile wanted to join Israel and they had circumcised and interestingly on my mother’s side for fathers were slaves to Jews household every always had my dad forced them to circumcise her sons.

    So question is if a person was circumcised would you in mind would they be considered partition question let me see okay to repeat your question you talked about family history involving those who were enslaved to Jews required to be circumcised.

    And your question is, they come under the covenant of Abraham.

    If you’re circumcised, do you come under the covenant of Abraham?

    And are you considered a Jew?

    I would say if I’m totally understanding the question, not necessarily because while circumcision is required to become a Jew, not everybody who who practiced circumcision was a Jew. Apparently, there were cultures in the ancient world who practiced circumcision, but they weren’t Jewish. It was one of the marks of being Jewish, but it doesn’t necessarily make you a Jew. There’s there’s more to it than that than circumcision. Remember that in the New Testament, one of the concerns of Jewish Christians is that if you were Jewish and didn’t get circumcised, that somehow you were turning your back on your heritage. But that’s not the case. You can be Jewish and and you can be ethnically Jewish and realize that you don’t have to be circumcised anymore.

    Does that mean that does that mean you you continue to have the Jewish culture?

    I don’t know. I guess I’ll just stick with my my early answer, which is just because you get circumcised, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re Jewish.

    What What will be any sorts of requirements or teaching about circumcision in the millennial kingdom?

    I’m not totally sure. I’d have to think about that question more. Dwayne, I don’t know if you have a comment on that or if you have a separate question.

    Okay, go ahead.

    Yeah, that’s a good question and I’m going to plead a little bit of ignorance there. But Dwayne is bringing up in the Ezekiel passage that I just mentioned, Ezekiel 40 to48, it mentions that God is ruling in Jerusalem from the temple. But it also mentions a prince who seems to have some kind of rule as well. But the prince is not God. And I think he has to offer sacrifices and do other various things. So who’s the prince?

    I don’t know if we can say for sure. I I know one of the theories that I’ve heard is that this is perhaps resurrected or perhaps just a descendant of the Davidic um the Davidic line that you do have a another ruler who will rule in Jerusalem also but is not Jesus and doesn’t do the exact same things that Jesus does. Now again, we’re talking about something that’s different and not fully explained in the Old Testament, but more to the point of we’re not really going backwards. We’re progressing forward in some new things that God is going to do. But I don’t know how to fully answer that question.

    I think it’s one of those one of those mysteries that remains. But I think you had another one.

    question.

    All right, Dwayne’s question.

    Okay, Dwayne’s question is, will there be any unbelievers who enter into the millennial kingdom? Because what about the sheep and the goat judgment? We know that there’ll be unbelievers at the end of the kingdom because of the final satanic rebellion that God judges before the last judgment in the eternal staple.

    Will there be unbelievers who enter into the kingdom?

    I have to think about that question more. I I can’t remember the the placement of the sheep and the goat judgment in the escatological timeline.

    Okay, I have to think about that more, look at that more because I I’m right now not confident in my answer regarding that. But trying to think about what I do know and remember.

    I’m just going to say I don’t know. I have to come back to that question.

    That’s good. I think we have time for one more. Yeah. Cheryl.

    Okay, good question, Cheryl. So, yeah, so I’m going to repeat it. So, Cheryl’s question is what Ezekiel foretold uh in Ezekiel 40 to48 is that before Revelation 21 and the description of the new heavens and the new earth? I would say yes. So the timeline from Revelation 19 to 21, it it is informative. This isn’t just, oh, we’re taking different views of this from different angles and maybe go back to the beginning. That’s the way that many who take a symbolic interpretation of Revelation see it. They say, “Oh, Revelation 20 is just a new perspective on what was talked about in the previous chapters.” No. Revelation 19 talks about the final things that going to happen before Jesus returns the earth. Then it describes Jesus return. Then it describes the millennial kingdom. Then we have at the very end of the passage that I I talked about last time, Revelation 20 1-10. What concludes after that is the final satanic rebellion, the last judgment, and then the then we go into the eternal state, the new heavens and the new earth. And then Revelation 20 and 22 is the description of that place. And tellingly, I believe is in Revelation 21, it talks about some of the imperfect things that we know from the Old Testament still existed in the intermediate millennial kingdom phase.

    They’re gone. Death is gone. Sin is gone. Uh pain and sorrow, they are completely gone. So yes, I would see the description of Ezekiel and other Old Testament passages prophesying the millennium. That would be or have to be a little bit careful talking about the Old Testament passages because some of them do seem to be talking about the eternal state and some of them do seem to be talking about the intermediate phase. But Revelation 40-48, I’m sorry, Ezekiel 40-48 does seem to be talking about that intermediate phase.

    Okay, I’m sure there are more questions.

    If there are some that I didn’t get to that you think of later or that you didn’t get to ask right now, let me know. Submit it to me and maybe we can come back to it in the elder Q&A which we’ll do at the very end of this course.

    I am going to come back later and present an overview of and a defense for a pre-tribulational rapture because that is something that I’ve I’ve mentioned is often part of dispensational or that is part of dispensational premillennialism.

    But I want to give a whole separate discussion to that issue. We’re not going to do that next time. We’re actually going to split that discussion with two lessons from Pastor Greg talking about another escatological reality that is important but also extremely controversial. And that is the doctrine of eternal punishment. Hell and eternal punishment. Is it real? Is it annihilationism? Is it eternal conscious torment? We’ll talk about our church’s stance on that and give an overview in defense. Let me end our time today with prayer.

    Lord God, I have sought to present these things as your scripture teaches them, and yet I confess there’s a lot that I don’t understand. There’s a lot of mystery that still remains, yet what you have declared is sufficient for us. And wow, it is so glorious. God, you are faithful. You are faithful to your church and you are faithful to Israel.

    Though you have given her a certificate of divorce for a time, you will, as Hosea says, come back and woo her, and you will betro her to you forever in righteousness. So Lord, we look forward to seeing that. We look forward to seeing your purposes fulfilled and the whole earth renewed in the government of the Messiah on the earth. But Lord, help us to be faithful until you come and help us to encourage one another with the hope of where we’re going in Jesus name. Amen.

  • Lesson 22: Pre-Millennial Return of Christ, Overview

    Lesson 22: Pre-Millennial Return of Christ, Overview

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    The Bible teaches a premillennial return of Christ—that Jesus will return before establishing a thousand-year earthly kingdom. This doctrine is not peripheral but is rooted in the totality of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. We are reminded that God’s original mandate for mankind to rule the earth on His behalf was never revoked despite the Fall, and only the God-man Jesus Christ can fulfill that mandate.

    Through a careful pyramid of biblical evidence—the Genesis kingdom mandate, Old Testament prophecies of a future earthly messianic kingdom, prophecies of imperfect conditions within that kingdom, New Testament affirmations, and the explicit statements of Revelation 20—we are shown that premillennialism is the eschatological view most consistent with all of Scripture.

    Key Lessons:

    1. God’s original creation mandate for mankind to rule the earth was never revoked; Psalm 8 confirms it remains in effect despite the Fall, and only Jesus Christ can ultimately fulfill it.
    2. Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and Zechariah prophesied a future earthly kingdom of peace, righteousness, and prosperity ruled by the divine Messiah—prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled.
    3. Prophecies of imperfect conditions (sin, death, and punishment) within the messianic kingdom prove there must be two phases: a millennial kingdom followed by the perfect eternal state.
    4. The New Testament consistently affirms a future earthly kingdom, and Revelation 20 explicitly describes a thousand-year reign of Christ six times.

    Application: We are called to study eschatology seriously rather than dismissing it, recognizing that what we believe about the end times shapes our hope, our daily conduct, and our worship. We should anchor our hope in Christ’s promised return and coming kingdom rather than in human efforts to perfect this world.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How does understanding that God’s kingdom mandate from Genesis 1 has never been revoked change the way you view Jesus’s future return and reign?
    2. Why is it important to let the Old Testament prophecies speak on their own terms rather than reinterpreting them through a spiritualized lens?
    3. How should the hope of Christ’s coming millennial kingdom practically affect the way you live, the decisions you make, and what you place your hope in?

    Scripture Focus: Genesis 1:26-28 (the kingdom mandate), Psalm 8:4-6 (mandate reaffirmed), Isaiah 2:2-4, 9:6-7, 11:6-10, 25:7-8, 65:17-25 (Old Testament kingdom prophecies), Zechariah 14:1-21 (Messiah’s future victory and reign), Matthew 5:5, 19:28, Luke 21:31, Acts 1:6, Revelation 5:10, and Revelation 20:1-10 (the millennial kingdom explicitly described).

    Outline

    Introduction

    Welcome back to our defending doctrinal distinctives Sunday school series in which your elders, your pastors at the church are going through the most controversial yet critical doctrines that we teach at this church that are part of our statement of faith. Allow me to pray as we begin.

    Thank you, Skip. Heavenly Father, we love your word. We love your truth. We want to know it and if at all possible, be united in it. I pray that this class will be part of building that growth in knowledge and growth in unity at our church today. Give me the ability to explain, manage the time well, and give us the ability to understand and to give you glory for what you reveal in your word. In Jesus’ name, amen.

    Okay, we are now in the last leg of our defending doctrinal distinctives course. We only have four more topics to discuss and then we have our last elder Q&A before the summer.

    In today’s topic, we’re going into eschatology, the doctrine of last things, and specifically why the elders hold to premillennialism. That is a premillennial return of Christ. You see that in the Sunday school title.

    Now, unless you’ve been around the church a while or just know eschatology, you might not know what a term like premillennialism means. It would be helpful as we begin to define that term and a few others.

    When it comes to what God is going to do in the last days of the world, there are three main millennialism teachings: premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism.

    Each of these terms is descriptive of a doctrinal position as to when Christ will return in relation to a promised 1,000-year kingdom. By the way, that’s where the term millennialism comes from. It comes from the word millennium, which means what? A thousand years.

    So what do each of these terms mean? Premillennialism is the teaching that Christ will return pre, or before, the 1,000-year kingdom to set it up.

    Postmillennialism is the teaching that Christ returns post, or after, the 1,000-year kingdom to finish it and usher in the eternal state.

    Amillennialism teaches, well, what does the “a” or “a” prefix in English normally indicate? Not or without. So you think of terms like amoral, meaning without morals, or atypical, not typical.

    So amillennialism teaches that Christ will return but without a 1,000-year kingdom. This is because, well, there are various explanations, but perhaps because Jesus’ kingdom is only spiritual or because it’s already here in the church.

    Why Eschatology Matters

    But which of these views is correct? The arguments over these doctrines have gone on for centuries.

    Is the Bible even clear on the issue?

    Does your millennialism even matter?

    Why don’t we all just adopt what some have called a panmillennialist view? That would be: we know that Christ is coming back, but as for the details, we’ll just have to see how it pans out.

    To be sure, what you believe about the end times is not an issue of your salvation. You do not need to be a premillennialist to be saved, nor do you need to be a premillennialist to be a member of this church.

    But we must reject the idea that eschatology is not important, and for several reasons. I’ll mention a few to you.

    One, if one adopts a proper and consistent hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible—hermeneutic just means method of interpretation—the Bible is clear on its teaching on eschatology. It doesn’t give us all the details necessarily that we would want, but it gives us enough. We do not need to throw up our hands in frustration and just say we can’t figure it out.

    Two, the teaching of eschatology is all over the Bible. It is not confined to the book of Revelation. So to dismiss the doctrine of last things would be to ignore and distort much of God’s word.

    “To dismiss the doctrine of last things would be to ignore and distort much of God’s word.”

    Positively speaking, if God wrote so much to us about eschatology, he must want us to understand it. So we should try.

    Three, what you believe about last things will have an appreciable impact on how you live your life and what hope you have for the future. Again, it’s not determinative of your salvation.

    It’s not like you can’t be holy if you don’t have an accurate view of last things, but it’s going to affect you. After all, these eschatological passages in the Bible are always meant to instill in believers a purifying hope. They’re always meant to inspire hope, to give hope, even a hope that purifies.

    So if you’re missing that hope, or if you’re hoping in something false, won’t your life be affected? This does have an impact.

    Then fourth and finally, proper eschatology further reveals the glory of God and enables greater worship.

    “These eschatological passages are always meant to instill in believers a purifying hope.”

    So let us not be misled. We can and should understand what the Bible teaches regarding last things. And broadly speaking, what does the Bible teach?

    The Premillennial Position Stated

    Your pastors at Calvary are convinced that premillennialism is the eschatological view most consistent with the whole of scripture.

    Here’s what is written in our statement of faith under the heading “The Second Coming and Millennial Reign.”

    We teach that after the tribulation period—a period of judgments, the last judgments of the world—Christ will come to physically occupy the throne of David and establish his messianic kingdom for a thousand years on the earth. This reign will be preceded by the overthrow of the Antichrist and the false prophet and by the removal of Satan from the world.

    “Christ will come to physically occupy the throne of David and establish his messianic kingdom for a thousand years.”

    Here’s a helpful subpoint also from our statement.

    We teach that the kingdom itself will be the fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel to restore them to the land which they forfeited through their disobedience. The result of their disobedience was that they were temporarily set aside, but will again be awakened through repentance to enter into the land of blessing.

    Now, if you just paid attention to what was written on the screen, you’ll notice there’s a ton of scriptural references. I didn’t say them, but they’re there in the text.

    If you notice, they’re not just confined to the book of Revelation or even the New Testament. They go into the Old Testament, even to the beginning books of the Old Testament. There’s a reference to Deuteronomy as part of supporting this position.

    Why is that? It is because, as I want to emphasize again, if you pay attention to the totality of scripture and do not simply use a few passages to dominate or reinterpret the rest, you come up premillennialist in your understanding of eschatology.

    “If you pay attention to the totality of Scripture, you come up premillennialist.”

    Building a Pyramid of Support

    Therefore, in overviewing this teaching of premillennialism for you today and giving you an overview of biblical support, I want to give to you the same argument that my theology professor gave to me. That man is Michael Vlach.

    He has a number of helpful books and articles out there. We’re going to build a pyramid of support for premillennialism.

    You see in parenthesis dispensational premillennialism. That’s to distinguish it from historic premillennialism. I’ll talk about those two types next week, but it’s easier if we talk about it as premillennialism today. They both say that Christ will come and then there will be the kingdom.

    I know the writing of the pyramid on the right of your screen is probably a little hard to read from here. If you review the slides later, it will be more helpful. But on the left, you can see the five layers of support for this argument for a premillennialist point of view.

    Starting from the broadest bottom layer, the argument for premillennialism is number one: the foundational Genesis kingdom mandate. Number two: Old Testament prophecy of a future earthly messianic kingdom. Number three: Old Testament prophecy of a future king of the future kingdom’s imperfect conditions.

    Number four: New Testament prophecy of a future earthly messianic kingdom. And then number five: the millennial kingdom explicitly described in Revelation.

    We’re going to look at these just to get an overview of this teaching and of its biblical support. Starting with the bottom layer, the foundational layer.

    Layer 1: The Foundational Genesis Kingdom Mandate

    The first support for premillennialism as the eschatological view most consistent with the Bible is the foundational kingdom mandate given in Genesis 1:26-28.

    If you’d like, go ahead and turn to that passage, Genesis 1:26 and 28. We’re going to read those verses together.

    We’ve been here recently. The things in Genesis 1:3 are very foundational, including this passage, Genesis 1:26-28.

    It says, “Then God said, let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them. God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    Here we are again at this key creation passage to discover what God always meant, always designed for mankind to be. What did God mean for man from the beginning? We read that God determines to make man in God’s image.

    Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and rule.”

    Man is made like God in certain respects in man’s makeup. Man is made to relate to God and to relate to his fellow man. Man is created as a relational being and man is also made, as he is made in God’s image, to image forth who God is to the rest of the universe.

    Yet taking a look at the text, what idea is most prominent in these verses as to God’s role for the image-bearing mankind?

    Ruling. Ruling. Twice you see the word “rule” and then you also see the word “subdue.” If you’re using the New American Standard 95 translation, three times God mentions this intention for man to rule on God’s behalf. And this is immediately after God says, “Let us make man in our image and then let them rule.”

    So this ruling aspect of God is going to be central in his image bearers. God is a ruler. His image bearers are going to rule as well. But rule what exactly?

    “God is a ruler. His image bearers are going to rule as well.”

    According to this text, what does God give man to rule?

    Over everything on earth. It’s not like he commands Jupiter and Saturn and those types of things. It’s the earth, the sea, and all that’s in it, the creatures, the resources, etc.

    So then in the very beginning, God specifically tasked man with ruling over the created world on God’s behalf. Man was to rule from the earth. It’s not like God said, “Sit here in heaven, and we’re just going to administrate earth from here.” No, you’re going to the earth. I’m going to place you on the earth, and you’re going to rule over the earth on my behalf to my glory.

    How would man’s rule glorify God? Well, man would rule over the God-given domain in imitation of God, in obedience to God, and in joyful communion with God.

    The Fall and Its Consequences

    This is the foundational mandate for man. This is the kingdom mandate. But something happens to put a giant spanner in the works. What soon happens?

    Sin. Man’s fall in just two chapters.

    Genesis 3. Though God created man and women to be these image-bearing underrulers, the corruption of mankind’s heart by sin means that man could no longer rule in true imitation of obedience to and in joyful communion with God.

    Worse, as Genesis 3:17-19 and Romans 8:20-21 clarify, the created world becomes cursed due to its underruler’s sin. Because of sin, because of this fall, the good world that God created is made subject to futility, pain, and death.

    “The good world that God created is made subject to futility, pain, and death.”

    God’s original design was compromised. His original underruling commission was failed.

    So did God revoke his original mandate? Does he scrap plan A in having mankind rule for God and go to plan B, someone else, something other than man rule for God?

    No. The Bible says explicitly somewhere else that God did not withdraw this original mandate. Where does the Bible say that?

    Psalm 8: The Mandate Not Revoked

    Psalm 8. If you’d like, go over to Psalm 8. We’re going to listen to a few verses from Psalm 8:4-6.

    This is a psalm of David worshiping God for God’s giving such gracious care and position to mankind.

    Listen to what David says in Psalm 8:4-6.

    What is man that you take thought of him, and the son of man that you care for him?

    Yet you have made him a little lower than God, and you crown him with glory and majesty. You make him to rule over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet.

    Psalm 8:6: “You make him to rule over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet.”

    Now, this is amazing. Notice the tense of Psalm 8:6. David says, “You, God, make him man to rule.” That’s present tense. Not you made him to rule, but then something bad happens and no more of that. No, you make him, you still cause him to rule.

    Despite the fall, man still, amazingly, has this exalted position of underruler of the earth for God. He still has the mandate. Man still has the mandate to image forth God and righteous under rule on God’s behalf.

    “Despite the fall, man still has the mandate to image forth God in righteous under-rule on God’s behalf.”

    But doesn’t this fact introduce an unsolvable problem?

    Clearly, Psalm 8 shows that the original kingdom mandate from Genesis 1 has not been revoked. Yet, Genesis 3 shows us that mankind by sin is unable to perfectly fulfill this mandate.

    So, what now? Is God’s original purpose for mankind ultimately doomed to failure?

    No. Why not?

    That’s right.

    Jesus Christ Fulfills the Mandate

    All right. Glenda is saying that God’s not surprised by this. He has a plan. Arthur said the same thing. God has a plan. Well, a man is going to come who will fulfill the original Genesis 1 mandate and even Psalm 8. Who’s that man?

    Jesus Christ, the lamb of God, the God-man. In Hebrews 2:5-8, the writer of Hebrews applies Psalm 8 to Jesus, noting how Jesus too was made for a little while lower than the angels, but has been crowned with glory and honor by his victorious cross and resurrection. And he will one day—he hasn’t yet, but will one day—see all things put in subjection under his feet.

    So consider the implications of this. If Jesus is the fulfillment of Psalm 8 and by extension the original Genesis 1 mandate, then what must be true?

    Premillennialism.

    Only the God-man Jesus can fulfill the original kingdom mandate for man to rule perfectly from the earth over the earth on God’s behalf, even in such a way that restores the earth itself.

    “Only the God-man Jesus can fulfill the original kingdom mandate for man to rule perfectly from the earth.”

    So it is a matter of God’s fulfilled creation design that Jesus will come one day to set up an earthly kingdom and rule over a redeemed earth.

    So the Genesis 1 kingdom mandate is the foundation of our argument for premillennialism.

    Layer 2: Old Testament Prophecies of the Future Kingdom

    But it’s not the only part. The next layer of support is Old Testament prophecies of the future earthly messianic kingdom. Only premillennialism fits the description of the kingdom as given by Old Testament prophets.

    There are many prophets that we could go to for information and support on this topic. We don’t have time, so we’re just going to focus on two prophets this morning.

    The book of Isaiah is filled with eschatological prophecies—prophecies of the last days. In these, God’s prophet foretells a coming earthly kingdom marked by worldwide dominion, peace, and prosperity, even the restoration of the world itself.

    Over this kingdom, God’s Messiah himself reigns. That’s generally what Isaiah prophesies. But let’s look at a few passages together.

    Isaiah 2: Worldwide Dominion and Peace

    Listen, we got so many of these, so don’t bother turning there unless you’re really fast. Listen to Isaiah 2:2-4.

    Now it will come about that in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord, or literally the house of Yahweh, will be established as the chief of the mountains and will be raised above the hills. And the nations will stream to it and many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us concerning his ways and that we may walk in his paths.”

    For the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem. And he will judge between the nations and will render decisions for many peoples.

    And they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.

    Okay, that was a lot of text. What did Isaiah just proclaim? What did God just proclaim through Isaiah? Well, a few things.

    Isaiah 2:4: “They will hammer their swords into plowshares. Nation will not lift up sword against nation.”

    There is a kingdom of worldwide dominion coming which is centered in Jerusalem.

    It is a world kingdom in which many peoples—many peoples, so we’re talking about different nations—go to worship God in Jerusalem. And there is worldwide peace. There is no longer going to be war or even the learning of war anymore in that day.

    Isaiah 9: The Divine Messiah King

    Okay, that’s one passage. Let’s go to another. Isaiah 9:1-7.

    This is a famous passage because of Christmas. We often read this passage at Christmas time. I’m going to skip over the Christmas section. It says many of the same things that we just read. But I’m not skipping over the total Christmas portion, just the first part of it.

