Christ Covenant Church

Media

Topical

Questions You Have Been Meaning To Ask About Evangelism and Love

December 15, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett

1. Why was evangelism was so much easier in the 1st century? 1.1. Textual support for my question (Act 11:19-21) = Those doing the evangelism are not the apostles but the untrained laity of the Jerusalem church (Act 7:51-8:1). Given then their evangelistic success, what advantage did the laity of the early church possess that we do not have today? Why was it so much easier? 1.2. Unlike today, everybody was religious: it was considered axiomatic truth that the events of the natural world (our world) were influenced and impacted by the decisions and actions of supernatural beings (otherwise known as gods) who not only lived in a supernatural world but often had human children (sons) who lived among us. And this belief was not compartmentalized as it is oftentimes today. In the ancient world such beliefs impacted every aspect of daily civilian and government life (e.g.,): 1) kings (Caesars) were often revered as deity in human flesh, as the sons of the gods. 2) holidays, cities – even people’s children and homes were named after and/or dedicated to a patron deity. 3) national identity was theological rather than geographical. 4) the primary reason for all animal slaughter was propitiatory not dietary. 5) all government was viewed as divine and all service to the state a religious act (hence the reason Christians were accused of being atheists for their refusal to serve in government or the military). 6) victory in battle, economic success or good weather was viewed as not only favor from a particular deity or group of deities but a sign that they were the “god(s) on top.” 7) the manufacture and sale of idols for personal and public shrines (Act 17:16) was a vital economic industry providing a large tax revenue base to the state and income to many families (Act 19:23-29). 8) the most popular form of conversation taking place in the public square was not entertainment, sports or politics – but theology - most especially the subject of “who is the god on top?” (Act 17:17-21). 8) Most places associated with pleasure were also temples (prostitution, restaurants). In short, because of the surrounding society, the gods were very real and relevant removing that subject (the existence and need for God) as the first obstacle to overcome in evangelism. IOW: evangelistic conversations were about convincing people that Yhwh was the God on top (and the resurrection of His Son Jesus as the proof of His love for all humanity versus trying to convince people that Someone and something exists beyond the material world (Act 17:22-31). A simple testimony regarding the life, death, resurrection, rule and coming judgment of Jesus was -in most situations -all the knowledge required to be potent and effective (1Co 15:1-4). 1.3. Primitive technology and a large percentage of the population being illiterate also meant that less philosophical and theological competency was required to refute and remove people’s confusion or doubt (Act 28:17-23). Today is just the opposite. Because of our vast exposure to opposing worldviews and heresies associated with the Bible’s teaching and gospel, those functioning as effective evangelists are required to become effective apologists both philosophically and theologically (Act 17:22-23 = Confusion created by their access to many different religious views). 1.4. Such “information corruption” may be another sign that we are in the final years before Christ’s return. Jesus makes clear that in the end it will be like the days of Noah. Corruption will again have reached a tipping point making the possibility of finding salvation like finding a needle in a haystack, reducing the number of those saved to a small covenant family (Mat 24:37-38). 2. What does it mean when Jesus says that the first greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul and mind, why do the first and second greatest commandment matter and what initial or internal way is there to assess whether or not we are fulfilling them? 2.1. What does it mean to love God w/all our heart, soul and mind (the 1st greatest commandment)? The answer is found in the phrase that connects the first to the second (Mat 22:37-39) “The second is like it” = IOW: The way we love in the second greatest commandment will be the same as the first. As such, whatever Jesus says is the way we love our neighbor (i.e., our covenant family – Lev 19:17 [“fellow countryman”]w/18 [“neighbor”]) is how also we are to love God – or what it means to love Him w/all our heart, soul and mind. So what is the answer – how are we told to love our covenant family? As ourselves. So then, loving God w/all your heart, soul and mind just means to love God in the same way as you love yourself. Both God and our covenant family are to be loved in the same way as we love ourselves. They are to be “our very heart.” 2.2. Why does it matter (why is important to have this kind of love for God and our covenant family)? (Mat 22:40 w/Mat 5:17-20) = Nobody gets to heaven who is unfaithful to love God and His people in the same way they love themselves. 2.3. The initial and internal way to assess our whether or not we love God and our covenant family as ourselves is by considering these two groups with respect to this universal truth: As human beings we possess the ability to betray others and live with it (including those we may have great affection for). We do not however possess that ability in relation to self – or those that we choose to love in the same way as we love ourselves. It is impossible to betray yourself – or those you love as yourself - and live with it. 2.4. Why? B/C This is how God has hard-wired us (Eph 5:29 “no one ever hated [betrayed] his own flesh but nourishes it and cherishes it”). The context of this verse is our universal truth – or the main point of our discussion: loving others as our self. Paul reveals this as the key to covenant fidelity – or Christ-like love for our wives (Eph 5:28) = This then is what is meant in v25 when it says Christ “gave Himself for her” meaning His bride, the church. He loved her in the same way He loved Himself – giving Him the power to be faithful in the most severe test: dying for her. Hence the reason then we can’t live with ourselves if we are not true to ourselves or those we love in the same way we love ourself. We can’t betray ourselves. It is an ontological impossibility created by God for our preservation and those we would place in that category. Which means five things: 1) As much as we may not want to always admit it, our actions do reveal our true self (or what we truly love) since once more we can’t betray (be unfaithful or untrue) to ourselves and live with ourselves. Those kinds of things – those actions that are not true to who we are, that betray our true self, are unsustainable – which means they won’t last long. They are unlivable – which means we would choose suicide over them – as demonstrated by Judas (Mat 27:3-5). 2) This is the reason we will be judged according to our deeds. Betrayal will never be among the deeds of those who truly love God and their covenant family as themselves (since again, they couldn’t live with that – we can’t live w/betraying ourselves). 3) Repentance (biblically defined) is what happens when we have fallen into behavior that is not – or no longer, our true self – i.e., when we have chosen to love God and His people in the same way as ourselves. 4) This is also what it means to deny (or die to) self - another requirement to getting to heaven (Mat 16:23). Living for self means that self is the only one I love in that way. It is therefore a selfish love. The moment however you attach God and God’s people to that, your love has changed. It is impossible to be selfish or guilty of betrayal since I cannot be selfish or betray myself or those who are now in the same category (they are myself, to betray them is to betray me). The key thing not to miss is that we are (again) all hard-wired to love self – which means it is not something we can remove. The only way then to change that (to make it something other than selfish and damning) is to add God and His people to this category, to love them as I love myself, to believe (and therefore truly feel) that to betray them would mean betraying myself. 5) You now know why people go apostate or can’t seem to stay the course of faithfulness toward God and their covenant family (or covenant wives). The root cause is a refusal to put those people in that place, to love them in the same way they love themselves. If that had happened, betrayal would have been impossible. This is what Jesus is talking about in (Mat 24:11) = The increase in lawlessness that marks the end of the world will cause people to stop loving God and His people as themselves causing them also to eventually betray and apostasize (v10). Given the larger context, this is also what (I believe) John is talking about in (1Jo 2:19 w/9-11) Consider also (1Jo 3:14-16) = Our love for one another is to be the same as Christ’s for the church – which according to Paul in Eph 5 means loving them in the same way we love ourselves, These verses confirm that this is the kind of love John is also demanding when he speaks of loving the brethren in his letter. 2.5. The question then is this: which category of “others” does God and your covenant family fit in? Can you betray them (in any way) and live with it or would betraying them be like betraying yourself? Unless they fit into the latter category (betraying them wb betraying self)) then you have not even begun to love those two groups (God and your covenant family) in the way God requires in order to get to heaven. If you love them as yourself then the thought of betraying them would be the equivalent of committing suicide. You couldn’t live with it. We can’t live with betraying ourselves. 2.6. Two other ways of posing this question: 1) if God let you into heaven – though you knew you were unfaithful to Him and/or your covenant family, could you live with yourself? 2) would you give into temptation more if there were no consequences for betraying God or a member of your covenant family? (e.g., men): if you could cheat on your wife w/o punishment from God, the church or your wife would things change in your marriage? Would removing the external consequences be enough for you to do it and still be able to live with yourself? If your answer is “yes” to both (or one of the two) then once more you have failed to grasp what it is that God requires when it comes to love and getting to heaven – which guarantees that you will never be able to sustain any faithfulness you may in the present possess-because this (according to God) is the pre-requisite to all that: you must love them as yourself. Otherwise what you do – especially in hard times, will become unsustainable. 2.7. This btw is what distinguishes the lasting (and last) soil from the others presented by Jesus in His parable of the soils – (Mat 13:20-23) “soil…sown on the rocky places” and “soil…sown among the thorns” = These kinds of Christians are initially happy about their choice to follow God (they “immediately [receive the word] with joy”) but because they do not love God and their covenant family in the same way they love themselves – b/c betraying those two groups is not the same as betraying themselves, then end up betraying them (“immediately [falling] away”) when things get tough or temptations come. This is in contrast to the “good soil” whose loyalty to God and their covenant family perseveres through the tough and tempting times (they keep producing fruit). Why? Because unlike the others, they love God and their covenant family in the same way as they love themselves. For them, to betray either God or their covenant family would be the same as betraying themselves – an impossibility based on the way that God has wired us. 2.8. Questions (then) to ponder this week: How do you love God and your covenant family? Could you betray them and live with it?