    The part I want to highlight to you is the part that identifies more specifically who will rule this coming kingdom. So this is Isaiah 9:6-7.

    You’ll recognize these words: “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on his shoulders, and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, mighty God, eternal father, prince of peace.

    There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace on the throne of David and over his kingdom to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forever more.

    Isaiah 9:7: “There will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace on the throne of David.”

    The zeal of Yahweh of hosts will accomplish this.

    From that specific text, we have again foretold a coming kingdom of peace and righteousness. Yet it is ruled by whom?

    By God, but also a man. This man is also God. It says a son will be born to us. A child will be born. And yet he’s going to be called mighty God, eternal father.

    “This man is also God. A child will be born, yet he’s called mighty God, eternal father.”

    He’s also David’s descendant on the throne of David. It says he will rule.

    And how long will his rule last?

    Forever. Forever. So this is a prophecy of that special ruling Messiah coming who is a man. He is the seed of David.

    Isaiah 11: Peace Among All Creation

    Yet he is God. And he’s going to rule over this kingdom. He’s even going to bring this kingdom.

    Another passage is Isaiah 11:1-16, another place foretelling Messiah’s righteous, worldwide, and prosperous rule in the future. Listen to what is specifically foretold in Isaiah 11:6-10.

    Isaiah 11:6-10.
    >
    And the wolf will dwell with the lamb and the leopard will lie down with the young goat and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together. And a little boy will lead them. Also, the cow and the bear will graze.
    >
    Their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like an ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea. Then in that day the nations will resort to the root of Jesse who will stand as a signal for the peoples and his resting place will be glorious.

    This is pretty amazing. What does Isaiah prophesy here will happen one day in the future?

    Even in the day of God’s coming kingdom, there will be peace even between the animals. Animals that would normally kill each other or run away from each other lie down together. Carnivorous animals like lions and bears eat straw and plants like herbivores.

    Meanwhile, kids and babies will lead lions and cows and play with vipers. What on earth? Why? How?

    Verse nine tells us: for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh.

    Isaiah 11:9: “The earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea.”

    Nothing will hurt or destroy in the coming kingdom. For the root of Jesse, the seed of David, the Messiah has come and his resting place will be glorious.

    Isaiah 11:11-16 describes what comes right after. The verses go on to describe how in this future day, the exiles of Israel and Judah that were scattered all over the world will return victoriously to their promised land. God, Isaiah says, will even dry up the Nile River.

    He will dry up the Nile River so that whether people are coming back from Egypt or coming from Assyria on the other side of Israel, they will be completely unhindered in returning to their land.

    Isaiah 25: Death Swallowed Up

    But there’s more. Isaiah 25:6-9. Here God foretells the preparation of a lavish banquet, a lavish banquet of celebration for all peoples on his special mountain. And what is everyone celebrating? Well, I think you get a main portion of it in Isaiah 25:7-8.

    Isaiah 25:7-8 it says, “And on this mountain, he God will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, even the veil which is stretched over all nations. He will swallow up death for all time. And the Lord Yahweh will wipe away tears from all faces. And he will remove the reproach of his people from all the earth for Yahweh has spoken.

    Isaiah 25:8: “He will swallow up death for all time. And the Lord Yahweh will wipe tears away from all faces.”

    Amazing. What is this future celebration about on God’s holy mountain? What is the main thing that everyone is celebrating in Jerusalem?

    Yeah. The end of sorrow and pain and more specifically the end of death. And for whom?

    It says for all peoples, the veil that is over all nations, he’s getting rid of death forever.

    That is stunning. These are stunning prophecies. Yet, this is only from the book of Isaiah.

    Zechariah 14: God’s Victory at Jerusalem

    I do want to show you one other prophet, Zechariah. We’re going to focus on his 14th chapter. I’ll paraphrase a lot of what he says and I’ll read a few sections to you.

    In Zechariah 14:1-2, God foretells through Zechariah a coming day in the future in which all nations will gather in battle against Jerusalem. They will fight against Jerusalem and they will win. They will overcome the city.

    At that point, all seems lost. The nations plunder the city. They ravish the women. They start carrying the people away. And then we read this in Zechariah 14:3-5.

    Then Yahweh will go forth and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. And that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives will be split in the middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.

    You will flee by the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel. Yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah. Then Yahweh, my God, will come and all the holy ones with him.

    So hear that. What happens to Jerusalem? What happens to Jerusalem in its darkest hour?

    God himself shows up at the last minute to bring a total reversal. They’ve already been defeated. They’re being led away captive. But God says, “No, I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

    We’re specifically told that God’s feet—does God have feet?—will specifically stand on the Mount of Olives, which miraculously splits in half to open a way for the people of Israel to escape.

    “God himself shows up at the last minute to bring a total reversal.”

    And that’s just the beginning of Zechariah 14. Zechariah 14:12-15 describes how the rest of the battle goes between God and the enemies of Israel. It says that God strikes Jerusalem’s enemies with a plague that causes these enemies to rot where they stand and to turn their weapons against one another.

    Afterwards, the people of Judah gather incredible plunder. Then after the battle, God transforms Jerusalem and its surrounding lands.

    Zechariah 14:8 says that rivers will begin to flow out from Jerusalem both east and west. There are no rivers that flow from Jerusalem right now. Zechariah 14:10 says, “The area around Jerusalem, which is presently hilly, will be turned into a plane, while Jerusalem itself will rise in elevation like a mountain.”

    And this will be the beginning of a new holy kingdom in which God himself reigns. Zechariah 14:9 says: And Yahweh will be king over all the earth. In that day, Yahweh will be the only one. In his name, the only one.

    Zechariah 14:9: “Yahweh will be king over all the earth. In that day, Yahweh will be the only one.”

    According to Zechariah 14:16-19, the survivors of the enemy nations will themselves come up to worship in Jerusalem during a reestablished feast of booths. These are non-Jews coming up to Jerusalem for the feast of booths.

    Meanwhile, according to Zechariah 14:20-21, Jerusalem will become so holy to God that even its regular cooking pots and horses will be considered holy, consecrated for sacred use.

    Amazing.

    The Combined Witness of Isaiah and Zechariah

    But are you getting the picture from these two prophets? Just two prophets.

    Both Isaiah and Zechariah prophesied that there is an awesome kingdom of righteousness, peace, and prosperity coming, an earthly kingdom.

    Yet, it is the divine Messiah who brings it and rules over it. Only after Jerusalem is defeated in the final battle does Messiah arrive to save and rule. His rule extends across the whole earth to renew the earth and direct all peoples to God.

    “It is the divine Messiah who brings the kingdom and rules over it. His rule extends across the whole earth.”

    Has such a prophesied kingdom arrived yet?

    No. But it will, just as premillennialism teaches.

    I’ve just sampled two Old Testament prophets for you. I haven’t mentioned the land or kingdom promises given through the patriarchs, through Moses, or through David.

    Yet, hopefully, from just these two prophets, you can see why Old Testament prophecy supports a premillennial view. I argue that this is the only view that adequately accepts these kinds of prophecies from the Old Testament.

    Answering the Figurative Interpretation

    But here’s what someone might ask: How do these prophecies that you cite are meant to be taken literally? Couldn’t we, for instance, take the prophecies of animals lying down together as just figurative, figuratively foretelling the peace that Jesus will bring between previously feuding peoples by his gospel?

    My quick answer to that question is proper use of a literal hermeneutic, which I argued for in the first lesson of our Sunday school series. Always take the plain sense unless a passage clearly indicates a figurative sense, because then that becomes the plain sense.

    You start literal and you go figurative if the passage itself indicates that. If you start with these Old Testament prophecies, you don’t get a figurative sense. The clues in the passage indicate a literal sense, though there might be metaphors along the way. The plain sense is a literal sense.

    “Proper hermeneutics always takes the plain sense unless a passage clearly indicates a figurative sense.”

    It’s only when you start in the New Testament and then read gospel concepts back into the Old Testament that you get a figurative sense.

    Now, some people think that’s justified. We’ve argued that that is not justified. That is not a proper or consistent biblical hermeneutic.

    Furthermore, as you might even be able to gather from the text I shared with you, these prophecies are way too detailed to make sense otherwise. What is the point of these different details? Is that just poetic flourishes if these just refer to general spiritual realities?

    Layer 3: Imperfect Conditions in the Future Kingdom

    Finally, a certain aspect of these Old Testament prophecies, particularly Isaiah and Zechariah, makes a spiritualized interpretation impossible.

    What is that aspect? It’s the third layer of our argument for premillennialism: Old Testament prophecy of imperfect conditions in the Messiah’s future kingdom.

    This point may surprise you, but it is clear and extremely instructive.

    “Old Testament prophecy of imperfect conditions in the Messiah’s future kingdom is clear and extremely instructive.”

    We’re going back to Isaiah and Zechariah.

    Isaiah 65: Long Life Yet Still Death

    And one passage you haven’t seen yet and one that you have. In Isaiah 65:17-25, we get another section of prophecy about God’s coming kingdom, the Messiah’s coming kingdom. In verses 17-18, God says that he’s creating new heavens and a new earth for his people’s joy.

    Okay, we’re definitely talking eschatological, right? This is kingdom. And in verse 19, God says that weeping will cease in Jerusalem. In Isaiah 65:21-22, God says that his people will dwell in their land peacefully and they will never fear losing their homes and possessions again.

    In verse 23, God says that his people will no longer miscarry in pregnancy. And in verses 24-25, God says that all animals will be at peace with one another, just like we read earlier from another passage in Isaiah. No one will do evil or harm in his holy mountain anymore.

    So this is just like what we read earlier. We’re clearly talking about the coming messianic kingdom, the kingdom of God and its abundant righteousness, prosperity, and peace. But I left out verse 20. In the middle of this last section of Isaiah 65, we read this in Isaiah 65:20.

    Isaiah 65:20: “The youth will die at the age of 100, and the one who does not reach 100 will be thought cursed.”

    Okay, this is another amazing prophecy. What is it that God foretells here?

    Okay, we’ll get to that. Lea mentioned there’s still death. But before we mention that, what’s different? Still super long lifespans kind of like at the beginning. No longer will someone be said to die young if he dies around 18. But around what age?

    100. Only the person who dies at 100 will be considered to have died a tragic death, even one probably cursed by God in judgment. And that is amazing because if someone died at 100 today, what would we think about that person’s life?

    What an amazing gift. He got to live to 100. What a long life. But the opposite will be true in this coming kingdom. If somebody dies at 100, because people are living so long, dying at 100 will be a sign of being cursed.

    Yet, if we think more carefully about this, such incredibly lengthened lifespans must be a sign of a renewed world. And that could only happen under God’s Messiah. But there’s still problems that apparently exist in this new recreated world. And Leo already mentioned one. We have death and if there’s any cursing involved, sin.

    Because what is the implied cause of this early death? Someone has been cursed by God presumably as a result of sin.

    So death and sin will exist in Christ’s coming kingdom.

    “Death and sin will exist in Christ’s coming kingdom.”

    Zechariah 14: Disobedience and Plague in the Kingdom

    Let’s hear from Zechariah again too.

    Back in Zechariah 14, I mentioned before that Zechariah 14:16-19 foretells that the survivors of the nations after the last battle against Jerusalem, Armageddon, will worship each year at Jerusalem’s feast of booths.

    Yet notice the telling contingency in that prophecy, Zechariah 14:16-19.

    Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King Yahweh of Hosts and to celebrate the feast of booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King Yahweh of Hosts, there will be no rain on them.

    If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them.

    It will be the plague with which Yahweh smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the feast of booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the feast of booths.

    Did you hear what Zechariah just said?

    He said that after the Christ, after the Messiah sets up his kingdom and requires that all families of the earth go up yearly to Jerusalem for the feast of booths, there is a possibility that some families may disobey and choose not to come.

    “There is a possibility that some families may disobey and choose not to come.”

    Just to make sure we’re clear, disobedience to a command from the Messiah like this would be what?

    Sin.

    And God says such sinful disobedience will be punished with a plague from God.

    What plague?

    No rain. No rain.

    What does this mean? In God’s future messianic kingdom, there will still be sin and therefore plague-like punishments from God for that sin.

    “In God’s future messianic kingdom, there will still be sin and plague-like punishments for that sin.”

    Side note: which nation or family is highlighted as an example of one that might receive this plague of no rain?

    Egypt. Does that strike you as odd?

    Why?

    Because Egypt was watered by the Nile.

    Exactly, Jonathan. In ancient times, Egypt would have totally shrugged off a plague of no rain. They’d be like, “Rain? No rain? No problem. We’ve got the Nile. It’s so constant. We get all the water we need from the Nile.”

    But what if God dried up the Nile or greatly diminished the Nile like Isaiah foretells?

    How dependent on rain would Egypt become then?

    Very dependent. And a plague like this would be quite significant for them.

    But let’s not miss the main point. We’ve got two passages for the messianic kingdom, both indicating that even though there are wonderful new things happening, sin, death, and plague will still exist, though greatly mitigated.

    This fact is a fundamental problem for those who want to spiritualize these prophecies to just be about the new covenant blessings of believers. Because after all, why would sin, death, and curse be part of our promised inheritance in Christ, our spiritual inheritance?

    This fact is also a fundamental problem for those who want to interpret these prophecies in the Old Testament as just referring to the eternal state. “Oh, this is after Christ comes. There’s no kingdom. This is just we’re going into eternity.” That cannot refer to the final state of all things because we’ve got clear imperfections there.

    We’ve got death. We’ve got sin.

    Yet didn’t we read earlier from Isaiah that God would swallow up death once and for all for all peoples? And did not God say that the earth would be filled with the knowing of him so that no one hurt anyone else anymore?

    How do we reconcile these passages indicating imperfect conditions in the coming kingdom, though a lot better than they are right now, with totally perfect conditions?

    Two Phases of Christ’s Kingdom

    There’s only one possible answer.

    Christ’s coming kingdom has two phases.

    There is a first phase of a thousand years which we call the millennial kingdom in which Jesus rules from the earth, restores the earth and enforces righteousness and peace while sin, death and plague still exist but in muzzled form.

    And then there is the second phase which we often call the eternal state which has no end in which Jesus continues to rule from the earth with his people but the earth and its people are absolutely perfect.

    “There is a first phase of a thousand years, then a second phase—the eternal state—with no end.”

    For sin, death and curse have been completely done away with.

    Now the Old Testament prophets don’t distinguish between phase one and phase two when talking about the coming kingdom because it is all the coming kingdom. So these prophets are not being deceptive.

    But let’s get the main point. Only the premillennial view, a view that sees Christ coming back right before the kingdom, is consistent with these prophecies of not quite yet perfect conditions in the kingdom in the first phase of the kingdom.

    Layer 4: New Testament Prophecies of the Future Kingdom

    Right? We’ve gone through three layers of support in our argument. We come to the fourth layer. The fourth layer of support for premillennialism is New Testament prophecies which foretell a future and earthly messianic kingdom.

    We can only sample some of the verses here. There are way too many to cover. Let me give you a flavor. In Matthew 5:5, the Beatitudes, Jesus famously declares that the gentle shall inherit the earth.

    Again, two parts of that simple statement.

    Believers, the gentle, they have an inheritance, but it’s not yet. It’s future. They shall inherit. And what is it they will inherit? Not heaven, the earth.

    “Believers have an inheritance, but it’s future. And what will they inherit? Not heaven—the earth.”

    In Matthew 19:28, Jesus promised his disciples, “Truly I say to you that you who have followed me in the regeneration when the son will sit on his glorious throne you also shall sit upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.”

    Just from this statement, notice again we have Jesus describing his kingdom as future, coming after an event of special regeneration. After this event, his disciples will reign with him, even over Israel, judging—that means you are reigning over the 12 tribes of Israel.

    In Luke 21:31, right after Jesus gives the Olivet discourse and foretells the coming of the son of man in the last days and all the judgments that will take place in association with that, Jesus says, “So you also when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.”

    Now get that. Even in the final judgments of the world, Jesus clarifies that his kingdom is not yet come, but at that time it is near. When future believers see those judgments, they are seeing signs of his coming that it is near.

    That kingdom is not yet, but it is coming and it will come after those judgments.

    Acts 1:6 — The Disciples’ Expectation Confirmed

    And then pretty significant one, Acts 1:6.

    So this verse is after Jesus has risen from the dead and appeared to his disciples over a period of 40 days. Acts 1:3 says that Jesus gave them many convincing proofs and he spoke to his disciples the things concerning the kingdom of God.

    Over those 40 days, he spoke to them the things concerning the kingdom of God.

    In verse 6, the disciples asked Jesus a question: “Lord, is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”

    This is a telling question since it indicates the disciples’ expectations even after having been taught about the kingdom of God over 40 days. What is their expectation?

    That Jesus the Messiah himself was in the future, perhaps shortly in the future, going to restore and inaugurate an earthly kingdom in Israel.

    Now, you could say, “All right, that’s the disciples’ expectation, but they are mistaken.” Well, we should expect the disciples to be well informed by this point. Jesus was raised from the dead. He specifically spoke to them about the kingdom of God over these 40 days.

    Furthermore, Jesus’ reply in verses 7 to 8 is not one of rebuke or correction. You guys still think I’m bringing an earthly kingdom in the future even after I’ve recently instructed you? Come on.

    No. But he does redirect their question.

    His response essentially is: it’s not for you to know the exact timing of the Father’s plans. Focus on being my faithful witnesses.

    “It’s not for you to know the exact timing. Focus on being my faithful witnesses.”

    So this exchange with Jesus and his disciples fits right in with the premillennial understanding and the expectations from the Old Testament.

    Revelation 5:10 — Reigning Upon the Earth

    Finally, in Revelation 5:10, when Christ is about to open the sealed judgments and initiate his takeback of the earth, the four living creatures before God’s throne say this of believers: “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

    Listen to what the living creatures say. They say that presently the saints comprise a kingdom and priesthood. Yet these believers are not yet reigning.

    Why not? Because the Messiah’s earthly kingdom is not yet established. Yet the creatures say that these saints will reign upon the earth.

    So even in Revelation 5:10, at the beginning of the seal judgments, we have indication that Jesus’ kingdom is still future, but it is going to be an earthly kingdom in which his saints reign with him.

    “Jesus’ kingdom is still future, but it is going to be an earthly kingdom in which his saints reign with him.”

    To sum up, we have New Testament prophecy entirely consistent with Old Testament prophecy and the Genesis 1 kingdom mandate. The Messiah himself will come before the promised kingdom to establish it on the earth and reign with his saints.

    Layer 5: The Millennial Kingdom in Revelation 20

    So, as we now reach the top of our argument pyramid, its support is no surprise at all. The fifth support for premillennialism is the explicit statements regarding the millennial kingdom and its duration in Revelation 20.

    Why don’t you take your Bibles? We can look at this one together.

    Revelation 20:1-10.

    Before we read, we do need to note the context.

    Revelation 20:1-10.

    The Sequence of Revelation 19–20

    If you look at the previous chapter, just glance, starting in Revelation 19:11, the Apostle John recounts a sequence of events that he beholds in a vision comprising Christ’s bodily return to the earth and Christ’s victory over his enemies.

    If you notice in verse 11, John says, “And I saw,” what did he see? He sees the exalted Christ come to earth bodily, ready for battle.

    Then verse 17, John says, “Then I saw,” what did he see? He saw the birds being gathered to eat the flesh of soldiers and kings soon to fall.

    Verse 19, John says, “And I saw,” what did he see? He sees the Antichrist and his allies and their armies assembling to make war with Christ and his followers.

    But what happens? The Antichrist is seized and thrown alive into the lake of fire along with the false prophet.

    And what happens to the rest of the Antichrist army? They’re slain by a mere word of the Lord. Slain by the sword of his mouth.

    “The Antichrist’s army is slain by a mere word of the Lord—the sword of his mouth.”

    Revelation 20:1. Then John says, “Then I saw.”

    Revelation 20:1-10 — A Thousand Years, Six Times

    That phrase indicates we’re just continuing the sequence that Revelation 19 was describing. Now let’s read Revelation 20:1-10.

    Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who was the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he threw him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him so that he would not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were completed.

    After these things, he must be released for a short time. Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark in their forehead and on their hand, and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

    The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years are completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him for a thousand years.

    When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war, a number of them as like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth, and surrounded the camp of the saints, and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

    And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are also and they’ll be tormented day and night forever and ever.

    Did you catch everything that happens here?

    In verses 1-3, before the millennial kingdom begins, Satan is sealed away. He’s sealed away for a thousand years, no longer to deceive the nations for that duration of time.

    Then in verses 4-6, there is the first resurrection which tribulation saints are resurrected to reign with Christ for a thousand years. And they do just that. The text says they reign with Christ for a thousand years.

    In verses 7-10, we learn that after the thousand-year reign is complete, Satan is released to stir up one final rebellion on the earth. One final rebellion of mankind, which God easily crushes. Satan himself is then thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented forever.

    By the way, how many times did the text here say a thousand years?

    Six times. Six times it says a thousand years. This is the only text in the Bible that gives the exact duration of the first phase of Christ’s kingdom.

    “Six times it says a thousand years. This is the only text giving the exact duration of Christ’s kingdom.”

    There are some other new details here about the last days. Yet doesn’t all this fit exactly with what we’ve seen even today from the Old Testament and New Testament about Christ’s coming kingdom?

    The order of Revelation 19 and 20 fits in perfectly. First Christ returns, then he reigns with his saints on the earth.

    And what comes afterwards? The final judgment, the eternal state.

    Summary of the Pyramid Argument

    Therefore, to repeat what I said earlier, the elders of Calvary hold to a premillennial return of Christ because this view best fits the esqueological expectation of the whole Bible. We have the we we begin with the kingdom mandate of Genesis 1:26-28 that only Christ can fulfill on behalf of mankind. Then we see Old Testament prophecy of a future earthly messianic kingdom.

    But within that prophecy, we see thirdly prophecy of not quite perfect conditions of that messianic kingdom because there’s an intermediate phase within that kingdom, a first phase before everything is made perfect. It’s made better and then it’s made perfect.

    Then fourthly, we have New Testament prophecy of a future earthly messianic kingdom. And then finally, we have the explicit statements of Revelation 21:10.