Three Strikes And You Are Out

October 13, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Titus 3:10–11

If we are to accurately discern Paul’s point (in Tit 3:10-11), we must first determine what’s going on in the letter as a whole. Why? Because context always determines meaning (e.g., reading comprehension [larger picture det’s individual parts]). 1. What’s going on? (What is the context or backstory of the letter?) 1.1. This is a pastoral epistle. It was written to Paul’s church-planting partner and pastor, Titus in regard to those churches he and Titus had started in the various cities on the island of Crete. Titus was tasked with establishing two things in each of the churches: 1) order (sound doctrine and behavior), 2) authority (ordained pastors/elders) (Tit 1:4-5) “set in order what remains” [Grk., epidiorthaoh] = To straighten out what is still out of line (i.e., what persists in going its own direction) – which implies that there were people in these churches who were not believing or acting the way they should; “and appoint [elders]” = Anoint/ordain (same word translated “anoint” in Heb 8:3). Titus needed to deputize qualified men with (Jesus’) divine authority as a means to establishing order/dealing with those out of line (Joh 20:21-23). 1.2. Beyond the obvious, these two tasks were necessary due to the fact that the Cretans were known for causing dissension in relation to established things – most especially things related to order and authority (Tit 1:12) = Part of a poem written by the Greek poet (or “prophet”) Epimenides. The reason for his accusation? The doubt Cretans were causing among those devout to the Greek religion and its chief god, Zeus by their divisive claim that his tomb resided on one of their mountains (i.e., that Zeus was not immortal)[1]. 1.3. Their proclivity for contention and dissension in relation to religious authorities and doctrine was also being felt in the churches. Hence the reason Paul makes apologetics a required skill for those serving as “God’s steward” (Tit 1:7 [Grk., theos oikonomos] = Compound word: God + house + law – Literally, the law man in God’s house; the church’s sheriff [bishop]). As it re: to apologetics - (Tit 1:9-11) “rebellious men” [Grk., anupotaktos] = People not submitted to authority in temper or teaching (hence Paul’s charge to Titus in 2:15 [“let no one disregard you” -i.e., ignore/discount your authority] and emphasis on submission to authorities in 3:1-2); “empty talkers” [Grk., mataiologos] = People whose teaching was against -or calling into question that of God’s sheriffs/bishops (elders/overseers) (v11 “teaching things they should not teach”) though what they said lacked the necessary knowledge, coherency or evidence to be considered “sound doctrine” (Tit 2:1). According to Paul, “many” of the Cretan Christians fit this profile and needed to be “silenced (literally, their mouths shut) because they were “upsetting whole families” = Their questioning of the church’s authority and their doctrine was encouraging doubt, dissension and division in the congregation. IOW: it was threatening the unity of the church and trust in her leadership. 1.4. Two likely reasons so many in Crete were this way: 1) arrogance or thinking more highly of their intellect and ability than they should. Hence the reason for Paul’s universal call to be “sensible” (Tit 2:2, 3 w/5, 6 [Grk., sophron] = To place a moderate estimate on oneself in re: to intellect/understanding, ability/expertise) and his urging of “bondslaves” to “not [be] argumentative” (9 [Grk., antilego] = To dispute, be contrary, not listen). 2) self-interest. Claiming the tomb of Zeus resided on their island, was for the Cretans, a way to make a lot of easy money off the curious. IOW: it wasn’t because they actually believed it – or could support it with evidence, but it served their financial (self) interest. Hence the reason for Epimenides’ accusation that the Cretans were not only “liars” but also “lazy gluttons.” This too is why Paul says those upsetting households (upsetting the unity of the church and trust in her leadership) were doing it for “the sake of sordid gain” (literally, gain that is for selfish or shameful reasons). 1.5. Why such attitudes and actions needed to be stifled in the Cretan churches was not only because of its threat to the unity of the church and the trust of her leadership, but also its hindrance to one of the church’s most important missions, the producing of good deeds (mentioned 4x in the letter: 2:14, 3:1, 3:8, 3:14). 1.6. How divisive people hinder the church’s ability to produce good deeds: the division and distrust they create in the church means less people willing to work together or follow the leaders’ direction. As a result, less good deeds are accomplished for the kingdom. In addition, where such division and distrust exists, what also exists is more internal conflict and fighting – or unnecessary distractions that consume resources which could have been used to advance the kingdom (produce good deeds). Hence the reason for Paul’s instruction in verse 9 (after his mention of good deeds) (Tit 3:8-9). 1.7. THE TAKEAWAY (with respect to what’s going on): Because of the arrogance and selfishness that characterized the Cretan population many of the male members in the cities’ various churches were by their attitude and actions guilty of being divisive or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the church’s teaching and leadership. 