    All of these lead us to a premillennial understanding of Christ’s return.

    Christ returns first and then he sets up his kingdom.

    So, this ends my overview of the doctrine and of its biblical support.

    Next week, I will come back to address follow-up questions and objections related to this doctrine. We have a few minutes here. So, I’ll take some questions or comments that you might have right now. But if there’s something you don’t mention now or that I’m not able to answer, please let me know about your question right after class.

    I need to meet with the baptism candidates. So, I won’t have time to talk to you, but you can submit me an email or if you see me later in the service, you can ask me a question there so I have time prepared. Please submit submit that to me by Wednesday so I have adequate amount of time. All right, comments and questions. Leela, question.

    Q&A: Israel and the Church

    No microphone. I’ll just repeat your question.

    Is Israel not part of the church? Are they separate?

    Great question. Is Israel not part of the church?

    This is a delineating question between a premillennial understanding and nonpremillennial understandings. Those who say that the church and Israel are the same, whether they overlap, are probably not premillennial.

    Premillennialism takes the Bible at its word in saying that God has certain things that he’s promised to Israel which he has not promised the church.

    Collectively, they are the people of God. Something that’s very interesting to me is that in the book of Revelation where it talks about the bride and the wedding supper, it does not say that the bride is the church. Nor does it say that the bride is Israel. It’s just the people of God at that point.

    Right now, the church does have some of Israel in it. Believing Israel is part of the church. They are the first fruits, but Israel is not the church.

    There were true believers in Israel in the Old Testament. There will be Israel nationally brought back to repentance in the last days. But the church, this assembly of redeemed believers in Christ, is a special thing that God is doing between his first coming and his second coming.

    In this module talking about premillennialism, I’m not addressing the rapture specifically. We’ll come back to that in a later lesson. But the rapture is essentially the removal of the church from the earth.

    The people of God who then come to faith are essentially allied with Israel and persecuted along with her. So yes, the church and Israel are separate. God has certain promises to Israel which have yet to be fulfilled and are not fulfilled in the church.

    “God has certain things promised to Israel which he has not promised the church.”

    Though the church has an interest in those things.

    But there are many, as Paul says in the scriptures, who are of Israel who are not of Israel. That is, they are not going to inherit these promises because they do not believe.

    They will instead inherit the judgment of God. So we’ll probably say more about that later, but that is a very important question. Glenda, great question.

    What does Paul mean when he says all Israel will be saved? That’s from Romans. It’s really a reference to the idea that I just mentioned to you: nationally, there is coming a day in the future in which you can say the people of Israel as a whole believe in God.

    Now, does that mean every single person of Israel at that time? Maybe not necessarily. There are some who come under God’s judgment for sin. There may be some ethnic Jews at that time who come under that situation.

    But nationally speaking, generally speaking, broadly speaking, all the people of Israel, all the Jews will be saved. They will be saved because they repent and they receive their Messiah in the last day. That’s what Paul is speaking about there.

    Let me go to Jonathan and then Arthur.

    Okay, great question, Jonathan. Referring to Revelation 20:4, there seems like a distinction between different groups as to who will be resurrected and who won’t be. Will all believers be resurrected after Christ comes and before the kingdom is set up, or will only some of them be resurrected?

    Okay, this is going to take a little bit longer explanation than I have time for right now because it’s associated with the rapture. There are different texts in the scriptures that clarify that when Jesus comes to snatch away his people, those who have died will not be left behind but they will be resurrected at that time too.

    But then we have this reference here to resurrection of what are tribulation saints. I don’t think we should understand those two descriptions—those who are being beheaded and those who did not receive the mark—as two different groups of people. Those are just two different descriptors of the same group. These both apply to tribulation saints.

    But what we’re seeing is that at the rapture, you have all the dead in Christ raised. Everybody goes to be with the Lord and they receive resurrected bodies. But then you have people who died after that—the tribulation saints—and they didn’t experience their resurrection.

    What John is telling us here in Revelation 20:4 is that when Christ comes and establishes his kingdom, that’s when they are raised and they reign with Christ for a thousand years. Now, it says the rest of the dead did not come to life. We’re talking about unbelievers because when we get to Revelation 20:11 where we begin the great white throne judgment, the last judgment, verse 12 says, “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne.”

    So this is the second resurrection according to Revelation 20. This is the one you don’t want to be a part of. This is the resurrection of the unbelieving dead. Their resurrection is a resurrection under judgment, not a resurrection unto life.

    Arthur.

    Q&A: Eschatology and Its Practical Impact

    Yeah.

    It has to do with our president.

    Okay.

    My belief is right now he’s surrounded by religious leaders that do not hold—and I wrote it down because it’s easy for me that way—and that they adhere to this idea of a spiritual war theology. Based on that belief, they’re fighting for what is now being described as American Christianity.

    I’m just curious if that could be a sign of some Christians taking the mark.

    They hold to this view that does not hold to premillennialism, a view that holds that the kingdom of God is going to be established by Christians without Christ on earth.

    Okay. He’ll come and take over.

    Okay. Yeah. Actually, I think you’re getting at something that’s worth talking about and something I hope to come back and talk about next time. Your question relates to some of the Christian advisers around the president who don’t seem to be premillennialist but, as you say, hold to a kind of spiritual war theology and are therefore promoting and looking to establish a type of—you didn’t use these words—but a Christian nationalism, an American Christianity, and having that be officially part of the government or even part of military action.

    I do think there is a connection between a resurgence of postmillennialism today and increased efforts towards what’s sometimes called theonomy, trying to institute biblical laws in nations of the world, and Christian nationalism.

    This is again why eschatology is important because it informs some of the goals of your life and what you are working towards. Postmillennialism is historically associated with government activism and social action. It’s not that Christians are to be totally separate from those things, but those do seem to be associated with those things.

    I need to do a little bit more research into this, but it does seem like we do have some people who are even in positions of power and authority in the American government who do have postmillennial ideas. It may be coming out a little bit in some government decisions, but I need to do a little bit more research about that.

    The main point of what I want to share with you is that eschatology does affect how you live and what you hope in. We’ll come back and talk a little bit more about implications of other eschatological views and even premillennialism next time.

    All right, that’s it for our time today.

    “Eschatology is important because it informs the goals of your life and what you are working towards.”

    Again, if you have other questions, please let me know by Wednesday. I have to scoot right after Sunday school, so catch me later. But allow me to close our time in a word of prayer.

    Closing Prayer

    Heavenly Father, we thank you for the teaching of your word, which we do believe is clear, that Christ will come and he will bring the kingdom. He’s the only one who can. We can’t establish this kingdom and things are not going to get better and better through our efforts.

    Though God, if you grant, Lord of the harvest, if you grant a revival of souls, we welcome that. We do look for renewal in different parts of the earth. But your word says that things will get worse and worse before the coming until you make everything right.

    Lord, we look forward to your kingdom. Jesus, come. Come, Lord Jesus. We welcome your coming. We want to be with you. We want to see you establish your kingdom on the earth.

    Grant us greater understanding and unity about these things if you will, God. And bless the rest of the service today in Jesus’ name. Amen.

  • Elders Q and A #2

    Elders Q and A #2

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    This elder Q&A session addresses several challenging topics including the calling to pastoral ministry, transgender pronouns, same-sex weddings, homosexuality and sin, women’s roles in worship, marital submission, and abuse in marriage. We are reminded that God’s Word provides clear guidance on each of these issues, and that faithfulness to Scripture requires both truth and love.

    Key Lessons:

    1. The call to pastoral ministry is confirmed by character, ability to teach, godly desire, and the affirmation of others — not merely a mysterious inner feeling.
    2. Using preferred pronouns or attending same-sex weddings is not loving because it involves affirming what God has declared to be sin; true love speaks truth even when it is costly.
    3. While all sin equally alienates us from God and requires salvation, the Bible does teach that certain sins, including sexual immorality and homosexuality, carry uniquely severe consequences both personally and societally.
    4. Wifely submission is voluntary, comprehensive, and faith-filled — not passivity, forced obedience, or a cover for manipulation — and even in cases of mistreatment, the church must balance protection of the abused with the pursuit of repentance and restoration.

    Application: We are called to handle these culturally charged issues with biblical fidelity and genuine love — speaking truth to those in sin, submitting to God’s design in our relationships, supporting our elders in accountability, and trusting God’s promises even when obedience is costly.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How can we cultivate genuine friendships with people who identify as LGBTQ while still holding firmly to biblical truth about sexuality and gender?
    2. In what ways might we be setting boundaries that are stricter than Scripture requires, and how can we better enjoy the freedom God gives us in areas He has not restricted?
    3. What does it look like practically to submit to God-ordained authority — whether in marriage, the church, or government — when that authority is acting unjustly?

    Scripture Focus: 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 (elder qualifications), Genesis 1:27 and Psalm 100:3 (gender and identity), 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (sin and salvation), Romans 1 (consequences of sexual sin), Ephesians 5:21-24 (submission in marriage), 1 Peter 2-3 (submitting to unjust authorities and husbands).

    Outline

    Introduction

    Welcome back to our second elder Q&A as part of our defending doctrinal distinctive series. We are going to follow a similar format as the first one. We have six questions to go through, and I’m going to present the question to one elder first who will give the lead answer to that question. But then the other elders are free to comment or add to that answer.

    Lord willing, we’ll get through all six questions. I don’t think we’ll have time for followup at the end, but if we do, I will invite that. But allow me to open with a word of prayer.

    Today we are focusing on the topics that we most recently discussed: homosexuality, gender, complementarianism, transgenderism, and women’s roles. These are all the topics together, and you’ll see those come out in the questions that we talk about today.

    But let’s open in a word of prayer.

    Heavenly Father, thank you for your truth. It is a guide to our feet and a light to our path. God, help us to answer these questions well. Grant us further understanding as a church, further unity around your truth and how to respond to these issues that we talk about. Pray that we would not just know these things, but that we would do them. Bless this time in Jesus’ name. Amen.

    All right. Our first question is actually a holdover from our last Q&A that we didn’t get to, but it seemed like an important question to talk about, so we did want to come back to it. And I’m offering it to Greg first.

    How Does a Person Know They Are Called to Be a Pastor or Elder?

    The question is, how does a person know whether God is calling that person to serve as a pastor or elder?

    I remember this question.

    Character, Ability, and External Validation

    Okay. Well, first of all, I think the church needs a lot more pastors and elders. Good ones, not ones that are there for the wrong reason. First of all, you have to be male. I think that ties into a lot of what we talked about, and that’s just because it’s a scriptural requirement.

    But if you look at the scriptures, I think there are three verses that really talk about who this shepherd and overseer should be. The first one is in 1 Timothy 3: “An overseer must be above reproach.” So you have to basically be somebody whose character is above reproach.

    You have to be a husband of one wife. That has to do with how you treat women in your lives. Are you leaving a trail of ex-wives in your wake? In many cases, are you demonstrating Christ in the church in your marriage? Are you temperate, respectable, prudent, hospitable?

    And then there comes the one requirement that is actually an ability: you have to be able to teach. This ability to teach is not just a random thing, but it’s the ability to teach the word of God. In Titus, in fact, it talks about holding fast to the word of truth. So you have to be able to rightly divide the word of God and to teach it.

    And then you have to be gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. These are again character requirements. Not pugnacious, not addicted to wine.

    And then you have to manage your own household well. These are all external requirements. What’s important to understand is that these are not requirements that you think of yourselves. You can’t just look at yourself and say, “Yeah, I think I check those boxes.”

    When Paul gave these instructions to Titus and Timothy, he was telling the elders of the church how to pick other elders. These are the requirements that you have to have, and they have to be validated from other people. First of all, there’s a character requirement. You have to have all of these things, and people around you in the church have to also validate that you meet these requirements.

    Moreover, it says in 1 Timothy that you have to have a good reputation even outside the church. You can’t be known as some type of lazy person who doesn’t support his family or tries to do that. So you have to meet all of the external requirements and character requirements, and you have to have the ability to teach.

    And then I think in the beginning of 1 Timothy, it talks about: if anyone desires to be an overseer, then it is a good thing that they want to do. The requirement here is that you have to desire it. So there’s character, there’s the ability to teach, but there’s also a desire.

    I think this desire is an informed desire. It has to be an informed desire, which means you have to understand what an overseer does. You have to understand what it says in 1 Peter about a pastor: he must be gentle, peaceable, able to teach, and not lording it over the flock. You have to also understand that you will face opposition, and when you face opposition, you must be the type of person who handles that with gentleness.

    “You have to be able to rightly divide the word of God and to teach it.”

    If you look at that, it seems like you not only will face opposition, but you’re going to be facing opposition inside the church. That opposition is not just external, but it’s actually internal opposition.

    The Desire Must Be Informed

    The other thing is that what a shepherd does—a shepherd is actually a very dirty, lowly job. It’s not a highly exalted job. It’s not something where you’re going to be glamorized. And in fact, I think maybe there are some pastors in the world who are sort of put on that pedestal, perhaps wrongly, but I think most pastors or the vast majority of pastors are underappreciated, not overappreciated.

    People are going to misinterpret you. They’re going to accuse you of things that perhaps are false. And you’re going to be spending a lot of time counseling and helping people, and you might not see a lot of fruit from that in some cases, right?

    There’s going to be tough. It’s going to be a difficult job. It’s going to be one that you have to wrestle with. And so if after understanding all of that—what a shepherd is, that is a lowly job, not an exalted job—you still desire to be a pastor and an elder because you want to serve God in that way, you want to love the people of God in a sacrificial way, you want to preach the word of God and teach the word of God because that’s just what you think needs to be done.

    “A shepherd is actually a very dirty, lowly job. It’s not a highly exalted job.”

    Then I think that’s how you should be a pastor and an elder. Does that make sense?

    I think when we think about the desire, that’s important. You’re right. And we want to desire for the right reasons to serve as Jesus did. We don’t serve as the world does, right? It is not so among you. We don’t dominate.

    One of the things I think about as well is just the accountability that comes with it. Hebrews 13 emphasizes that for elders, we have to give an account to God for the souls of people. And then in James, it talks about how not many should desire to be teachers because with it comes greater accountability.

    Calling as Identity, Not Just Task

    And so that’s a very sobering thing that we need to think about. When I thought about calling, the sense of calling in general, people think about it in a very self-centered way. Am I called?

    I went through a book or a series called The Summons by Dave Harvey of Sovereign Grace Ministries that I thought was really helpful. It unfolded in a way that was very instructive. The main thing about calling is the caller, God.

    So we always need to be focused on him. That sounds obvious, but we naturally tend to focus on ourselves. We start there.

    But first, all believers have two callings already. We’re called to salvation, right? 2 Timothy 1:9 says we have been saved and called with a holy calling. So that’s all of us as believers.

    Secondly, we all have spiritual gifts and an identity in Christ that God has called us to. We need to rejoice in those things. And then if we look at what it says in Psalms, I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than to dwell in tents of wickedness. Just to be a part of it in any way is, I think, a cause of rejoicing for any of us.

    So those two callings alone should cause us to be effusive in our rejoicing. But then the third calling is God calls some to be in this role of elders. And so if we look at Ephesians 4, I’ll just end with this.

    The role of an elder is not a task. It’s an identity.

    “The role of an elder is not a task. It’s an identity.”

    You understand that God has made certain people to be that. God has given some as gifts. He didn’t just give gifts—well, he did give that—but he gave some to fulfill this role.

    And so that’s a sobering thing to think about: that God has given some people as gifts to the church to serve. I think that’s just some good helpful context in reinforcing what you said, Greg. Thank you.

    Personal Struggle with Calling

    I’ll just add one other thing. This question is particularly important to me because I actually struggled a lot with the question of whether I was called into the ministry while I was beginning to serve here at Calvary and even while I was in seminary because it felt like my desire sometimes fluctuated. I felt like the work was going to be difficult.

    I hear famous quotes about, well, if you can do anything else, then you better do that. And I hear some of my classmates saying like, I just have this burning passion and if I don’t do it that I feel like I’m going to die. And I’m like, I don’t feel that way. Does that mean I’m not called?

    We have to be careful. There is a lot of tradition around calling that can make it feel more mysterious and less practical like what Greg was unfolding from the scripture and the desire aspect of it. First of all, it needs to be a desire for the work, not for the position, not for the trouble that comes with it.

    Trouble’s going to come to you as a Christian no matter what. But it’s a desire as God has equipped you for the work of ministry. And that’s something that I was able to—God was gracious that one of my professors was willing to meet with me and just talk this through with me.

    How do you understand calling? He laid out many of the same points as Greg that it is a collection of things. It’s not just some sort of mysterious feeling you have in your heart that coincides with this bursting desire to preach, but you look at all the different parts that affirm you for that role that God has raised you up for that role and then you say, “Do you desire this work? Are you able to do it?

    Well, the trouble that comes with it, God will sustain you for it. Are you willing to trust him for that?” And I feel like that conversation was so clarifying for me. It really freed me up from this fear and despair I felt about feeling like I’m going into this without being called and that’s just going to result in a whole bunch of trouble.

    From that conversation and since then, I just feel I know from these things that Greg has talked about that this is what the Lord has raised me up to do and I’m so glad to embrace that role.

    “Do you desire this work? Are you able to do it? God will sustain you for it.”

    The Congregation’s Role in Accountability

    You know, one thing that’s important is you guys have a role in this. I don’t know if you’ve thought about this, but from Hebrews 13: “Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.” That means we’re accountable not only to God, but to you.

    That’s a sobering thing. We ask you to pray fervently for us to keep us accountable. We need your feedback.

    When the scriptures say that the scriptures are profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that’s for all of us and that includes us. We want to be humble, teachable, approachable.

    We invite feedback from you all as to what we’re doing well and what we can do better, because that’s what it means to lead well as Jesus did. Jesus didn’t need reproof, but we want to be humble like him.

    That’s a responsibility you have to examine us and to follow or not follow as you see the scriptures. Thank you.

    “We ask you to pray fervently for us, to keep us accountable. We need your feedback.”

    Should Christians Use Preferred Pronouns or Attend Same-Sex Weddings?

    All right. Well, let’s move on to our next question. We spent a little more time than average, so we might have to do a little less for this next one if possible. But the question is for you, Mark, to start us off. Should Christians use people’s preferred pronouns or call transgender people by their new opposite gender names? And related, should Christians ever attend a same-sex wedding?

    All right, it’s a combination question.

    I’m going to start with the same-sex wedding. I think we have to define things as God defines them in any situation and in any relationship. What does God say? Psalm 19:6 says the judgments of the Lord are true. They are righteous altogether. So we start there.

    How does God define us as people? Right?

    God Defines Gender — We Do Not Define Ourselves

    This transgender issue. I’ll start there actually. It’s not theoretical to me in my own family and extended family. It’s real.

    I just want to open with that. The DSM, which is the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, defines this as gender dysphoria. It defines it this way: an emotional conflict between one’s created biological gender—male or female—and strong feelings of identification with the opposite gender.

    Biblically and biologically, we know that there are two genders. God said this in Genesis 1:27: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God. He created him male and female he created them.” God blessed them in that. This is a reflection of the image of God. It’s a very important thing.

    Then I think Psalm 100:3 says something that I think is really important. It says, “It is he who has made us and not we ourselves.” We don’t define ourselves. We don’t create ourselves. God does that, and he’s created us for a purpose. We do well to submit to and enjoy his design.

    Now, as far as preferred pronouns go, no. We don’t lie to people. If someone has a different name, I think that’s fine. I’ve got two people in particular in my extended family who have changed their names, and I will use their names. I can avoid that dilemma by using the name, but I’m not going to call him or her by a pronoun that contradicts biological reality because it’s not loving to lie to people. We speak the truth in love in all contexts.

    Psalm 100:3: “It is he who has made us and not we ourselves.”

    Thank you, Dominic. I agree with you.

    It’s my grandson.

    Why Preferred Pronouns Are Not Loving

    Some of you may know the name Rosaria Butterfield, who came out of a life of homosexuality—not only homosexuality but homosexual activism. She has actually said in her most recent book that she helped create the world that we now live in and she needed to repent of that.

    She was very influential in that space. Here’s what she says in an article called “Why I No Longer Use Transgendered Pronouns.”

    She did use them for a while because she thought that was kind.

    Here are some of the reasons she gives for not doing that. Using transgendered pronouns is a sin against the ninth commandment, which is bearing false witness, and encourages people to sin against the tenth commandment, which is coveting. Using transgender pronouns is a sin against the creation ordinance. It’s a sin against image bearing, reflecting well the image of God.

    It discourages a believer’s progressive sanctification and falsifies the gospel. It cheapens redemption. It tramples on the blood of Christ. It fails to love my neighbor as myself. There are a few others, but I think you get the idea.

    We want to see people as God sees them and treat them as God would treat them. So we have sympathy, but we don’t have empathy in this case. Do you understand the difference? We can sympathize with their weakness, but we don’t identify with their sin.

    “We can sympathize with their weakness, but we don’t identify with their sin.”

    That’s an important distinction that we often get confused.

    Should a Christian Attend a Same-Sex Wedding?

    Now, as for the same-sex wedding, should a Christian attend a same-sex wedding?

    The answer is no.

    I want to be really, really clear about this. We don’t say no because we don’t love our homosexual friends. We say that because we do.

    Again, going back to how does God define things? What is marriage? What is a wedding?

    Genesis 2:24 says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” Jesus reinforced that. If we understand what marriage is and what a wedding is, then no one has ever attended a same-sex wedding because there is no such thing.

    “No one has ever attended a same-sex wedding because there is no such thing.”

    That said, we don’t play make-believe. We don’t go to these events and act like something is happening that really isn’t. Why is this so important to many of our homosexual friends?

    Because it communicates approval.

    That’s why.

    And it’s a very important thing.

    True Love Speaks Truth

    And so when we attend something like this, it is tacit approval of what they are doing. I think we risk offending God. We can risk offending others but not offending God. We need to really think about that.

    What does God want? And then we really need to have the right definition of love. Is lying to someone? Is playing make-believe with them loving to them? It is not.

    I think we have a sense of love in our society that is much more oriented to what someone wants more than what someone needs.

    Agape love, biblical love, seeks the highest good of that other person. And that may not be what they want. Thank God for those of us in Christ, he didn’t give us what we wanted. Amen.

    “Agape love seeks the highest good of that other person. And that may not be what they want.”

    He sent Christ in this is love and he loved us, right? He defines love for us.

    So when we think of it that way, how do I best love my homosexual friends?

    Leviticus 19:17 says this: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely reprove your neighbor and so not bear sin because of him.” That’s reflected in Proverbs 27:6, which says, “Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed.”

    Now, love may mean having hard conversations. But you ask yourself, “What is God’s view of this person? Do I love them as God loves them?” And if so, you can understand because God defines marriage, because God knows what’s best, that I can’t go along with that.

    James 5:20 says, “He who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”

    Taking Every Opportunity for Friendship and Hospitality

    That’s love. If you listen to testimonies of some former homosexuals who are believers, people like Becket Cook, Rosaria Butterfield, Christopher Yuan, they will say things like, “I’m so glad that my Christian friends didn’t lie to me about this, but they told me the truth that was so important and loving to me and brought me to salvation, right?”

    That said, we take every opportunity to grow in our friendship, show hospitality, make connections, and understand what’s going on in their lives. One of the things I’ve seen that’s common for some of my homosexual friends and transgender friends is that there was some trauma that occurred earlier in their life or something very difficult.

    It’s good for us to try to understand that and to form friendships with them and to recognize that, as scripture says, such were some of you. We are not looking at anyone in a condescending way. We are all equally sinners at the foot of the cross. So it’s important to remember that as well.

    “I’m so glad my Christian friends didn’t lie to me but told me the truth.”

    Thanks Mark. I think I would just add one thing, and I think this is implied in what you said. If you’re going to act this way, if you’re going to make these decisions towards a homosexual friend or transgender family member, if at all possible, try to explain that to the person.

    Don’t just say, “I’m not going to your wedding.” Say, “I’m not coming, but can I tell you why?” or maybe through a nice letter or maybe through a humble conversation. But don’t just leave them in the dark thinking, “They must hate me.”

    Even with our oldest daughter, the conversation was along the lines of, “We’re not telling you this because we don’t love you, but because we do.” It’s wonderful to be able to explain that fully with the truth of God’s word.

    Is Homosexuality a Worse Sin Than Other Sins?

    Going on to the next question, and we’re coming back to you, Mark, to begin answering this one. Don’t worry, we’ll get to the other elders. Number three: Is homosexuality a worse sin than other sins? And is it a sign of greater personal or societal depravity than other sins are?

    Yeah. No and yes.

    Let me explain.

    All Sin Equally Alienates Us from God

    James 2:10 says, “Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point has become guilty of all.” Any sin alienates us from God and puts us in need of salvation. Any sin is worthy of hell. So in that sense, no, it’s not worse.

    James 2:10: “Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point has become guilty of all.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which I referenced earlier, is beautiful. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.

    Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the spirit of our God.” Praise God, he saves.

    All of us are on that list. You understand that, right? There is no descriptor there that doesn’t apply to each of us.

    And so we are all equally unworthy of salvation. All of us are there. But we tend to think how we categorize sin is important.

    Jerry Bridges in his book “Respectable Sins” talks about things that we don’t often like to talk about that are equally offensive to God in the sense that they separate us from him. Some of the sins on that list include anxiety, frustration, discontentment, unthankfulness, pride, selfishness, lack of self-control, impatience, irritability, anger, and gluttony.

    There are a lot of things that we tend to not talk about as sin as we should and be really clear about. So that’s an important thing as well, and just to be humble about that.

    In that sense, it’s not different or worse. But there’s a very real sense that we have to say what the scriptures say about this, that it is.

    Not All Sins Have the Same Consequences

    We have to acknowledge that not all sins have the same consequences.

    It’s interesting how much the Bible talks about sexual immorality because it is particularly dangerous.

    For millennia now, since the beginning of time, humans tend to believe that sexual pleasure is the greatest possible pleasure and it’s not. Delight in the Lord far surpasses that.

    “Humans tend to believe sexual pleasure is the greatest possible pleasure and it’s not. Delight in the Lord far surpasses that.”

    And we just need to recognize that. Yet the consequences are severe.

    In Matthew 5:27-30, I’ll just read this: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. But if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you. For it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

    And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you. For it is better that you lose one of these parts of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

    Thinking sinful thoughts, thinking adulterous thoughts is offensive to God, but it doesn’t have the same actual consequences as actual adultery.

    The scriptures talk about how sins against our own body, and we just have to acknowledge that that’s a very different consequence. And that’s real.

    Some of you have experienced that. We recognize that.

    Abomination and Societal Judgment

    That said, we have to say what the scriptures say about this. There are certain sins in the Old Testament in particular that are referred to as abominations worthy of capital punishment. And this is one of them.

    Not all God’s requirements are that.

    But we have to recognize that that’s true.

    He who lies with a male as one lies with a female is an abomination. Right? And then in Romans 1 that talks about it just reinforces this. Men with men, women with women. It’s an abomination before God. It violates his beautiful design and we just have to acknowledge that.

    Leviticus 18 and 20 referred to the land vomiting out the inhabitants of those who committed such acts and it’s why they were defeated and it was God’s warning against Israel that they not participate in such things lest the land vomit them out. This is very strong language.

    Sodom and Gomorrah got destroyed by fire not because they were inhospitable, not because they were thinking lustful thoughts, but they had gone so far that this was an acceptable behavior and even an encouraged behavior. And Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned some 23 times in the scriptures as warnings to us of the seriousness of this sin. And we have to just acknowledge that’s real.

    “There are certain sins in the Old Testament referred to as abominations worthy of capital punishment.”

    That’s real. And the Bible also says that there are different levels of judgment for different sins.

    Romans 1 talks about receiving in their bodies that is homosexual behavior the due penalty of their error.

    There are unique consequences. If you have friends who are homosexual, you can see this. I think you can see this both in their bodies and in their personalities. To me that’s very obvious. And it has damage in this life but it also has damage in the next.

    I’ll just wrap up by saying this.

    Jesus said a number of times talking about people who engaged in certain sins and in particular rejecting him. He said it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than for you in the judgment.

    We just have to acknowledge what Jesus said. There are different and more severe consequences both in this life and in the next. And lastly, I’ll say no civilization has survived this.

    No civilization has had the open acceptance of homosexuality and survived. Babylon, Rome, Greece, maybe us. We just have to acknowledge that. But again, we have a gracious God. No one is beyond the reach of God’s hand if he wants to save.

    Such were some of you. Such were some of you. Praise God.

    We need to be humble about that.

    Homosexuality Is Not the Unforgivable Sin

    The only thing I wanted to add very quickly was that I understand the spirit of that question. The question is asked because of a reaction against the church downplaying the sin of homosexuality and trying to say that this is an equal or maybe not even that bad of a sin.

    The thing we have to remember—everything that Mark said—but we also have to remember that homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin, right?

    There’s actually only one unforgivable sin, and that is the sin of unbelief.

    Believe in Christ. It doesn’t matter. I think I said this during my Sunday school. It doesn’t matter if your entire society is heterosexual, you’re still going to hell, right? Unless you believe the gospel. That’s something to keep in mind.

    Christopher Yuan said it helpfully. He said that the opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, it’s holiness.

    “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, it’s holiness.”

    Right. And that’s what God calls all of us to.

    You’ve been kind of quiet, but no more. Question number four is coming your way.

    What do you say?

    I want a vocal rest.

    Okay.

    Why Don’t We See Women Participating in the Main Worship Service?

    Yeah, we got you preaching later, so I understand. All right. If the Calvary leadership believes that the Bible permits women to speak in the main worship service, why don’t we see that at Calvary?

    Avoiding the Pharisee’s Extra Boundary

    All right. I think this is a great question, especially since I’m a little torn on this and I think there are several reasons.

    First, it would be a shift from what has been done. There’s a kind of idea that anytime you do something new, you’re moving towards something. I think the fear is often that you’ve heard this term “slippery slope”—that once you start one thing, so in 2026 a woman may do announcements and then in 2036 there’s a woman pastor in a church. How did you get there? Well, you let this first thing happen back in 2026. So let’s just avoid that.

    But what you end up doing in that case is what I’ve talked about, at least in Yam, about what the Pharisees would do. I’m not saying that we are Pharisees, but just saying that they would actually set a boundary that’s actually further out than God’s boundary. So if the boundary is here, but I set the boundary at the door, if I don’t ever cross the door, I’ll never get to here.

    I keep myself from sinning by keeping myself so far away from the boundary God set that there’s no chance I will ever get here. The problem is there is a lot of great ministry opportunity between the door and the pulpit in that analogy, and I think that we have now just started discussing that.

    The only time I remember—and I’ve been an elder for 11 years here—the only time I remember us even discussing it or thinking about it was when we talked about 1 Corinthians. We did a study of 1 Corinthians in the home group and we talked about chapter 11, chapter 14 in particular, and what that would actually mean in the service.

    One of the other things we had considered was that there may be opposition within the church itself. Not that we are afraid of opposition, but we didn’t want to unnecessarily cause distraction and division by someone being offended by that. If we were running out of people and we had no one, then we’re like, “Okay, we don’t have anybody. What do you guys want to do?” We realized that’s not really the way that God wants it.

    I guess I’m saying all that to kind of paint the picture of what it was. I’ll say this: no woman, at least to my knowledge, has ever come and said, “I want to read scripture in the service too,” and we had to say no, you can’t. That’s never come up.

    “There is a lot of great ministry opportunity between the door and the pulpit.”

    But I think it’s never come up because of just the way the atmosphere that we have created would make it so a woman wouldn’t even think that they should ask that question. They would think that they would get laughed at or they would be called a sinner or whatever. Or we would think they’re rebellious or anything. So they wouldn’t even think to ask something like that.

    I think with all those things, we started talking about it just because we were going to talk about complementarianism and then we realized, wait, we all agree. Which was a shock to me because I thought I was the only one that felt that way, honestly, and we just never had a chance to talk about it. Then we start talking and saying, like, oh wow, we agree. It was really funny—Mark was away, I think it might have been at the Shepherd’s Conference.

    Moving Forward Biblically

    May be that’s what it was. But he was away and we’re like, “Oh man, now we’re going to have to convince Mark because the three of us agree, but he’s going to come back.” And within about 15 words, he was like, “Brothers, you don’t have to convince me. I believe this as well is what the scripture says.”

    And so the only thoughts are now we want to make sure that if we do that, it’s not just to kind of throw it in the face and say, “See, this is allowable.” We’re just going to have a woman do this and next week you’re going to have a woman reading the scripture just to have for the sake of it.

    But the same way that we choose the men to lead the scripture, to read the scripture, or to do anything else in the service, we will have those same requirements there. We want someone with a strong testimony. We want someone who everyone looks at and says that is a godly person, whether they’re a man or a woman.

    And so we still want to be careful with that. We want to be careful how we do it because we want to make sure that we are trying to honor God and we’re not trying to send a message or establish precedent or anything like that.

    We do want to make sure that we are careful and that anything we think of that is going to impact the church, we are really praying about it and we’re doing it because we want to exalt the name of Jesus. We believe that men and women are gifted and we believe that men and women can serve in those ways as long as we aren’t violating the role restrictions that God has set in his word.

    It’s something that you may see. We haven’t really had a chance to discuss what we would do or how we would implement it. You guys are probably tired of me doing announcements, so we may have somebody else doing that soon.

    But I think that’s kind of where we stand. We don’t see it because we didn’t consider it too much. Also, the times that we did consider it, we thought about a negative impact that it could have.

    And now I think we’re rethinking that. We’re trying to make sure that we’re biblical and if someone has an objection, let’s sit down and go through scripture and talk about that objection.

    We actually didn’t get any objections when we taught about it in Sunday school, which was kind of telling. No one said, “I think you’re reading scripture wrong and this and that.” But if someone came to us like that, we would have that discussion.

    I think we just don’t want to be blocked because we think somebody might have an objection or we don’t want to offend that person. I’d rather offend the person than not offend God. It’s the same thing that Mark said to an earlier question.

    Yeah, I like what you said, that we’re balancing not wanting to cause unnecessary distraction, but also not being afraid to hold to what the Bible teaches and actually act upon that. I really liked something that Mark said in one of our meetings about this where he mentioned that the scriptures are clear that women are not to be in a spiritual authority role or a teaching role.

    And so obviously that excludes the pulpit. That excludes teaching a mixed group in Sunday school or something like that. But certain other things are a little bit more ambiguous, like is leading worship a teaching role or is doing a scripture reading a teaching role?

    We can talk about that, but that’s really something that people are going to need to defer to their local elders about. The elders are the ones going to think through this and they’re welcoming feedback from the congregation, but those are a little bit more ambiguous.

    Let the elders set the course there. Submit to your elders’ direction there and allow for other churches to come to a different but biblical stance.

    You say, “Well, that church, they don’t allow women at all in their service.” That’s okay according to scripture. They might be interpreting certain things, but it’s also okay to allow that.

    Learning to follow the lead of your elders in this area, I think would be really helpful.

    “Let the elders set the course. Submit to your elders’ direction and allow for other churches to come to a different but biblical stance.”

    Yeah, there’s just such great freedom here. The restrictions are really, really narrow and so we just want to explore all that God would allow us to do in this area.

    Some have approached me about something, well, this person shouldn’t be doing this, whether it be an announcement or something like that. And to your point, brother, let’s just be biblical about that. Can you show me where that is biblically?

    And often it’s nowhere to be found. It might be your conviction, but if it’s not biblical, you just back off on that.

    If that makes sense. Yeah.

    Rejoicing in Freedom Within Biblical Boundaries

    I think it’s amazing that this applies in so many areas of life where we can rejoice in the great freedom that we have to do all kinds of things rather than just focus on the one or two restrictions. That’s human nature from the very beginning—you have one restriction and you’re going to focus on that, where you have all this wonderful freedom to do all kinds of things for the Lord. Let’s just rejoice in that.

    “We can rejoice in the great freedom we have rather than just focus on the one or two restrictions.”

    All right. Let me go to our next question. I’ll be starting the answer on this one.

    What Does Submission Mean in Marriage?

    What exactly is meant by the term submission in the context of the wife’s role in marriage? Is it exactly the same as obedience? And what does this look like practically?

    Just building on what Khif taught on complementarianism and going back to that main passage, Ephesians 5:21-24: “Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ also is the head of the church. He himself being the savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”

    From a grammatical and linguistic standpoint, the word translated “be subject” is from the Greek verb hupatasso, which means literally to arrange oneself in order under another’s authority. It’s used in a passive sense there. So it’s something that you do to yourself to arrange oneself in order under another’s authority, or more simply, to submit oneself.

    Now, is this the same thing as obedience? Does a wife need to obey her husband? Well, submit is basically a synonym for obey, and this is obvious from the scriptures in 1 Peter 3:5-6.

    “Submit means literally to arrange oneself in order under another’s authority.”

    1 Peter 3:5-6 uses these two terms right after each other. 1 Peter 3:5 says: “For in this way in former times the holy women also who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands.” There’s the word from hupatasso. “Just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.”

    So submission and obedience are practically synonyms.

    What does this look like practically? Allow me to present seven points from a Sunday school lesson I did on God’s design for wives. If you want to listen to the fuller answer, you can go back to my series on biblical counseling for marriage and parenting.

    Submission Is Not Passivity or Manipulation

    We have that on our website. But seven points as to what submission looks like practically. And then I’ll give you one specific example at the end.

    Submission is first not passivity, silence, or isolation. It’s not passivity, silence, or isolation. Wives are not supposed to just sit pretty while their husbands do and decide everything.

    No, wives are supposed to use their gifts, their talents, and their counsel to help their husbands, their families, and the church, though always under the lead of and with respect to their husbands.

    “Wives are supposed to use their gifts, talents, and counsel to help their husbands, though always under their lead.”

    Submission is also not intellectual or theological stagnation.

    Historically, there have been many cultures, even Christian cultures, which have said, “Women are spiritually incapable. Don’t bother teaching them. Don’t bother trying to develop their minds. They just can’t handle it. They’re so fleshly.” That’s not true.

    Wives are not to be treated that way. Wives are not intellectuals who are naive and cannot think for themselves.

    Now wives are to, as the scriptures call them along with all Christians, grow in wisdom, grow in the mind of Christ, and grow in knowledge of the world so that they can become greater helpers and better co-rulers with their husbands and with the other men and women of the earth.

    Number three, submission is not a cover for sinful manipulation. It’s not a cover for sinful manipulation.

    Submission Is Voluntary and Comprehensive

    The wife is not the neck that turns the head wherever she wants. Say my husband’s ahead behind the neck. That’s not the biblical design. Wives must not submit publicly while privately they selfishly browbeat, guilt trip or bargain with their husbands to get what they really want. That’s not submission.

    But what is submission? Submission is, fourthly, voluntary and not forced. It’s a command given to wives and not to their husbands. Husbands are not called to force their wives to submit.

    Submission is an attitude as well as an action.

    Just like with Christ in the church, the church does not conform to Christ only outwardly. No, Christ wants the church’s heart. And so it is with a wife’s submission to her husband.

    She looks to cultivate feelings of lining up under her husband internally even as she looks to perform that externally. But she doesn’t wait for the feelings to come. She shouldn’t say, “Well, until I feel like submitting, I’m not going to submit.” Because what that’s going to lead to is not submitting.

    No, it’s chiefly an act of the will, and you trust that your emotions and feelings will follow.

    Sixth, submission is comprehensive. It is comprehensive. This is very obvious from the text. It’s not a general direction where I follow my husband’s general direction only for the important things or only when I think he’s being reasonable.

    “Submission is voluntary and not forced. It’s a command given to wives and not to their husbands.”

    That’s not what the text says. Again, the parallel to Christ in the church. Does the church do that to Christ? Does the church follow him only when it thinks it’s reasonable or only on the important things?

    And then verse 24 is even more explicit. It says, “So also the wives ought to be subject to their husbands in everything.” Now, if a wife is unable to follow the lead of her husband—maybe because it would represent disobedience to the Lord or maybe it’s just beyond her ability to do what he requests—still, wives are to do their best to line up under their husband’s lead and direction or to respectfully explain why they cannot do what he is asking.

    Submission Is an Act of Reverent Faith

    And the objection to that is, well, won’t an ungodly husband just take advantage of that? If it’s supposed to be comprehensive submission, if it’s supposed to be an all-out effort to try and line yourself up under your husband, isn’t that going to lead to an ungodly husband taking advantage?

    Well, the one last thing I’ll say about submission is submission is an act of reverent faith. It is an act of reverent faith. In one sense, submission is risky, but so is all Christian obedience, right? To a certain extent.

    The scriptures specifically say this is to be done out of fear of Christ. Back to Ephesians 5:21. Not in the sense of, oh, I better do this or Christ is going to judge me. No, it’s out of reverence for him. It’s out of a great respect for who he is and his design and his power.

    “Submission is risky, but so is all Christian obedience. It is done out of reverence for Christ.”

    Interestingly, 1 Peter 3 reminds us that often ungodly husbands will become less demanding when a wife submits rather than more demanding. That’s the encouragement from the scripture. When you act in a chaste and respectful way to your husband, you win him without a word, even if he’s disobedient to the word.

    Doesn’t always happen, but it often does happen. So that’s an encouragement to wives. Nevertheless, whether that does or doesn’t, God’s promise to wives from the scriptures is, I will take care of you. You don’t have to worry like, well, what’s going to happen if I submit?

    Again, the same for all Christian obedience. What’s going to happen if I’m going to be obedient? Won’t that mean that I’m going to get in trouble or I’m not going to get what I need? God says, I will take care of you.

    And if you are mistreated, I will take vengeance for you. You don’t have to take vengeance for yourself.

    What this means is that the wife is freed up. She’s freed up from fear to aggressive, faith-filled submission.

    A Practical Example of Submission

    Again, going back to 1 Peter 3:6, it says that just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. It’s not supposed to be craving fear that drives submission. Rather, it’s that faith-filled reverence for Christ that says, “I can do this confidently because I know my God will take care of me.”

    One practical example. What might this look like? We know a couple not of this church who had this issue. A decision about schooling the children. The husband wanted to put the kids in a Christian school. The wife wanted to homeschool the children. And they disagreed.

    So what was to happen to resolve the impasse? Well, the husband should seek and listen to his wife’s counsel, listen to her appeal. If unconvinced, he should try to bring her on board. If she’s still unconvinced, then he requests her submission and she is to give it willingly, trusting God to take care of all the details.

    Then she does her best to support what her husband has decided. Not just okay, we’ll go along with it but I really don’t want to do this and just dragging her feet or even trying to sabotage it.

    “She does her best to support what her husband has decided — not dragging her feet or trying to sabotage it.”

    No, that’s not lining up. That’s not submission. Rather, she tries to make it work as best she can. She doesn’t wait for everything to go wrong to say, “See, I told you so.”

    There’s my quick answer to that. Other comments from the elders.

    Submission Reflects God’s Design, Not a Suggestion

    I love it, Pastor Dave. Thank you. Ephesians 5 doesn’t say that the man should be the head of the wife and the wife should be submissive to her husband. It says that they are not should be. That’s the reality. I think you’re seeing this in the questions that we’re answering today.

    It’s acknowledging reality as God has defined it and walking in that reality.

    And that’s a freeing thing. I think of Betty. She has said—I’ll brag on her a little bit. She’ll be very uncomfortable with this, I think, but she says to me things like, “Well, honey, I trust you.” And I look at her and say, “I’m not sure that’s a great idea.” You understand?

    But it does two things. One, it shows me that her faith really isn’t ultimately in me.

    “Ephesians 5 doesn’t say the man should be the head. It says that he is. That’s the reality.”

    It’s in the design that God’s given.

    I’ve shown plenty of reasons why she shouldn’t trust me. Just, we’re human. We disappoint one another. But it’s her exercise of faith, and it also stirs me up to think, “Oh, I need to be really following Christ even more closely.”

    And so I think there’s just real freedom in following God’s design and asking him to bless that. Yeah, I sometimes tell people that the safest place to be is in the will of God.

    All right, let me give you one more question and answer. I think I’ll be able to answer this, and we might have one comment from the elders, but that will probably do us for our time. Save the easiest question for last.

    How Is Abuse Viewed and Handled by the Church?

    How is abuse, whether verbal, emotional, physical, psychological, and of varying levels of severity viewed and handled by the church? Does a wife have to submit to an abusive husband? This is a weighty topic. It’s difficult even to discuss without losing proper balance.

    I’ll do my best. There’s a more complete answer I gave as part of the Sunday school series I mentioned earlier, Biblical Counseling for Marriage and Parenting. We had a lesson on dealing with abuse.

    Defining Abuse Biblically

    In answering this question, we first need to define our terms clearly. Abuse is not a common word in the Bible, but it is a common word today. Various kinds of abuse are claimed and talked about. It’s a bit of a buzzword. If someone says that they’ve been abused, they know that they’re going to be taken seriously.

    Usually, people use the word abuse to refer to any kind of severe or prolonged mistreatment. It can be by someone’s sinful words or by someone’s sinful actions.

    The most serious kind of abuse is also called domestic violence, which we could define as sinful behavior that threatens or actually harms the physical life and well-being of another. This includes physical violence, sexual assault, threatening speech and actions, forced isolation, and financial control.

    “Abuse refers to severe or prolonged mistreatment by someone’s sinful words or sinful actions.”

    Sinful mistreatment and domestic violence can happen in any relationship, but most often happens in relationships in which one is physically weaker than the other. While wives can abuse husbands, it’s more common for husbands to abuse wives. Many children are also abused by their parents or by other older children.

    So how should the church respond to abuse of whatever type or severity according to the Bible? I will present a brief outline of response.

    Biblically Balanced Priorities in Abuse Situations

    The church must approach abuse situations with biblically balanced priorities. On the one hand, we must take seriously abuse allegations and respond accordingly.

    On the other hand, we must remember that not all claims of abuse are actually abuse.

    On the one hand, we must hold abusers accountable for their sin and not allow for any excuse. It doesn’t matter if you provoked them. It doesn’t matter that you were feeling a certain way or you have things going on. No excuse.

    On the other hand, we must hold the abused accountable for their sins, even yes, for sinfully provoking their abusers.

    On the one hand, we must be committed to protecting the life and limb of the abused, readily involving church and civil authorities to rescue the oppressed and punish oppressors.

    On the other hand, we must be committed above all to the glory of God, which means seeking the godly perseverance of the abused, the true repentance of the abuser, and where possible, the restoration of the relationship between the abuser and the abused.

    “We must be committed above all to the glory of God — seeking perseverance of the abused and repentance of the abuser.”

    Now, if you’re familiar with the world’s approach to dealing with abuse, what I just said to you is very different.

    The world’s goal is usually too limited. They only seek the protection of the one being abused. This is a good goal, but it’s not enough.

    We do want to protect the abused, but God calls us to do more than that. We are to minister the gospel to both the abused and the abuser for repentance, for salvation, and for God’s glory.

    The Church’s Practical Role in Protecting the Abused

    Just to be clear, the church must offer practical help to those who are claiming abuse, especially domestic violence. And how does it do that? The church must practice and enforce church discipline, often by way of biblical counseling.

    The church must be ready to provide a safe place for somebody who’s claiming abuse to stay while counseling or discipline or civil investigation is ongoing. Many people are afraid to confront their abusers because they know if they stay at home, they could be harmed. So they need a safe place to stay.

    Third, the church must be ready to involve the police and law courts to protect anyone in the congregation from immediate or ongoing physical danger. We can’t be afraid to do that. Sometimes the abused are afraid to do that, but we can’t be afraid to do that as a church.

    “The church must be ready to provide a safe place and to involve the police to protect anyone in immediate danger.”

    Must a Wife Submit to an Abusive Husband?

    Now, what does this all mean for a wife’s submission to her husband? Must she submit to an abuser?

    Whether it’s just sinful mistreatment or whether it’s domestic violence, keep in mind everything I just said, but also keep in mind the previous question.

    The Bible answers this question directly. In 1 Peter 3:1 again: “In the same way, you wives be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives.”

    Disobedient to the word. What does that mean? It means they’re sinning. It means they don’t follow God. It means that they are being disobedient to God in some way, including mistreatment of the wife.

    1 Peter 3:1: “Even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won by the behavior of their wives.”

    And what does God say? Be submissive to your own husbands. And this only makes sense in the context of the command in 1 Peter 2 and 3. It is fundamentally a call for Christians to suffer righteously as a testimony for God.

    1 Peter 2:13 says, “Subject yourselves to the governing authorities.” Governing authorities—Rome—they’re godless. They’re not protecting Christians. They’re turning a blind eye when Christians are being lynched. Submit to this government, this unjust government.

    Or 1 Peter 2:18, speaking to house slaves, says, “Submit yourselves to your masters, not just to the good and reasonable, but also the unreasonable.” Why? How? He immediately goes on in 1 Peter 2:21-24 to talk about how Christ did it for us first, laying out for you an example to follow.

    Submission to Unjust Authority Is Basic to Christianity

    This is actually basic to being a Christian. It’s not just wives. Oh, you wives, you got a raw deal. No, this is Christians. This is what Christians do.

    We submit to God-ordained authorities even when those authorities are unjust.

    “This is what Christians do. We submit to God-ordained authorities even when those authorities are unjust.”

    1 Peter 3:1, right after those things I just mentioned, says, “In the same way, you wives do this.” And by the way, 1 Peter 3:7 says the same thing. “In the same way, you husbands, if your wives are mistreating you, live with her in an understanding way.”

    Now Christians, Christian subjects, slaves, wives back then, they didn’t have much recourse when it came to protection from harm. It’s not like a Christian slave can be like, “My master is abusing me. What should I do? Can I go to the government?” Government’s not going to help you.

    They had nobody to help them except God. Now today, we have things that can protect us and help us practically, and we should take advantage of those.

    Love Your Enemies — Even in Marriage

    The negative stereotype about conservative evangelicals, especially biblical counselors, is that they just tell wives to go be punching bags to their husbands. That is not true. We have the church. We have the government so that we can protect wives from that kind of situation. If she’s in immediate danger or if she doesn’t feel safe at home, the church and the government can do something about it. We must take advantage of that.

    But let us not forget what is basic to being a Christian. You love and you do good to those who do not do good to you.

    Matthew 5:44-45.

    This is Jesus.

    Matthew 5:44-45: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

    But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Isn’t that the experience of Christians? Not just in marriage. That’s the experience of Christians worldwide. He says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your father who is in heaven.”

    I have a lot more to say on that topic. Again, you can check out the lesson I did, but that’s just a quick answer right now. I want to add a quick note: it’s fashionable now on social media for people to dig up some case from many years ago at a high-profile church and create a lot of drama and churn about it, maybe with the goal of attacking the church. Maybe in some cases it’s legitimate, but I would say we have to be very careful when that happens.

    There are a lot of asymmetries in that, right? One is that a lot of times if something happens or there are accusations against how a church treated an abusive case in the past, first of all, you don’t know what was known about that in the beginning when it happened. The elders at that time may not have had all the information, and you don’t know what else they knew because they’re not really free to talk about it. Whereas the other side is free to talk about whatever they want.

    So there’s an information asymmetry. There’s also the fact that I’ve been through many years at this church. I’ve been through a lot of these complex situations, and they are hard. None of these situations are easy or cut and dry. There’s almost always sin on both sides. There’s almost always ambiguity. You don’t really know what is going on in people’s houses. All you have is maybe some evidence or some word of mouth.

    I think one of the reasons this question is very popular today is because of this trend where people on social media are able to drag these churches through the mud. Their focus is, “How could you let people treat abuse that way?” That’s their only focus. So I think we just have to be very careful when we see that happen, to not simply pile on without discernment. Almost all of these situations are difficult.

    Yeah, for sure. Well, that does it for our time today. Feel free to follow up with any of us afterwards.

    Next week we return to our series and we’re talking about eschatology—the premillennial return of Christ. Why do we take this stance as a church? What is this stance? I’ll explain that next time.

    One of you close us in a word of prayer. Khif, can I call on you? I know you’ve got your voice, but sorry about that.

    Closing Prayer

    Let’s pray.

    Our gracious God, we want to thank you for how clear your word is. We thank you, God, that in all of these difficult situations and circumstances where we may not know what to do, we are lost for solutions. We know that we can come to your word.

    We know, God, that you would provide for us guidance. You provide for us commands, and even when there isn’t a particular command, you give us principles to think through. Your spirit constantly guides us.

    I pray that we would continue to be sensitive to your spirit and obedient to your word, God. No matter what decisions come that we have to face as a church or in our own personal lives, and especially in our relationships with others, I pray, God, that we would not let our feelings or our emotions or the different ways that the world is turning make the decision for us.

    But we would stand firm in you and we would trust you, God. I pray that now as we have our time of fellowship, you would bless that time and bless the conversations. Then as we come back to worship you corporately, we would do so in spirit and in truth.

    We ask this in Christ’s name. Amen.

  • Lesson 21: Complementarianism, Questions

    Lesson 21: Complementarianism, Questions

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    This sermon examines the biblical basis for complementarianism through key passages in 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Corinthians 11. We are reminded that men and women are equal in value before God but distinct in roles as ordained by Him, with these distinctions rooted in creation rather than culture or the fall.

    Key Lessons:

    1. The behavior and practices of the world are not to dominate the behavior and practices of the church — our identity in Christ transforms how we present ourselves and relate to one another.
    2. The prohibition against women holding the office of pastor/elder is not about ability, intellect, or spiritual worth, but about God’s ordained order rooted in creation.
    3. Women played vital roles in the early church — praying, prophesying, teaching, and serving — and the restrictions are narrow and specific rather than broad silencing.
    4. When Scripture is ambiguous on a particular application, we should not build rigid doctrinal positions on uncertain passages, nor should we rush to call others heretical for disagreeing on secondary matters.

    Application: We are called to approach Scripture with humility, letting God’s Word shape our thinking rather than imposing cultural assumptions. We should honor the roles God has established while fully valuing and utilizing the gifts of every member of the congregation, avoiding both the extreme of suppressing women’s contributions and the extreme of dismissing God’s ordained order.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How do we distinguish between cultural expressions of authority and submission versus the timeless biblical principles behind them?
    2. In what practical ways can our church better honor and utilize the gifts of women while maintaining biblical order?
    3. When we encounter passages that are difficult to interpret with certainty, how should that affect how strongly we hold and enforce positions based on those passages?

    Scripture Focus: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 (roles of men and women in the church, the prohibition on women teaching with authority over men), 1 Corinthians 14:29-35 (women keeping silent in the context of judging prophecy), 1 Corinthians 11:3-5 (head coverings and women praying and prophesying), Romans 16:1-2 (Phoebe as servant of the church), Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 (the curse and desire to dominate).

    Outline

    Introduction

    Before we begin going through the individual questions that came in, first I want to say thank you to everybody who sent in questions.

    Two things. One, I should just quickly ask for prayer again. Last week I wasn’t feeling well for a different reason. This week, apparently I have something called zinc poisoning. Just asking if you can pray while I’m up here because I do not feel good.

    But anyway, God, see me through this. Before we get into the questions, there are a couple of passages that we need to look at if we’re going to discuss this topic. We’re talking about complementarianism.

    And I think I can manage it this time.

    Defining Complementarianism

    Kind of this loose definition that we’re working with is that men and women are equal in value before God, but distinct in roles as ordained by him.

    These roles include authority and submission. They reflect the relationship between Christ and his church. They actually have their root in creation, not in the fall and not in any particular culture.

    “Men and women are equal in value before God, but distinct in roles as ordained by Him.”

    1 Timothy 2:8–15 — Men and Women in the Church

    The first passage we should look at is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. You can turn there if you’d like, though it spans multiple pages.

    We’re going to work our way through this. This is not meant to be a full examination of the text. We don’t have time—that would probably take a month or two worth of sermons just to go through this and the next passage that we’re going to look at. But I’ll read it for us here.

    1 Timothy 2:8-15 says, “Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger and dispute. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women, making a claim to godliness.” Verse 11, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness, but I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

    For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. But women will be preserved through childbirth if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity with moderation.”

    1 Timothy 2:11: “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.”

    That’s a lot. As you can see, we’re not going to be able to deeply dive into all of it here. There are a few observations we can make. It’s likely that these two statements are separate—one in verse 8 directed to men and one in verses 9-15 directed to women.

    It seems like both of these statements, or all the statements made in these directives, are corrective in nature. Meaning that there were issues happening in the church of Ephesus, and Paul was writing this to correct the thinking and behavior of some of the people in the congregation. It wasn’t just writing and saying this to get it on the record—it was actually things going on.

    Prayer and the Posture of Men

    He’s saying, “I’m seeing this. I’m noticing these things happening. I’m getting reports of them.” And this is what God’s will is in this area. It could have been issues of questions that people had or disputes or things like that. And he’s setting the record straight. At least it would seem that way.

    Here doesn’t mean it’s 100% that, but the language kind of lends itself to that. And one of the reasons—even when we look at this idea of prayer and he says I want the men in every place to pray—that seems like the obvious thing. You’re writing to a pastor of a church and you’re saying I want the people in your church to pray. That should be a no-brainer. Paul, why are you saying this?

    It’s possible that, and I think we know this especially as men, that it can be sometimes more difficult to pray with sincerity because there’s a fear of vulnerability or dependency that seems to be naturally built into the way that many men in many societies are brought up. We’re taught to think that we should be handling things ourselves.

    And even when we’re Christians and we’re talking about submitting to the almighty God, it is still sometimes difficult for us to not only say we need help, but to dig deep down in our hearts and expose all of the emotions that are really there. There are some men that I know who’ve cried like once or twice in their lives.

    And actually, I haven’t cried that many times. I almost cried at a movie that was actually a comedy. That’s so odd. But I think music sometimes will bring me to tears, but it’s very difficult even for me. And some of that might be because I was raised that you got to be tough, you got to be strong, just handle it and move on. You’re a man. Leave that emotional stuff to the women.

    And sometimes that could get into our relationship with God and get into prayer. So it’s possible that even in that culture some of the men there had an issue with praying with true sincerity and they were relying on these more formulaic prayers that really wasn’t exposing their hearts.

    “It can be difficult for men to pray with sincerity because there’s a fear of vulnerability or dependency.”

    Also he says I want you to pray lifting up holy hands. Now this idea of holy hands refers to living in a way that honors God. We could see it. We don’t have time to look at it, but in Psalm 24:3 and 4, there’s a question that’s asked: who can ascend to God essentially? And it says those who have clean hands and a pure heart.

    Just the hands themselves are not talking about your hands. It’s elsewhere where God talks about the nation and says that you have blood on your hands. And again, just because you are men of war—that was the idea. You are vicious, you are murderous people. You have blood on your hands. And so this idea of hands representing the life and the way that we live is seen throughout scripture.

    So he says here I want you to lift up holy hands. Not necessarily meaning that you have to have your hands raised when you pray, although that was one of the postures that was taken especially in ancient Israel. But it doesn’t mean that he’s saying every time you pray you have to lift up your hands or God is not hearing. This is more talking about the posture in a way that you even approach prayer.

    Paul also adds in a warning about having anger and dispute being parts of the life of the church. And those are things that would hinder the prayers and would stop them from being effective. We saw last week that he also said that for husbands, if you don’t respect your wives and treat them in a particular way—and that was in 1 Peter 3:7—then your prayers may be hindered.

    And so you want to honor your wives and you want to treat them tenderly as you would a precious item or something that’s delicate. And if you’re not doing that, your prayers will be hindered. So even there we see this idea of prayers being hindered because of the character of the person praying, even if they are a believer and they have access to the throne of God.

    So it’s possible also that, and I’ve been saying all this talking about men, it’s possible that verse 8 was written to include women as well. So when it says therefore I want the men, it’s using a word that literally means men, males. But we do the same thing sometimes when we talk about humanity. We’ll say mankind. Sometimes we don’t say mankind and womankind.

    If I say mankind, I’m talking about humans versus other life forms. My wife and I used to watch a show a long time ago called Man Versus Food. And it wasn’t—or even you see things about man versus nature—and it isn’t talking about it has to be a man fighting a bear. It could be a woman fighting a bear too, if you want to see a woman fight a bear. I don’t know why, but it is also possible that when he’s saying I want men, it’s—I kind of lean toward it not being that only because he says, likewise, I want the women. So he has a directive for the men and a directive for the women.

    It seems like he also could be saying that this is how I want this spiritual behavior for the church, and in particular, here are some things I’m hearing about the women there. It could be that as well.

    With these passages, I’m going to lay out something. It is with passages where it’s difficult to pull out every bit of meaning where there is some ambiguity. You don’t really want that to be the only or the primary source of a particular belief or doctrine that you hold.

    Especially if you’re going to hold to it and say this is 100% what God is saying, and then we get to heaven and God says that’s not what I meant at all. You really twisted it there, or you didn’t fully get it. And that can happen.

    I mean, in general, when we look at these things, why I’m saying this is because we may come across a teacher or a church or a book that says something different than what you hear here from any of the teachers here, from the elders here. And I don’t want your first thought to be that they’re heretical. Sometimes we have that kind of reaction—we jump in, they’re different, that means heretical—and it’s not the case many times.

    There are a lot of people out there doing some odd things in the name of the Lord. But we just want to make sure that we see that there are some areas of scripture where there is room for moving. There’s room for some differences from people who are all trying to honor God.

    “With passages where there is some ambiguity, you don’t want that to be the primary source of a doctrine you hold.”

    Modesty and the Heart Behind Adornment

    Going to verse 9, there’s so much that could be said about that, but I just want us to see the flow of this passage so we can pull things out when we answer questions.

    In both Greek and Roman societies, it was common for wealthy women to show off their wealth by how they dressed. There’s this idea that modesty is just about covering yourself up. If you’re a woman, cover up your lady parts, but if you’re a man, you don’t really have to worry about modesty because women aren’t—they’re more in thinking and in how they are aroused. Men are more visual in how they are. And we know that’s not true to make those generalizations.

    But even if it was, Paul here is bringing up a lot more than just “cover yourself up so that a man won’t stumble when he looks at you.” He’s talking about the heart and one that tries to draw attention to themselves based on their appearance. Your beauty, your loveliness should not come solely from how your hair is done or the dress you have on. Your worth should not be tied to your wealth.

    Coming with a dress that costs $2 million and everyone knows it does because you just saw a report on the news about this dress, and you make sure the logo is big so everybody sees you have this dress that costs that much money—they know the wealth that you have, they know the importance you have. Maybe they’ll even treat you better. That is how you gain your status among your friends, among your family, among society: by flaunting this wealth or flaunting something that you have versus godliness and your character.

    That also can apply to beauty as well, physical beauty. People talk about pretty privilege, and that people who seem to be attractive tend to get things for free or they kind of get a pass on things. Cops let them off with a warning, where somebody who looks like me, Shrek, they’re just like, “No, I might just throw you in jail just for speeding.” But somebody else, they’re just like, “No, go ahead, pretty lady.” We know that actually exists, and God is saying that is especially in the church.

    What he’s ultimately saying is the behavior and practices of the world are not to dominate the behavior and practices of the church.

    “The behavior and practices of the world are not to dominate the behavior and practices of the church.”

    When you belong to Christ, you are different. Your motives are different. Your behavior is different because the goal is different. We’re now filled with the spirit, and so our attire may look different. The way that we speak may look different. These things that we do to try to gain favor with people based on wealth or looks or anything else like that will become different.

    Adorning Yourself with Good Works

    And so he gives this directive here in verse 10. This is what you should be. This is how you should adorn yourselves. This is how you should order and arrange yourselves—where we get the phrase “cosmetic.”

    This is really how you should be adorning yourselves and making yourselves look beautiful by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. Your good works are the things that will speak before you. That is the thing that will be beautiful, and that is the thing that will create your worth—how much God uses you.

    People will see that, and that is what will cause them to think highly of you. Not that you have an expensive coat. I’m not saying that you have to go thrifting for everything, but look at your heart and examine your heart.

    “Adorn yourselves by means of good works — your good works are the things that will speak before you.”

    Now we’re going to flow to the part that is more relevant to what we’re talking about here. What may have prompted these verses is that they came from a society represented by three main cultures in the New Testament: the Greek, the Romans, and the Jewish culture. All three had a very low view of women and held women down in society.

    People of a certain age can probably relate to that if you grew up in this country. They had a very low view of the value and the worth of women outside of the kitchen and bedroom.

    Freedom in Christ and the Temptation to Overstep

    And when women came to Christ and the church was being formed, this was like a liberating experience because there was so much more freedom in Christ for women than there was in Greek, Roman, and Jewish societies.

    Their voices could be heard. They could be like Priscilla and help teach and make more mature one of the leading preachers of the day. They could be like Phoebe, who we’ll look at a little bit and gets commended. So 2,000 years later, we’re talking about the amazing work of this woman named Phoebe. That’s because Paul talked about her and how important she was. They didn’t have that for the most part in their society.

    And so when they came to Christ, it was this freedom that was there—that now I have a voice. Now I can be heard. I can be understood. Now I can actually influence things because God values all of his creation.

    “When women came to Christ, it was a liberating experience — there was so much more freedom in Christ.”

    And that freedom could have caused them to move to a point where now they want to dominate. And now it’s just, “Oh, I get to be heard. Okay. Then every chance I get, I’m going to be speaking. And every chance I get, I’m going to try to teach. And every position of authority I’m going to try to fill now.”

    And it could have been that this created an atmosphere, which we talked about a little bit last week when we looked at the curse on Eve in Genesis 3:16 and compared that to what was said to Cain in Genesis 4:7. Looking at this desire now to kind of master her husband, and in response, that her husband would rule over her and dominate her, rather than this complementary relationship that God intended from the beginning.

    And so we even look at not just here but in other passages. Several times when Paul writes to women specifically, he’s writing about order and writing about roles. And it’s almost like a parent when a child starts getting older and you start letting them say a little more and a little more. Sometimes you have to reel them in like, “All right, all right, I’m still your parent. All right, you’re getting a little older. You’re 13 and you think you’re grown now. But I need you to dial it down a little bit.”

    Quiet Submission and Authority in Roles

    Still got this child-parent relationship going on, and it seems like there’s a little bit of that going on. Like, okay, yes, there is freedom in Christ, but there’s still roles. There’s still order and we have to maintain that.

    And so you have to make sure that you are quietly. And this “quietly” here does not mean not speaking. It’s the same word if you look at 1 Timothy 2:2. The word is used there as well, sometimes translated as tranquil or peaceable. And so it’s just this idea of being at peace and at rest with receiving instruction and being submissive.

    So it doesn’t mean quiet as in never speaking, but it means quiet as in the attitude of your heart. It’s not one that’s contention. It’s not one that’s always rubbing up against the authority.

    And then he says, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” It’s possible that that’s what they were trying to do. It’s possible that Timothy even allowed it and said, “Yes, of course you could. My grandmother and mother were the ones who influenced me the most in Christ. So yes, you could come and you can teach and you can do this.”

    And he said, “Hey, Timothy, make sure that you maintain the order that God had set.” Which is why in verse 13, he goes and says, “For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve.” This is going back to creation, as we discussed last week.

    It’s not just, “Well people in the culture aren’t going to like that. We can’t be too progressive. We can’t put too much on them too fast.” That’s not what he’s saying here. He’s saying that this was always God’s design to have there be this order and have there be roles.

    It doesn’t impact value or worth at all or ability to minister for the sake of Christ. It just means that there are certain roles that everyone has and those roles come with different responsibilities. Some of the roles have authority and some of the roles will have submission, and some roles don’t have either in a small sense. But all in a sense have submission because we all submit to Christ.

    “Yes, there is freedom in Christ, but there’s still roles. There’s still order and we have to maintain that.”

    Women and the Office of Pastor

    We talked last week about 1 Timothy 2:12, which forbids women from teaching or exercising authority over a man, or holding the office of elder, pastor, bishop, or overseer. This is why we would not accept a woman as a pastor.

    Not because they can’t, not because they’re not spiritual, not because they’re not intelligent and don’t know the word of God. Simply because God said there is an order, and that is a role that I want to be filled by men. That is the only reason.

    Full disclosure: my first pastor was a woman and was very instrumental in my spiritual growth. I didn’t know Christ at all when I came to that church to sing. It was through reading the word of God and talking to people there that God brought me into the real church. Serving under her, I learned a lot.

    Then someone I was working with said, “Your pastor is a woman. You’re not supposed to have a woman as a pastor. Why not?” He never opened the Bible once. He was from a country where women can’t do anything but cook and bring up their children. I thought, of course you would say that. Had he just opened the Bible, I probably would have come to that realization much sooner.

    But it wasn’t until I was applying to seminary that things changed. The seminary made a statement that they only allow men because they’re a small seminary and their goal is to train future pastors, not just give people a Christian education. Since their goal was to train pastors in a very small private school with limited spots, they’re going to let in people who could be a pastor in the future.

    I thought, “What? Why wouldn’t they?” Of course, they listed scripture to back up that statement. Then I’m like, “I didn’t even know that was in the Bible. Wow.” That led me to study a lot more.

    When I met the president of that seminary, my wife and I, and I told him something he said he’d never heard before. I said, “Here’s my wife. You almost broke us up.” I let him know because she was actually pursuing being a pastor. I didn’t even want to be a pastor, but I was supporting her in that.

    When we came to this issue, I said, “Babe, what you’re doing is completely wrong. You can’t do that. Look at these passages here.” At first, she said, “Then we just have to break up.” I said, “We’re not breaking up. We’re going to study this. We’re going to sit and study this.”

    And after intense study, if we don’t agree, fine, we break up. But if we still agree, we’re here. This year will be 20 years of marriage. I guess you see that she came around.

    She realized you’re right.

    You’re always right, even in non-spiritual matters. I’ll look right into the camera and say that, too.

    But this is our basis, right? It’s the word of God. It’s not just, “Oh, that sounds weird. That’s disgusting. A man and a man together. That’s gross.” No, that’s not the basis for why we tell somebody something is sin or something is wrong or what God’s order is.

    “God said there is an order and that is a role I want to be filled by men. That is the only reason.”

    The Fall and Stepping Outside God’s Order

    So I just want to throw that out there to make sure when we are discussing these things that we’re basing what we say on God’s word. We got a question about verses 13 and 14 together. It asks: doesn’t the prohibition of teaching with authority over men that we just saw in verse 12 have its foundation both in design, which is in verse 13, and the fall in verse 14? And then what is the meaning of verse 14 today?

    Verse 14 says it was not Adam who was deceived but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. That’s just referring to the fact that Eve was the one who was deceived by the serpent. Then she gave the fruit to her husband and he said, “Oh, okay. I’ll just take it.”

    I think what we see here is an example of what happens when we step outside of the created order. God’s design was for the man to be the head, for Adam to be the head. He wasn’t even able to give input into this decision to plunge humanity into sin that Eve just made on her own.

    Eve was deceived and she didn’t even go and talk to Adam about it. Who was her spiritual leader? Who was her head? This wasn’t about what shoes she was going to wear. This was about violating the only command that God had given them, and she didn’t even need to talk to her husband about it. She was just going to do it on her own.

    It’s quite possible that Adam is the one who gave her the command in the first place. If you read the whole account, she got the command wrong. She said we can’t even touch it. That’s not what the command was. The command was don’t eat of it. They might have thrown in don’t touch there just to be extra precaution, but she still didn’t even quote God correctly.

    But they said I have no need of going to the person that God has set up to be my spiritual leader, and so I believe this is an example of what happens when we step outside of that order. Paul is saying it’s not just the optics. It’s not just that we want the church to look a certain way. There is a real danger that can happen that we may not see. We may not even understand it, but there is a real danger that happens when we step outside of what God has ordained for us.

    “There is a real danger that happens when we step outside of what God has ordained for us.”

    The Difficult Verse — Preserved Through Childbirth

    And then verse 15, I’m so glad no one asked a question about verse 15. This is—I’ll tell you, I’ve probably read about 10 to 12 commentaries.

    I’m interested to see what people think about this. About half of them said this is probably the most difficult verse to interpret in the entire Bible.

    Yes, this is either the most or one of the most difficult verses. I believe it is saying that not that women will be—there are a few things that people think. One is that women will be saved, meaning rescued from the pain in childbirth. I think any woman who’s had a child here can say no, that’s not true. There still is pain. Christian women will experience pain in childbirth. That’s not what he’s talking about here.

    There are some who believe that he’s saying that just by raising children and being godly in how you raise your children, that will save you. But there are a lot of Christian women who don’t have that opportunity. So again, it seems to be something he’s saying to all women, not just Christian mothers. But he says women will be preserved through childbirth. I believe he’s talking about the stigma of being the one to plunge humanity into sin.

    I think he’s talking here—especially in verse 14—would make you believe that women just make things worse or they just get in the way or that they’re naive and they’re just really easy to deceive. You can talk to them for a couple minutes. They don’t negotiate well. All these things that we think today about women. Well, the fact that the man was not deceived but the woman was deceived could give somebody some type of backup for those types of things.

    So I believe that women being so instrumental for the furthering of the human race, it stops us from taking that view that women have less worth or that women have less intellect. When it’s women who are pouring into us and we’re raised by these women, we see their strength and their resilience and their brilliance. We see the sacrifices that they make.

    Even if a woman is not a mother, when I see you, I think of my mother. I think of my sister and her raising her kids. I think of these women that I see and that pour and speak life into people daily. I am rescued from that thought of thinking that women may be inferior because it was Eve that led us into sin.

    “Women being so instrumental for the furthering of the human race stops us from taking the view that women have less worth.”

    So, another somewhat difficult passage. I’m going to try to go through this a little faster.

    1 Corinthians 14 — Silence in the Context of Prophecy

    1 Corinthians 14.

    That is a long chapter and a chapter that has caused a lot of confusion. It is difficult to understand when you take just pieces out of it. Reading the whole thing is best, but we’re not going to read 40 verses here today. I’ll just pull these out: 1 Corinthians 14:29-35.

    The chapter is primarily talking about speaking in tongues and prophecy here—receiving revelation from God directly. This is one of the earliest churches and one of the earliest books that was written to the church. Keep that in mind when we talk about spiritual gifts in June.

    Paul is giving them instruction on the use of those gifts of tongues and interpretation of tongues in the service as well as prophecy. Here he’s focusing more on prophecy. This is receiving revelation from God and speaking that revelation out to people.

    So prophecy, when you see it in the Bible, can also talk about preaching what you see today, what we do in the pulpit. But in this instance, it’s talking about receiving revelation and how to handle that when God is speaking to someone at that moment.

    Verse 29 says: “Have two or three prophets speak and have the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, then the first one is to keep silent.”

    Verse 31: “For you can all prophesy one by one so that all may learn and all may be exhorted and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”

    I actually stopped there. So you have this scene: a bunch of people are hearing from God and Paul says, “Okay, you can’t all talk at once because it’s chaotic and it’s not orderly.” The same thing was happening with tongues. People were just speaking in different languages, then other people are yelling interpretation.

    It was just chaotic. It was a mess. And here he’s saying that’s happening with prophecy. If it happens and you’re receiving a word and you’re speaking that word and someone else says, “Okay, I have a word,” you sit down, you let them speak, and then one by one each person will speak what God is putting on their hearts to say.

    That way we can have some order. He says all of you can and we all may be able to be exhorted. We all may learn. When it says the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, if someone says something, other prophets who are also hearing from God can say no—that doesn’t line up with what God is saying. They’re developing the written word of God at that time too, so they do have that as well.

    So if one of the prophets says, “I just received the word. Jesus actually did sin. He sinned three times in his life and I’m about to tell you about him now,” then the other prophets can say, “Wait, wait, wait, brother. That’s crazy. Jesus did not sin. We know he didn’t. We have scripture. We have other revelation.” The entire gospel rests on the fact that he did not sin. And they can correct him there.

    So that is what’s happening here. This is kind of an unfortunate cut off, but in the middle of verse 33, it starts a new sentence.

    “God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”

    Women Keeping Silent — What It Really Means

    It says, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are subject themselves, just as the law also says, if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

    The context of this command is the authoritative judgment of another speaker’s prophecy. I believe that the command to stay silent is in that context. Paul is not saying women should not utter a word in the church building or in the house where they’re meeting, or at least not while the official service is going on. He’s not saying you should not hear a woman’s voice at all, and if you do it’s an abomination. That’s not what Paul is saying here.

    Paul is saying when we’re going through this one by one, talking about what God is giving you in the revelation, women are not to take part in the judgment of another person’s prophecy. Why? Because go back to 1 Timothy 2. What did he say there? That women are not to teach or exercise authority over a man.

    In that space, a woman should not come and exercise spiritual authority over the men who are giving the prophecy by judging their prophecy and deeming it godly or ungodly, or saying it came from God or it didn’t come from God in that moment. That is what Paul is saying there, and not just there, but in all the churches.

    If there is some dispute or if there’s something they just can’t hold in, then when you go home, talk about it with your husbands. Say, “I don’t think what that guy said was right. I don’t think he should have said Jesus sinned, or I think he was trying to say this thing in this way and it didn’t land.” Then you can talk just like you do now and talk about the sermons.

    So essentially, Paul is saying women don’t interrupt the sermon. In those cases, there were men who were allowed to because it wasn’t a full, plain sermon. But understand this is kind of what the equivalence would be today: dare not to exercise authority over a man. So you shouldn’t even in this case where prophecy is being judged by others in the congregation.

    “Women are not to take part in the authoritative judgment of another person’s prophecy.”

    1 Corinthians 11 — Head Coverings and Women Praying

    And the last passage reinforces that in the same book, in the same letter to the same people. We’re not going to talk about head covering. Thank you for not asking a question about head covering.

    1 Corinthians 11:3-5 says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

    Let’s make sure Brian’s looking at that.

    So every man—we don’t know what the head covering was, so it probably wasn’t a scully. But it says in verse five, every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for it is the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

    So without even knowing what this covering is, the first thing we see is that in the church service, what are the women doing?

    Praying and prophesying.

    They’re receiving and even speaking the word of God.

    They are praying in the public service.

    “In the church service, what are the women doing? Praying and prophesying — receiving and speaking the word of God.”

    But he says don’t do it in this way. That is a disgrace.

    Don’t do it in a way that casts off authority. If we look later in the passage, it tells us that this covering was a symbol of authority and submission. This is why the one who is the head—the man—should not have this covering on, but the woman who is under the authority of the man should have it on.

    Throwing Off Symbols of God’s Order

    And I believe that this also goes back to what we said about the culture and the society of the time. In this new freedom that women were saying, “Oh, so what we were doing in society, how we didn’t have a voice, how we couldn’t speak, that was wrong.” Well, while I’m at it and I can talk now and I can teach and I can say things, I can pray publicly. Well, let me take this head covering off, too.

    That is kind of an issue where they may have gone—well, they did go too far. They said, “I’m going to get rid of every cultural sign that there is authority and submission. I’m going to get rid of every symbol that shows that there is a distinction in the roles between men and women.”

    And God says don’t do that. Don’t rebel against the roles that I put in place.

    “God says don’t rebel against the roles that I put in place.”

    Can Women Lead Worship, Pray, and Read Scripture?

    And if your culture, if your society has something that indicates submission, something that indicates authority, don’t throw it off just by the way that it looks. And he said, because it’s the same as a woman whose head is shaved. There’s different things about whether a woman whose head is shaved was being rebellious, was being an ultra-feminist, or even some say that there was indication that meant a woman was into prostitution.

    All of these things were saying “I’m throwing away the natural order that God has created when he created humans as male and female.” And he said, “God is saying, you are not to do that. Even though you have more freedom in the church and I’m allowing you to do things that the world has said you can’t do, there’s still order.”

    There were several questions that were pretty much all started with: Can women lead worship? Can they pray in a service? Can they read scripture in a service? Can they do announcements? Can women do everything in a service except preaching a sermon? Can women do this in some form?

    We kind of look at two things when we want to answer these questions.

    Does a direct prohibition of the action exist?

    And if not, does all or part of the action fall under a direct prohibition of another action?

    The only clear and direct prohibition in the New Testament is that a woman may not hold a position or office that causes her to be a teacher, which is a more literal translation of 1 Timothy 2:12—not just to teach, but to be a teacher or to exercise authority over a man.

    “The only clear prohibition is that a woman may not hold a position that causes her to be a teacher or exercise authority over a man.”

    Anything else is either unclear or is possibly or probably based on a certain context and shouldn’t at least be used as the foundation for a doctrinal position. Now if there are five or six of those together, then maybe. But in legal terms, you say that’s circumstantial evidence.

    Applying the Two-Part Test for Roles

    If you just find something, I’ll give kind of an example by looking at these two questions. Going back, can a woman pray in the service? There’s no direct prohibition of the action. There’s no verse that says women cannot do this, a woman should not do this, or it is wrong for a woman to do X.

    If you find that, then clearly a woman can’t do it. The other thing we look at is whether prayer falls under some aspect that would cause the woman to slip into the role of a teacher or to give her spiritual authority over the men that she is praying over. If you believe that to be the case, then you don’t have women do that. But if you don’t believe that a person is transferred some spiritual authority because they are praying, then it’s fine for women to do that.

    Now at our church here, in public we have a pastoral prayer, meaning it’s the pastors of the church that are praying over the flock, praying on behalf of the sheep. We’re not going to have a woman do that. But if you notice, only the elders do that anyway. We don’t say, “Oh, any man come and do it. As long as you have a Y chromosome, you can get up there in the pulpit.” That’s not the case.

    We have something with a stronger purpose behind the prayer. It is the pastors praying over the flock at that time. But if it wasn’t and it was just prayer, congregational prayer, then there’s nothing in scripture that says a woman couldn’t do that.

    “If it was just congregational prayer, there’s nothing in scripture that says a woman couldn’t do that.”

    Going back, lead worship, read scripture. Reading scripture—our elders here will say no, there’s no issue with a woman reading scripture in public for the same reason. Even leading worship, the question of leading worship comes again. There’s no direct prohibition against any of it.

    Is that causing them to be a spiritual leader or giving them some sort of authority? The only kind of thinking that comes in is, well, what if before a song they’re introducing a song and they go into scripture and they exposit the scripture for a minute or two and they’re giving like a little mini Bible study about why this passage is so important, and the scripture is laid out to music and all. But I don’t want to read into the hearts and minds of people.

    I would just say that it’s very difficult to make that argument from scripture that by just stating, “Oh, this comes from this song. It’s based on this verse in the Bible and it’s gotten me through a lot of tough times, so join me in singing this song”—that person has now exercised spiritual authority.

    Avoiding Extreme Restrictions

    I’ve even had someone say, “Well, they’re saying sit down and listen to the sermon.” Or they’re saying, “Please stand and sing.” And just those words alone are giving them authority because they’re telling me to sit down or stand up.

    I mean, this is a real spiritual concern. Someone said they couldn’t see that. Someone even mentioned that during their membership interview many years ago, they had an issue with certain lyrics in the songs. They’re not here, and I’m not trying to say they were here. But I’ve heard someone really had an issue with women singing because there might be a lyric that says “raise your voice to the Lord.”

    Oh, they’re telling me what to do. A woman just told me to lift up my voice or to lift up my hands to the Lord. They just acted in authority. And so you see here, it’s talking about being a teacher and exercising spiritual authority.

    We don’t want to get to a place where we’re demeaning not just women, but we’re devaluing the Holy Spirit working in half the congregation. We’re not giving the Spirit a chance to work and to use people. We don’t want to try to find these little technicalities here and there.

    God has freedom and God has put his Spirit into every person who is a believer. He wants to use them mightily, and they can do anything until I see something in Scripture that says this is for a select group. Only certain people can hold this role for whatever reason.

    “We don’t want to get to a place where we’re devaluing the Holy Spirit working in half the congregation.”

    You see that even with different things when we talk about elders—there are certain qualifications. Deacons—there are certain qualifications. It doesn’t mean that the people can’t be used greatly, but certain roles are meant for certain people. That is the only time that we will bring a restriction in.

    Leviticus 27 — Different Monetary Values

    There are a couple more questions. I think they were a little less heavy. One was: why in Leviticus 27 is the monetary value of a boy, girl, man, or woman different? We’re going to look at the scripture here.

    Okay, it ends up being kind of long. So I’ll just read the scripture. Leviticus 27. Then we’ll talk about this because again the Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, when someone makes an explicit vow, he shall be valued according to your assessment of persons belonging to the Lord.

    If your assessment is of a male from 20 years even to 60 years old, then your assessment shall be 50 shekels of silver by the shekel of the sanctuary. And if the person is from five years even to 20 years old, then your assessment for a male shall be 20 shekels, and for a female 10 shekels. But if the person is from a month even up to five years old, then your assessment shall be five shekels of silver for a male.

    And for a female your assessment shall be three shekels of silver. If the person is from 60 years old and upward, if a male then your assessment shall be 15 shekels and for a female 10 shekels.”

    So we see there, as the question states, that the assessment is different for the men and the women.

    It would seem that reflects the value of their labor simply because in a society where just about every bit of labor is manual, the men were able to do more. They were able to lift more and they have more endurance. They have more muscle. So they’re able to do more in a field and carry more than a woman typically on average.

    I mean, there are some strong women out there and some weak guys too. But on average, as a generalization, a woman would be able to do less of the type of work and labor that existed through much of the society. Most of the society wasn’t about sitting behind a car and driving or sitting behind a desk and being on the computer, where everybody is equal according to their brain.

    Although I used to be a day laborer a long time ago and I was told I couldn’t have office jobs because they liked to give them to women because women could do tedious tasks longer than men. So I was kind of shut out because they said, “No, you’re going to be bored. You’ll stuff 5,000 envelopes for a mailing campaign and then stop doing it or joke around with people, whereas a woman is able to just stuff envelopes for eight hours.”

    But I was able to get the jobs where they wanted me to put a 100-pound sack on my shoulder. So even there, that company and companies that hired from us valued us differently. They had specifications based on gender. They didn’t say, “We want the person to take a test to see how well they pay attention. If it’s a man, we don’t want them.”

    So it seems that this is what’s going on here. Most of a person’s value in that society was in the work that they could perform—their physical labor. So in that case, you’re going to assume that a man could do more than a woman.

    “The different monetary values seem to reflect the value of their physical labor, not their worth before God.”

    Now we have this.

    A Christian Woman Expert Teaching in the Church?

    And this is the question that somebody posed to me. I want to call them out because, like, why are you all making me think so much? Why are you making me—just give me the softball stuff. But nope.

    If there is a Sunday school or co-ed group talking about a specific subject matter, let’s say transgenderism, and a Christian woman with a PhD was brought in to speak about it, they’re a subject matter expert. So the first question is: would that occur and in what setting? And second, to what extent can she support her arguments and research with the Bible without it becoming teaching to men or teaching men with authority?

    I think that’s such a great question to think about because it can really happen. In the moment, you’ll be scrambling like, “What do we do? How do we do this?” I think in this case, if it’s not someone teaching directly from the Bible, we wouldn’t have it in a Sunday school setting or something like that. We probably would do something else and say we’ll do something on a Saturday, like we’ve done for the biblical counseling conference or things like that, which are actually more biblical.

    We actually did have a woman come in and give a presentation about domestic violence to the young adult ministry years ago. I think we did it after the service, in the afternoon. It wasn’t so much being afraid that it was a woman speaking, but that type of topic wasn’t coming from the Bible. She wasn’t even a Christian.

    But it’s interesting here because in the second part of the question, I think if they were just presenting their research that’s not coming from the Bible, you would say, “Okay, you’re presenting research.” But the question really comes in: what if they start getting into the Bible? Now they’re teaching God’s word. They’re not just teaching from their research because they’re a Christian and they’re an expert. They’re a PhD presenting their research, but they are a believer and they’re showing from Scripture these certain things as well.

    I think in that case there would be more leniency. I think there’s like a temporary moratorium or something on that. For instance, if we have a Sunday school which is not set up where one person is talking for a full hour because there’s so much to say, but there’s more dialogue and women are speaking and women are given the mic—if Glenda talks for three minutes about something and it’s coming from the word of God and you learn from it, did she just violate Scripture?

    Or are we just saying okay, somebody is sharing something. She’s not taking an authoritative role. She’s not saying, “I’m diving into the Scripture and teaching you these meanings,” and all that. But we say okay, in the normal course of conversation, even in a public forum, it’s okay because everyone knows and realizes there was not a transfer of authority. Every time someone in the congregation grabs a mic, they’re not taking the authority from the teacher or from the elders at that time.

    “Everyone knows and realizes there was not a transfer of authority every time someone grabs a mic.”

    So I think there we just automatically say, “No, it’s not a big deal.” I think the same thing is true when we have kingdom workers come and speak and it’s a husband and wife team or something. We’re not like, “Okay, well your wife just has to sit there and take pictures of you while you’re up there talking. You’re the only one who could do anything.” But we like to hear from both of them. So I think it’s that same mindset there.

    Romans 16 — Phoebe and the Role of Deacon

    So, another question. This is actually the last question that we’re going to have. In the framework of the deacons and deacons’ wives, how do we understand Phoebe’s role in the church in Romans 16?

    Let’s turn to Romans 16, please. I have it up there. Yes, I do. Okay, good. So if you’re not able to or just whatever, you can look it up too, but it’d be good to actually see this.

    Romans 16:1-2 says: “I recommend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you, for she herself has also been a helper of many and of myself as well.”

    Paul here is talking about this prominent woman who was very important to him in his ministry. He’s writing to the church at Rome, hoping to be able to see them. And he’s saying, “Well, there’s this person that you’re going to see coming. She might even have been the one to bring the letter.”

    Phoebe is a servant of the church and she’s coming there. Paul wants them to receive her. He’s vouching for her, which is a good reason to think that she might have either brought the letter herself or was with the group that brought the letter. They can say, “Oh, okay. She’s not just a random person.”

    Paul is saying this is somebody that you not only should have respect for and honor and be glad that she’s there, but he said help her in whatever matter she may need of you. You are to now serve her.

    The other part of that question was if the Greek word uses diakonos, and it is. That word—you can kind of hear it in it—is where we get the word deacon from. It’s a transliteration of the word.

    But this is one of those places where I think I’ve only said it to my wife because I’m like, “I’m not saying this in public.” Sometimes I just wish different decisions were made with things in the Bible. In this case, it wasn’t what was written. It was just a translation.

    There are some words that if they weren’t a transliteration—just means you take the word in one language and you kind of just bring it over into English letters and spell it the same—so baptismo was baptized. If we didn’t use the word baptize, which really doesn’t exist in English (it’s a Greek word that’s just moved over with English letters), then we would know it says immerse. That’s actually the real meaning.

    The real meaning here of diakonos is servant or minister. So this is one who serves. Even the role of deacon, the office of deacon—it’s so big and official—but it means one who serves.

    “Even the role of deacon — it’s so big and official — but it means one who serves.”

    In that office, they are ones who serve and organize the serving. They’re the ones who are kind of in charge of the serving. So it sounds like here that Paul is saying when she comes, treat her like a deacon. Treat her like somebody who not only serves well, but who helps to organize the serving.

    There’s some authority that goes into her serving because she’s saying this is what you should do. And she’s at least in that sense organizing. Not spiritual authority, but authority enough to kind of manage what’s going on.

    It’s difficult to say because there wasn’t another word that was created for that office or that officer. It’s just a transliteration of a word that means servant. So everybody here is diakonos. Everyone here is a servant. We all are.

    But there’s also a group. And like I said, it’s difficult to say with 100% certainty when we go back to 1 Timothy 3:8-13 or 3:14. If that is saying that the women who serve in that role should be the wives of the deacons who are also qualified and serve, or if there are women who may not be married at all or married to the deacons who are serving alongside of them.

    So if you see a church doing either, they’re not unbiblical for that. But at Calvary, we take that to mean the wives of the deacons who are qualified. As in many churches, as in ours and could have been the case at Rome, anybody can serve and the deacons typically will go and reach out to others. The deacons aren’t the ones doing all the work.

    The deacons will ask other people to serve in different capacities. So if the deacon asked you to serve as a woman who’s not married to a deacon and you serve, you just were a servant there as well. You just did the same role.

    And so it’s hard to know if Paul here is saying that Phoebe has the role of deacon in her current church and when she comes there, accept her as an official deacon in that office. Or if he’s saying she is an incredible servant—so much so that she could even come and help you guys get organized in the way that you serve and she could maybe take over a ministry and help out with that because she does so well and her character is so strong.

    It’s hard to know for sure. So again, we wouldn’t use this as the basis for a doctrinal position. We would go elsewhere and maybe use this as a supporting piece to combine with something else.

    What About Abuse and Submission?

    So there was one more question that came in that we’re not going to have time to answer, and I’m actually going to—the other elders don’t know this—but we’re going to make it a part of the larger elder Q&A. And it might actually be on here so you can see. Yes.

    How is abuse, whether verbal, emotional, physical, psychological, and of varying levels of severity, viewed and handled by the church? And also, another person asked that I’ll just tag into here.

    Does a wife have to submit to an abusive husband? I think that would be a really good question to hear. The Bible doesn’t say that. There’s no passage on how to deal with domestic violence.

    But there are principles in the Bible that we apply to that with a lot of prayer and a lot of wisdom. I think it would be great to hear multiple perspectives about it and hear the elders talking about it together.

    That’s all we have time for. I’m going to pray. I don’t have to be part of a soundcheck, so I’m able to stay around and talk if you want to talk after this. Let’s go to the Lord in prayer now.

    “There’s no passage on domestic violence, but there are principles in the Bible that we apply with prayer and wisdom.”

    Closing Prayer

    Our gracious God, we want to thank you for giving us your word and making it so clear what your will is. We thank you for that, God, because we would be, as your word says, tossed back and forth with every new piece of doctrine, every new belief, every cultural fad that comes along. We are thankful that we could be grounded in your word and rooted in your commands.

    I pray that you would help us, Lord, to seek to honor you above all else. When we approach your word, God, if our thinking doesn’t line up with it, you would change our thinking. You would change our beliefs, you would change our behavior. We pray, God, that we would be able to look back and see our growth, see our maturation, and be able to thank you for it.

    I pray, God, for the time of fellowship we’re about to have and for this service, that it would honor you and you would speak to us through it. I ask all of this in Christ’s name and for his sake. Amen.

  • Lesson 20: Complementarianism, Overview

    Lesson 20: Complementarianism, Overview

    Auto Transcript

    Note: This transcript and summary was autogenerated. It has not yet been proofread or edited by a human.

    Summary

    Complementarianism—the idea that men and women are equal in value before God but distinct in roles—is rooted not in culture or tradition but in God’s creation order. We are reminded that Christ himself submitted to the Father, not because of lesser worth, but because of his role, giving us the perfect model of authority and submission. This teaching examines how complementarian roles apply in both the home and the church.

    Key Lessons:

    1. The authority-submission relationship between men and women mirrors the relationship between God the Father and Christ—it is about roles, not value or worth.
    2. Husbands are called to sacrificial love that goes far beyond dramatic gestures; it includes daily speech, tone, and conduct that sanctifies and cherishes their wives.
    3. The Bible restricts the office of elder/pastor and authoritative teaching over men to men, but women are free to teach, lead ministries, and use their gifts in every way not explicitly restricted by Scripture.
    4. We must approach this topic from Scripture alone, setting aside both worldly distortions and cultural baggage that have marred our understanding of biblical authority and submission.

    Application: We are called to examine our marriages and church life in light of what Scripture actually teaches—not what culture or tradition says. Husbands should pursue Christlike sacrificial love in every daily interaction, wives should pursue godly submission even in difficult circumstances, and the church should maximize the freedom of all members to serve while honoring the specific role restrictions God has established.

    Discussion Questions:

    1. How does understanding that Christ submitted to the Father change the way we view submission in marriage and the church?
    2. In what ways might cultural attitudes—either traditional or modern—have shaped our view of men’s and women’s roles more than Scripture has?
    3. What practical steps can husbands take to move beyond willingness to “take a bullet” toward daily, sacrificial, sanctifying love for their wives?

    Scripture Focus: Genesis 1:27-31 and 2:18-25 (creation order establishing complementary roles), Galatians 3:26-29 (equality in salvation), Ephesians 5:22-33 (marriage as a picture of Christ and the church), 1 Corinthians 11:3 (headship), 1 Timothy 2:11-13 (roles in the church), 1 Peter 3:1-7 (submission and honor in marriage), Titus 2:3-5 (the wife’s domain), Acts 18:24-26 (Priscilla teaching Apollos).

    Outline

    Introduction

    All right. Good morning, Calvary. It’s 9:00 a.m. and time to start our Sunday school lesson. I’m sure you are praying already, but I’m really not feeling well right now. I’m just asking everybody to be praying for me while you’re listening.

    What Is Complementarianism?

    A few reminders and one thing to clarify. This is complimentarianism—the idea of complementing someone or something is different from giving a compliment with an I. This isn’t about just learning how to say nice things to each other.

    This is about how men and women complement each other, how they fit together. God created us that way for men and women to fit together and to be complements for each other for God’s glory.

    I’m pointing that out because I actually did have someone yesterday ask if it was that. They said, “Wait, is that what you’re talking about? I thought you were really talking about how to be nice to each other and treat each other well.” So I thought maybe I should say something about this just in case.

    Men and women are equal in value before God, but distinct in roles as ordained by him.

    “Men and women are equal in value before God, but distinct in roles as ordained by him.”

    Approach Scripture with Fresh Eyes

    We’re going to be looking at a couple of, actually a lot of passages of scripture. I want to say that as difficult as it is, we should approach this and any subject with the Bible with fresh eyes. Even if we think we know it very well, it’s a good practice to pretend like we know nothing about it at all and say, “What does the Bible tell me? What instruction do I get from the Bible?”

    The reason I say that is because there are certain topics like this one—like ones we’ve just gone over that Dr. Ho taught the last four weeks—where the world has a lot to say and tradition has a lot to say. We get informed by a lot of different sources that aren’t the word of God. Even if it’s someone misquoting or misapplying the word of God, we take those things in and then we come to the Bible with 95% of our thoughts on the topic already worked out. Then the Bible is really there just to confirm what we already believe.

    In these topics where the world has a huge influence, I find it almost rare to talk to someone and have them say, “There was a point where I did intense Bible study and my mind changed.”

    “It’s a good practice to pretend like we know nothing about it at all and say, what is the Bible telling me?”

    Whatever they think now is probably what they thought even before they came to Christ. It’s just more intense now because they have a few verses to pick through and hold up. So I just want to make sure that we don’t do that, especially for topics like this where it impacts different parts of life and the world has a lot to say about it.

    That’s just something I’ll throw out there and probably say again, especially next week. This is just another way of saying the same thing. Men and women are equally created in God’s image, and we’ll actually see that when we look a little bit at the creation account. They are equally valued. That’s something I think is important for us to start with.

    You haven’t seen it here, but there are places where you’ll hear something different than this. When you look at the word of God, I think it’s pretty clear. So let’s look at the creation account.

    Equal Value in Creation

    Most of the scripture I reference will be on a slide. Now we’ll look at Genesis 1:27-31. And it says, “So God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. God blessed them. And God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    Let me make sure I see what’s coming next. Then God said, “Behold, I’ve given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of the earth.” I’m actually going to skip down. He’s basically just giving him dominion over everything that’s created.

    Verse 31 says, “And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, there was morning, the sixth day.”

    What we talk about today is based on creation. It’s not based on culture. It’s not based on any particular viewpoint or history. It’s based on not just the word of God, but the word of God telling us to look back at when God first created.

    When God created, he built in this concept of complimentarianism. And no, you won’t find that word in the Bible. It’s a lot like the word trinity where it was a word that was coined to describe a biblical concept.

    Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image… male and female he created them.”

    Equality in Salvation

    This is the next one we’re going to look at. Galatians 3:26-29 brings in this point even more in the gospel sense. It says:

    “For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither slave nor free. There is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”

    The key verse there is verse 28. It’s basically saying that there is no distinction. This is talking about salvation. This verse can be taken and misapplied to other things and say there’s no distinction at all between men and women anywhere that you look.

    This passage is particularly talking about faith in Christ and salvation and having now a relationship with God that we did not have before. It’s only talking about that.

    “We are sons and daughters of the most high God at the same level with the same volume.”

    Don’t let someone use this to tell you that there is no distinction between male and female at all. It’s just talking about salvation. But that is important because we are sons and daughters of the most high God at the same level with the same volume.

    Mutual Submission in Christ

    Another foundation passage is in Ephesians 5. We’re going to return to Ephesians 5 later in this lesson. Ephesians 5:18b-21 says, “But be filled with the spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to our God and father, and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.”

    This passage tells us there are ways we should be interacting with each other. We should be singing to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, expressing joy to one another and encouraging each other, especially using the words of scripture and these songs that God has given us. We do that in our service and in other parts of our lives as well.

    Another thing we are to do in verse 21 is subject ourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. Philippians 2:3 sheds light on this verse. It tells us that we should do nothing from selfish or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another as more important than ourselves.

    When we come to a passage like this, there is a sense in which we subject ourselves to each other. We hold the other as more important than ourselves. We consider others before we consider ourselves.

    If it’s something I can do that blesses one of us, and it’s between me and Arthur, it’s Arthur’s. It’s not mine. I’m going to make sure he can get the blessing, even though it was coming right to me. If it can bless him, I’m considering him first. If we’re discussing something, I’m considering him first, considering how my words could impact him. I’m considering while we’re speaking how I’m going to make sure that he sees the love of Christ in what I’m saying and how I say it.

    We’re always to consider each other and be subject to each other in that way. As we think of a topic like this in different roles, it’s important to think that way as we talk about authority and submission in particular. There’s still that concept of serving as a leader, and as a leader you are serving the people that you are leading. It’s not a role as if you’re a king in an earthly sense.

    “With humility consider one another as more important than ourselves.”

    Distinct Roles Ordained by God

    Now let’s look at one more thing that’s foundational. There are two places where we really see the roles come out: distinction and roles ordained by God. Basically, God has designed different roles for men and women as part of his creation.

    We see that it came from creation and did not come from other sources. We looked a little bit at the creation account, but I want us to look at a couple other passages.

    “God has ordained different roles for men and women as part of his creation.”

    Let’s turn to 1 Corinthians 11:3. I think we’re going to spend more time in 1 Corinthians 11 next week, at least in the Q&A. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

    Let’s stop there to even understand what Paul is saying.

    Christ’s Submission to the Father

    I think we take the easiest relationship to understand, or the one where we kind of see it played out the most. Let’s take God as the head of Christ. You might ask, how is God the easiest to understand? Well, there are many places that show us that Christ, a member of the Trinity, fully God, submitted to the will of the Father.

    There’s not as many people here from Yam, but they got on me because sometimes my scripture references aren’t in order. They’re in order of how I think of them and how I want to put them. In my notes I have John 5:30. If you wanted to jot them down or look them up, John 5:30, Luke 22:42, and John 6:38 are just three passages.

    If we looked a little further in Philippians 2, from the passage that we read, we would see another place in the Bible that talks about Jesus submitting himself to the will of the Father, even though he was fully God. As we talked about the Trinity, we see that it wasn’t because of value or worth—it was because of the roles. Christ took on the role of our Savior and our substitute, having to actually live out a sinless life.

    Not just coming and going right to the cross and dying, but living for more than 30 years, starting ministry for three and a half years, and then going to the cross. That was also for us, for him to be our substitute. Because he did that, there were times that the Bible talks about him submitting himself to the will of the Father.

    It’s important to see this because there is, or maybe there still is, a kind of movement that says when we look at the word that in the Greek that’s translated “head,” it really means “source” and it has nothing to do with authority. Then they say, because there’s no authority in submission in the Trinity.

    “It wasn’t because of value or worth—it was because of the roles.”

    They’re all equally God. So there’s no submission there. But that ignores all of the scripture that talks about Jesus submitting to the will of the Father, including Jesus saying, “Not my will but yours be done” in the garden. That’s the Luke 22:42 passage that I mentioned.

    The Meaning of ‘Head’

    And actually Wayne Grudem did a huge study on this. When we had our home groups and we went through First Corinthians, I referenced that study in at least the Somerset home group when we went through this passage. There was not one mention of this word in all of Greek literature that used it as “source.”

    Someone literally in the 21st century just made that up and said, “What? I think it’s source.” If it was used a lot by Plato as “source,” then you could say, “Okay, there’s some evidence that it was also used that way. Maybe we have to examine how Paul was using it.” No one in the history of the Greek language has ever used that word to mean anything but head—in the sense of either authority when it’s figurative, or when it’s literal, your literal head.

    So I think it’s important to see that there. Whatever we see as a relationship between the man and the woman and Christ and the man, it has to mirror the relationship between God and Christ. The authority is there because of the roles, and the authority does not imply worth or value.

    “No one in the history of the Greek language has ever used that word to mean anything but head.”

    It should be easier to embrace the idea of submission when it’s described with biblical terms and it comes from a biblical point of view rather than whatever the world says submission is. Whatever authority and submission looks like in the world is different.

    When someone has authority and they become a ruler, there was actually a study done—the Stanford prison experiment. They took some students, I think they were graduate students, and they created a mock prison. Within several days, everybody who was in this mock prison was part of the experiment. They had guards and administrators of this prison and they had prisoners. No one was guilty of any crime, but within two days there was abuse.

    The fake guards were abusing the fake prisoners because of their fake authority. It was supposed to last for a certain amount of time, but it lasted for either two or three days and they had to stop it because of the abuse that was going on. The fear that was instilled in the fake prisoners was so real that they would not report it. They literally had the same fear as a real prisoner would have from a real corrections officer.

    It just really showed how wicked and evil man can be when they have authority. When we see the idea of authority and submission in a worldly sense, that’s what we tend to think of. Maybe not that exact experiment, but we think of people who were wicked and they used their authority in wicked ways.

    But when we look at God being the head of Christ, that is the picture. That’s a biblical picture of authority and submission working hand in hand.

    Roles Rooted in Creation Order

    Now, when we look at 1 Timothy 2, again, 1 Timothy—another passage that we’re going to be in a little later—1 Timothy 2:11-13 says, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness, but I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve.

    He doesn’t say Timothy, this is what I want because those women in Ephesus are so wild and they talk so much. He doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say, “I know the Greeks aren’t going to really tolerate having a woman doing these certain things, so let’s not allow it for their conscience sake.”

    He says in verse 13, Adam was created first and then Eve. He says that the creation order is the reason why we have this, and it’s the first picture that we see of authority and submission. I think it’s important to see that this isn’t something that some chauvinist 400 years ago, a thousand years ago, 2,000 years ago made up.

    This isn’t something that was done because in ancient Israel they didn’t know how to treat women, so that just kind of found its way into the church. This is because of what God said in the beginning at creation. Now it’s been marred, and even in this country, especially in this country, it’s been marred—this idea of authority and submission.

    But when we want to capture the biblical sense, which is why I said earlier, let’s empty our minds of the things that we have in our heads when we think about that and let’s look at what God says about it.

    Now let’s actually look at the creation account. This is a little more detailed view of it. Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him.” And out of the ground, the Lord God formed every animal of the field, every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them.

    And whatever the man called the living creature, that was its name. And the man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field. But for Adam, there was not found a helper suitable for him.

    “The creation order is the reason why we have this—it’s the first picture of authority and submission.”

    The Creation of Woman

    So we have this problem now where Adam is lonely. God said, “Man shouldn’t be alone. I’m going to create a helper.” Then he brings Adam all of these animals so that he could name them.

    I believe he also did that so Adam would see that none of them were suitable for him. Adam would know that only his wife was the complement for him.

    “Adam would know that only his wife was the complement for him.”

    Verse 21 continues, “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept, and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh of that place. And the Lord God fashioned into woman the rib which he had taken from the man. And he brought her to the man. And the man said, ‘At last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.’ I’ll stop there.

    Authority Established Before the Fall

    So as we’ve said before, looking at different places, man and woman—or mankind, I’ll say—man was created with these distinctives already in place. Naming someone was always a sign of authority.

    Which is why God did that and said, “I’m giving you dominion over every animal, over everything, and then you can name them.” We see that it was clear he was given authority over Eve at that point. What is beautiful here when we look at verse 25: it says, “The man and his wife were both naked and they were not ashamed.” This is to show that this happened before sin. They were innocent and sinless at this point.

    “This happened before sin—they were innocent and sinless at this point.”

    So this was not a result of the fall. This was not a sin that happened.

    And God did not say, “What? Okay, you can’t handle being in charge or on your own. So let’s just give it to man. Sorry, you squandered your opportunity for all of womankind, Eve. Thank you.” That’s not what happened.

    God had already set this, and this is part of his very good creation that is beautiful and wonderful. This is what honors God the most, and that’s also important: no matter what we think about it or how we may chafe under it, this is what brings God the most glory and it will bring us the most joy.

    Sin’s Distortion of Roles

    Now, sin likely increased the woman’s inclination to try to overtake the man by rejecting his authority and assuming it in his place. And we don’t have time to look at that. But if you compare the words in Genesis 3:16 to that of Genesis 4:7, your desire will be for him. And you look at the message that was given to Cain in Genesis 4:7, there’s some reason to believe that part of the curse was that she would constantly reject his authority.

    Because he says, not only will your desire be for him, it says, “And he will rule over you.” And so there will be this struggle where there wasn’t any and it was perfect harmony and unity and they would complement each other perfectly because of sin. It became more difficult for both sides.

    Now he is going to rule over you rather than lovingly lead. Now there’s this inclination that the man has to be heavy-handed with this authority. And there’s also this inclination for the woman to reject it. And both of those things are unbiblical and unfortunate.

    But because we’re here and we’re hearing the word of God, we can be redeemed from that. We’ve been redeemed from the effects of the curse eternally.

    “This is what brings God the most glory and it will bring us the most joy.”

    And even now, we have power over all sin. And even this where we’ve been sinful in our relationships and the way that we viewed each other, God can restore us.

    Roles in the Home: Marriage as a Picture of Christ and the Church

    Now we’re going to look at two places, two institutions. Hopefully we can look at both where we really see these roles take effect. The first one is going to be in the home. The Bible shows us that marriage is a picture of Christ and his church.

    “The Bible shows us that marriage is a picture of Christ and his church.”

    We’re going to spend a lot of time going back into Ephesians 5. Bear with me. If you want, you can open up the Bible here because there’s going to be more than one slide. It’ll be harder for me to keep bouncing back and forth if I need to.

    Ephesians 5:22-33 says, “Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, he himself being the savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”

    So we’ll stop there.

    Wives: Submit as to the Lord

    This is the first thing that we see.

    When I came across this, I don’t know, 20 something years ago, maybe even almost 30 years ago, what bothered me was that Paul had like two, maybe three little quick sentences to say to the women. Like wives, all right, this is what you got to do. All right, just make sure you love your husband. You know what I mean?

    “Paul had two or three quick sentences for the women—then a whole essay for us husbands.”

    Husbands: Sacrificial Love

    You submit to your husbands. At the end he’s going to say be sure that you respect your husbands and that’s it. And then got a whole essay for us. Hey, come on. You could have split the words a little bit better than that, but nope. And a whole essay for men that we got to do. And the women is just like, “All right, make sure you respect your husbands and that you submit to them. That’s it. I mean, there’s a lot baked into that, but it’s like there’s a lot that we have to do.”

    Well, verse 25, and we’ll kind of look in a little bit of detail into this. Says, “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her so that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she would be holy and blameless.”

    So husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.

    Ephesians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

    For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are parts of his body. For this reason, a man shall cleave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. We go back to Genesis 2:24.

    This mystery is great, but I’m speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

    Nevertheless, as for you individually, each husband is to love his own wife the same as himself, and a wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

    So what’s great about this? A lot of things. But both the husbands and the wives have Christ as their example.

    The ones who are to lead and have the authority and the ones who are to submit both have Christ as an example.

    “Both the husbands and the wives have Christ as their example.”

    And I think that’s something that sometimes we may skip over. I do sometimes.

    And it’s because the picture of Christ in his church is the church submitting to Christ. But we have so many passages that talk about Jesus submitting. Not just those that we referenced earlier, but even if you just want to look at 2 Peter—not right now, but if you want to look at 2 Peter, all of chapter 2, the second half of chapter 2 is Peter giving examples of Christ suffering where we tell us where we should submit even while we’re suffering and submit to authority that may not be the most godly and that may be causing suffering rather than causing joy for us. We should still submit. Then he gives Christ as an example.

    So there’s one thing I do want to point out here. In verse 25 he says, “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her.” And we think of this sacrificial love. And it’s a beautiful thing. And I think most if not every husband in here—I know I’m speaking on y’all behalf—but if there was something coming that meant imminent death, that we would take it. We would stand in front of it for our wives.

    And not just that, there are probably some or many of us in here who would see imminent death going to someone that’s not our wife, and we would still step in and say, “I’ll take it on their behalf.” So I don’t think there’s an issue there.

    Daily Sacrifice, Not Just Dramatic Moments

    But this sacrificial love, willing to give up yourself all the way until your life, involves everything leading up to that point.

    It’s not just that you could be a terrible husband, but if she’s stuck on those train tracks, I’ll step in for her and push her out of the way. But I could be terrible in every other aspect of life as long as I’m willing to take a bullet for her. That’s what he goes on to say. This is what you do. You sanctify her. You cleanse her.

    So even in our discussion, even in the way that we’re speaking with our wives, we’re thinking about what would edify her. What would set her off? What words would get under her skin? Let me avoid those. What things do I do? What tone do I take that makes it difficult for her to resist the temptation of anger or anything else? We constantly are thinking about those things.

    In those very little moments, we’re sacrificing. There may be something we want to say. There may be a thing that we were just right on. We know that we’re right. And it’s like, I’m just going to let you step into that and see that I was right, that you should have done this thing or you should have listened to me or what I told you so. Those types of things.

    And we say, “All right, I’m going to withhold from saying that. I’m not going to do that because that is not going to sanctify her. That is not cleansing her. That is not washing her with the water of the word. And I have to be really careful about how I do those things.”

    So it is not just that I’m willing to sacrifice in the moment that a robber comes, but I’m willing to sacrifice in every interaction in life that we have.

    “I’m willing to sacrifice in every interaction in life, not just the moment a robber comes.”

    So I think it’s important to look at that. Even though this isn’t a marriage class totally, we are looking a little bit into that. And I do want to look at one of those examples that I mentioned.

    Submission Even to an Unbelieving Husband

    First Peter 3 addresses this in the context of suffering, submitting to headship, and submitting to authority even when they aren’t godly or are causing pain, discomfort, and suffering. You are still to submit.

    Peter says, “In the same way, you wives be subject to your own husbands, so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives. As they observe your pure and respectful behavior.”

    Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, or putting on apparel. But it should be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

    For in this way, the holy women of former times who hoped in God also used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands, just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord. And you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

    Stop there because then you can talk about the husband. In this passage, he’s saying that even if you are married to an unbelieving husband, you are still supposed to submit to him.

    Of course, we have the caveat: you don’t submit to something that would cause you to disobey God directly. Over the years, we’ve had to counsel many women through situations where it seemed like that might be the case, and it is a difficult one.

    But Peter is saying that as much as it’s possible for you, still honor God. The way you’re going to honor God the most is by following these commands, even if your husband is an unbeliever. Your behavior is going to win him more than nagging him to come to church every Sunday.

    “Your behavior is going to win him more than nagging him to come to church every Sunday.”

    What I mean is how we can be—especially when we know something is good for someone—how we can just say this is the best thing. Don’t come to me with your problems. I’m giving you Christ and you reject it the next week crying about your problems. I gave you the solution already. Don’t come here every week with something new.

    A Counseling Example: Refusing Submission

    So he’s setting this up. And I remember many years ago, Dr. Ho and I were counseling a couple. They’re not a part of this church, so they don’t have to worry. I’m not giving anything away.

    They were having problems, and it was both of them, which is the case in just about every marital issue. Including yours—whoever, if y’all had any issues going on now, it’s both of y’all’s fault. That’s what was happening then. Both of them were dishonoring God.

    She said when we talked about her in this passage submitting, “I am a daughter of the king, and he would not want his daughter to be treated this way. So I don’t have to submit to him. How am I going to submit to him? He still hasn’t done this thing that I’m judging his whole spiritual life on. He still hasn’t done that yet. And because he hasn’t, I don’t have to obey him. I don’t have to submit to him. I don’t even have to respect him. I don’t respect him.”

    And I think that was one of the only times that I almost lost it. Usually nothing surprises me. People will talk to me and say something extreme that gets to me, but this was different. We read this passage and she was just like, “I’m a daughter of the king though.” And I’m like, “Oh, act like it. Listen to what the king is saying.” And she refused.

    That was sad. It was infuriating at first, and then it just became really sad. The husband was no better. I think that was probably the most angry that I’ve ever seen Greg, because of some of the things that were revealed in there—how the husband was treating her.

    I mean, in a worldly sense, if I wasn’t a Christian, I’d be like, “You’re right, he doesn’t deserve your respect after what I just heard.” But as a Christian, I’m like, “But the word of God says this. The word of God tells me my feelings don’t matter in this case. What I think doesn’t matter. I have to just counsel the word of God.”

    But we have to make sure that this is real to us, that we’re believers, right? We believe this to be true. We believe that this is really God’s will for us. We believe this is best for us—that you would submit even to an unbeliever.

    And then he says in verse seven, which I think is still on.

    “We believe this is really God’s will for us—that you would submit even to an unbeliever.”

    Husbands: Treat Her as Precious

    You husbands, in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman, and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

    But even there, even though he said more to the women in this case, Peter gave to the women a little more. But look what he says to the men. If you don’t love your wives right and treat them the right way, your prayers will be hindered.

    That’s serious. Some of us wonder why we don’t have victory in our lives. Your prayers are being hindered.

    Now, without going too far into this idea of someone weaker—and I think the King James may say like a weaker vessel—the idea is not that women are weaker because they’re women. This isn’t even talking about some emotional weakness here. It is saying that the way you treat your wife and handle your wife is the same way you would handle something that’s delicate, something that’s precious, and that can be broken easily.

    I’m going to carry a kettlebell or a dumbbell very differently than I’m going to carry a $50,000 vase. Or I guess if it cost that much we call it the vase, right? I’m going to be much more careful with that and delicate the way that I carry it, the way that I hold it.

    When I put it down, I’m going to get out a rag and wipe off all my fingerprints on it. I’m going to make sure I’m caring for this thing because it’s so delicate and so precious and so priceless. Men, that is the way that we are to be with our wives.

    It’s not that, oh yeah, she’s weaker because she’s so emotional. No, it’s that we’re treating them the same way we would treat a weaker vessel in a physical sense. Then in a spiritual, emotional, in every sense, that’s how we are to handle relationships with our wives, interactions with them.

    “Handle your wife the way you would handle something delicate, precious, and priceless.”

    I used to say all the time when in verse six—well, my wife isn’t here now to say it—but it says that Sarah called her husband Lord.

    I want to hear some more of that, like being addressed. I want to hear some of you. Yeah, Magna, I’m looking at you when Steve comes in just like, “Lord, Como, how are you today?” Like I want to hear that, y’all sitting over there. Check her. Make sure that happened.

    That’s such a beautiful thing. I don’t know if we would know how to act if our wives called us that. But it’s just treating them with that dignity and that respect that you would, because the word doesn’t have to mean lord as far as God, but lord as far as even master or how we would say mister. It’s kind of a high form of respect that we’re giving someone, calling someone sir. That would be kind of the equivalent now.

    The Wife as Manager of the Home

    So, another passage that kind of looks at this is Titus 2. Titus 2:3-5 says, “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”

    If you don’t do your part, you’re dishonoring the word of God. If we don’t do all this, we’re not going to receive the full blessings of God. We have to do our part or we’re not going to receive the full blessings of God.

    The phrase “workers at home” is related to a word—actually a compound word. It really is “home” and “worker.” It’s not anything deep or complicated, but it’s related to another compound word from which we get our word “economics.”

    The idea here is that the domain, the work, or even the management of the home belongs to the wife.

    “The domain or the management of the home belongs to the wife.”

    I was thinking of one example yesterday as I was trying to fit leftovers in the fridge. We moved recently and we have a smaller fridge now than we used to, or at least the layout of it is not as good as the other ones.

    My wife used to cook meals and she would make a lot. Those of you who know her know she’s Jamaican, and they don’t know how to cook for just two or three people. She’ll make a chili or a soup, and that’s our dinner for the whole week—like eight to ten meals right there. Then we just dish them out individually and stack them in these nice little glass containers that we have. They don’t fit now.

    We have all this fruit in there, and then we have our eggs, and that’s a whole shelf. Fruit and eggs is like a whole shelf now. Before, that would be half of one, and we could do other things.

    But my wife, being as crafty as she is, always finds a way to fit things in the fridge and make it work. Now she’s also saying, “Okay, we have to shop more often and we have to buy smaller things and try to make it work.”

    My point in that is just saying that she sees a problem in the home, and she’s saying, “Okay, with the resources that we have, how are we going to make this work?” Why I thought about economics is because I did my graduate work in economics, so I’m kind of biased toward economics. In it, the economic problem as it’s stated is scarcity. It basically means we don’t have an endless supply of the resources that we need. So we have to learn to make do with what we have.

    Same thing with the church. We wish we had maybe 20,000 more square feet to add on. We don’t have that. So we have to use the space that we have and figure out how to do that.

    The Bible is saying that type of work is the primary domain of the wife—to take all the resources of the home, to take even what you’re bringing in, to take the physical layout, everything that you have, what you need. If you have children, take into account all those things and make it work.

    Practical Wisdom in Dividing Responsibilities

    And this isn’t banning women from having jobs or even careers outside of the home. But it is saying that it is the primary domain of the wife.

    That also doesn’t mean that if the husband is better at one of these administrative tasks than the wife, you say the wife should still do it. There are many homes where the husband manages the finances just because he’s either better at it or it just fits into the flow of how the home works.

    Even though managing the home and being a worker at home should be the wife’s primary role, sometimes it works better differently. There are some men that are great cooks and some women that aren’t. Sometimes the husbands will cook more than the wives. You aren’t violating scripture by doing any of those things.

    You’re trying to be wise and figure out the best way to run the home. But God has given this special task and this responsibility and has ordained it so that the wife, if you’re married, is the one who is organizing those things. The wife may even say, “I think you’re better at it than me, so you should do that.” Okay, let’s work out how we’re going to have these things flow. But it is not banning a woman from working here.

    When we look at the roles in the home, the primary thing that we see is that the wives are submitting to the husbands and husbands are loving the wives. We saw all the scripture here and even in other places in Colossians 3:18, it says “as is fitting to the Lord.” We see this is what honors God—that the roles, no matter how they play out and who does what, the husband has authority and the wife submits in the home.

    Now we’ll look at the church and see that.

    “You aren’t violating scripture by wisely dividing tasks—but God has ordained the wife to organize the home.”

    Roles in the Church: Start with Freedom

    And I’ll just as a reminder because it’s already 9:45 that the way we structure our Sunday schools for this series is that the first lesson is going to be just a bunch of points and really explaining the concept. And then hopefully you’ll have questions that you’ll send to me and then that will be the basis for next week’s lesson. We’ll be going over questions.

    There are so many common questions and misconceptions that if you say nothing to me, I already have a full lesson for next week. But if you do have questions, make sure that you send them in and send them to me early. I’m not good like Dr. Ho. I think he was like, “You can give them to me up to like Thursday, Friday.” No, not me. I need them today, tomorrow. Send me questions you have.

    Unfortunately, right after this, I’m going to be doing a sound check with the band. So I’m not going to be able to stand and answer questions. At 10 o’clock, I’ll be over there. So I won’t be able to answer questions today face to face.

    We also have a membership interview after church, so I won’t be able to stand around for too long. Email me anything you have today or tomorrow. If you email it to me later in the week, I’ll try to fit it in. Most likely what you email me will be something someone else thought of anyway or something that was kind of common.

    But if you have anything, make sure they’re real questions. I mean, we do a lot of the commenting thing or “I think you should talk about this.” So I’m going to try to tweak your lesson by asking a question that I already know the answer to, but I want you to cover it. So I’m just going to ask it as a question.

    Make sure you ask legitimate questions that are really on your mind, on your heart, because if we get a lot, I may not be able to cover it all. It will be good to get the ones that people really want to hear, especially if they’re asked by several people.

    Okay, now we can move on to the church. We actually don’t have too many left. One thing, and this kind of goes back to what I said earlier: we shouldn’t approach service in the church from a restrictive perspective. And what I mean is we shouldn’t, especially when we talk about women serving in the church, say women can’t do anything or all they could do is take care of the kids and cook us some lunch after the service.

    And you have to then convince me if you want them to do anything else. You have to show me a scripture that they’re allowed to do this.

    We all have freedom in Christ. So instead of that, come at it from this angle: men and women can do everything. Anyone can do anything. And then I’m going to open the Bible and see that there are actually restrictions. And those are the restrictions that we’re going to apply.

    “Start from freedom: men and women can do everything—then apply only the restrictions Scripture gives.”

    And there may be cases where you’re using wisdom and so it isn’t very explicit, but we still decide as a congregation. We still decide as even a ministry within a larger church to put restrictions on that may not be biblical, but they aren’t unbiblical. And I think that’s fine as well.

    And I’m going to actually show you one where we would disagree. Well, we do things differently than other churches do it, but we would not say that they’re in error by doing it differently than us. So just try to come at it from that perspective: there is freedom and then as we read the word of God that freedom kind of gets reduced rather than just full restriction until you prove to me with eight different verses that that restriction can be lifted. Because where else will we get the restriction from if not from the Bible?

    The Restriction: Authoritative Teaching over Men

    1 Timothy 2:11-12 says, “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness, but I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” We have our first restriction here.

    In a public gathering, a woman is not to engage in authoritative teaching over men. Now, this is not implying that women can’t be more knowledgeable or more skilled or more mature or more godly or even better speakers and better teachers than the men who are doing that. But God has called each one of us to a particular role within his church. He has gifted us, and all of us are to use our gifts.

    “This is the role God has called each one of us to within his church.”

    If this is a role that would require authoritative teaching from a woman over men, that role is only going to be held by men. So you’re not going to have a case—at least if you’re following and applying this—where a woman is exercising authority and teaching over a man.

    I want to look at something here.

    Priscilla and Aquila: Women Can Teach

    So, actually, I’m going to stay here for a second. If you want to, you could turn to Acts 18:24-26. Because I want you to see that this is very specific.

    A woman is not to exercise authority or teach a man in the church.

    But we have this case where in Acts 18:24-26. I’ll just read it and we’ll talk about it. It says, “Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man came to Ephesus and he was proficient in the scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord and being fervent in spirit. He was accurately speaking and teaching things about Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John.”

    Verse 26 says, “And he began speaking boldly in a synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately to him.”

    Apollos, who some believe may have written the book of Hebrews, was formally educated. He was eloquent. He knew the scriptures, especially the Old Testament scriptures. He was a bold, fervent preacher, and it doesn’t even say he was preaching error. He just had incomplete understanding, incomplete knowledge.

    He knew up to the baptism of John and that was it. It’s kind of like those people in Acts 19 who received the Holy Spirit. He was heard preaching by this couple, Priscilla and Aquila, and they took him aside and explained the way of God more accurately to him. He became an even better preacher because of that.

    So we see this woman Priscilla had a big part to play. We don’t know how much. We don’t know if it was 50/50, 60/40—it doesn’t matter. But she taught him the scriptures.

    “Priscilla taught one of the preachers the scriptures—the Bible does not say a woman can’t teach a man.”

    She wasn’t teaching like she was teaching Nathan. She was teaching one of the preachers the scriptures.

    So the Bible does not say that a woman can’t teach a man, that a man can’t be subject to a woman in another way.

    Don’t Over-Apply the Restriction

    And I think that’s really important because here in our church we have a lot of brilliant godly women. And if the men only are going to learn from other men, we have brilliant godly men too. But if I want to hear something from, say, Cheryl, and I have to say no, no—can you tell Eric? Let him know what you have to say to me. And then Eric, you let me know what she has to say. And then we’ll pass it that way so we can make sure that we’re lined up with scripture. That’s not what it’s saying.

    Another example: I serve in the nursery ministry, and I am under the director of that ministry, who is a woman. So as an elder of the church, I have to submit to her leadership. And if she says, “All right, nursery workers are going to have to start coming in at 10:15 rather than 10:25 because we really need to relieve the parents even earlier. I need you to come in at 10.” I can’t say, “What? You’re a woman? I don’t care what you have to say, Brian. What time do you want me there?” when he has nothing to do with the ministry.

    That’s not how it works.

    So we just have to make sure that we don’t go too far in trying to apply this scripture, especially because we have a certain feeling about how things are going in society or we feel like there’s a slippery slope. We shouldn’t overemphasize something in scripture because we don’t want to slip down that slope. And in doing that, we’re stopping half of the congregation from using their gifts properly.

    “Don’t go too far applying scripture and stop half the congregation from using their gifts properly.”

    So let’s talk a little more about that role.

    Elders and Deacons

    This is in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. This is talking about the office of elder or overseer, bishop, pastor. It says a trustworthy statement: “If any man aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a fine work that he desires to do.”

    Then it talks about some of the qualities that he has to have, the characteristics being a husband of one wife and there are other things in there. The entire time this assumes a man. The language assumes a man is talking about a man in this role. And we don’t have time to go through all of it.

    You also see that in Titus 1:6-9 you see the same qualifications. So the Bible is clear that this role, which involves authoritative teaching of the word of God, can only be held by men.

    “The Bible is clear that the office of elder, which involves authoritative teaching, can only be held by men.”

    And that’s just the rest of it there with deacons. This is the one that I was referring to earlier. You have again deacons likewise must be men of dignity, and then it talks about the different characteristics of them.

    Then verse 11 it says women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips. It goes on from there. That’s one way to translate it. And then in verse 12, deacons must be the husbands of one wife. It goes on from there and talks about more qualifications of the deacons.

    So it’s definitely we have this.

    Room for Disagreement on Deaconesses

    So, with the deacons, we clearly see there are men that serve as deacons and then there are women that serve with them.

    There is a lot of evidence in this text to say that the women that serve with the deacons are their wives that serve alongside them. Some churches take this differently because there is some ambiguity there. They take this to mean that there are deaconesses or there are just women who serve as deacons alongside men who serve as deacons.

    Even if they’re not unmarried, it’s just that you have deacons and it could be men or women because the role is a role of service. While we at Calvary hold to the view that you have deacon men who are serving and their wives serve alongside them, the wives need to be as qualified as the husbands are.

    If a church says we have women serving as deacons, we’re not looking at them as being unbiblical.

    “There is room for disagreement—we would not say they are being unbiblical for having women serve as deacons.”

    Conclusion: Let Scripture Establish Our View

    We’re not looking at them saying that’s a church you shouldn’t join or shouldn’t support. They are just taking this verse where there is room for disagreement, room for applying it in a different way without saying that they are being unbiblical. I just wanted to point out that distinction—we would not say that they’re being heretical because they have women serving in that role.

    That is the last slide, and it is 9:58. From this, I just want to reiterate that we—not just at Calvary, but we in general as believers—should be looking at what the scriptures tell us. There’s so much that society has said. Women have only been voting in this country for 100 years. Most of the history of this country has said women shouldn’t even be allowed to have a voice when it comes to who leads a nation.

    So there was a lot that the world got wrong. It seems like instead of standing up against that and using what the Bible says and having the biblical view of men and women, the church for the most part just went along with that. There’s a lot of things that we even have to unlearn.

    When society did their unlearning, they jumped so far in another way that they still were being unbiblical. We went from one version of being unbiblical to another. We just don’t want to be fighting against the unbiblical version of the world, but we want to be establishing what God has said. That should be the thing that we’re focused on.

    Let’s bow in prayer, and then if anyone from the band is here, I guess we’ll start the sound check. Our gracious God, we want to thank you for what your word says and how you created us to complement each other. How you created us with different roles and the beauty in your creation. I thank you, God, that your word liberates us. Your word frees us from trying to figure things out ourselves. It frees us from trying to stay up with what the world is doing.

    “We don’t want to fight the world’s unbiblical version—we want to establish what God has said.”

    Closing Prayer

    And it frees us from constantly having to come up with reasons why we do what we do. We go to your word.

    I just pray, God, that you would help us in our homes, in our church to establish Christ like this in everything that we do. I pray, God, for all the marriages that are represented here that you would be glorified and that you would help us all to be more like Christ no matter what our role is, that we will be serving each other in it.

    And I ask this in Christ’s name.

    Amen.