2. What’s the point? (What is Paul ordering the churches to do when he says, “reject a factious man after a first and second warning”?) 2.1. Based on what’s going on (the context of the letter), the person identified as “factious” must be related to those who are guilty of being divisive – or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in the congregation. 2.2. This understanding not only fits within the semantic range of the word’s meaning (Grk., hairesis/hairetikos [heresy/heretic]) but how it is most commonly used in the NT. Though we tend to associate this word with false teaching or teachers, rarely (if ever) does it carry this limited connotation. Its emphasis is instead on the disposition of those people or things with which it is identified. IOW: they (or it) is said to be hairesis/hairetikos -not because they are necessarily wrong (i.e., they or their teaching is false), but because their attitude or actions are viewed as divisive or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the teaching and leadership of those accusing them. In short, because they are not “getting with the program” of the religious community currently in power or to whom they belong.[2] 2.3. Some biblical examples to drive this home (i.e., in the bible hairesis/hairetikos are terms referring to those who are divisive to the teaching and leadership of the church [and not as its modern use suggests, terms devoted strictly to identifying false teaching and teachers]): 1) hairesis is used to identify Christians (Act 24:5, 14, 28:22 “sect” = Paul and Christians were obviously not false teachers but did teach what was divisive to the beliefs and leadership of the Jewish religion [e.g., that Jesus was Messiah and God]). 2) hairetikos is used to identify those who were contentious to the teaching and leadership in Corinth (1Co 11:16-19 “factions” = Those in Corinth condoning long hair on men though it stood against the teaching of the churches and her bishops/sheriffs [“we…nor the churches of God”]). 3) hairesis is never used when identifying Scripture’s biggest forms of false teaching (circumcision needed for salvation – Gal 5:2; resurrection already happened – 2Ti 2:18; okay for Christians to partake of the table of idols/demons – 1Co 10:21; we are saved by faith alone – Jam 2:24; Jesus is not the son of God – 1Jo 4:3). 2.4. Given the context of Titus and these terms’ most common use in Scripture, it is safe to conclude that what Paul means by “factious man” is indeed a person who is guilty of being divisive – or potentially sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in relation to the church’s teaching or leadership. Consider Paul’s words to the Roman church as further reinforcement (Rom 16:17-19) = According to Paul, these kinds of people are a real threat to collective obedience and the innocence of the church. They are the bad apples that spoil the whole batch.[3] 2.5. Is this sin different than insurrection? Yes, but not by much. Persons guilty of insurrection have claimed that those functioning as the anointed shepherds (bishops/sheriffs) have sinfully possessed their office, or carry out the duties of their office in a way that is sinful – or are teaching what is sinful or condemned by God. In addition, they make these claims without bringing the necessary evidence to the church’s courts to support it. The result of their actions is often division, dissension and doubt in the congregation (Num 16:1-3; Mat 12:22-32; 1Ti 5:19). Those guilty of being factious, are (as discussed) also guilty of being divisive against the leadership and their teaching - or sowing seeds of dissension and doubt in the congregation but never by such actions, accusing the church’s anointed shepherds (pastors) of being sinful in their office or teaching. This then is the distinction that makes the difference between insurrection and faction. Both are divisive but only one (insurrection) crosses the line of accusing the church’s anointed men of sin. That line however is a fine one. Change a few things said by the accuser, and the crime goes from faction to insurrection. 2.6. Considering the serious nature of being factious (a few degrees less than the worst sin of all, insurrection) helps us to understand Paul’s serious penal prescription (v10) “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning.” Those committing insurrection get one strike, its lesser cousin, three (the third offense will result in a declaration of apostasy). 2.7. That what Paul means by “reject” is to “declare apostate” is supported by the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn after considering two things: 1) the nature of the warnings themselves: they represent some form of official/legal notice issued by the church’s leadership. The entire Bible was written for the purpose of establishing policy with respect to doctrine, discipleship and discipline - or law and justice for God’s covenant community, hence the reason it was not written until such communities existed. As such, these warnings must be viewed through this ecclesiological lens. They represent some form of official/legal notice (e.g., written document) issued by the church’s leadership (describing the crime and identifying the guilty party) which when accepted by the congregation, is admissible as evidence in her courts unto judgment. That Paul does indeed view these warnings in this way is supported also by his words in (1:13) = This is in reference to those being factious (see again, vv10-12) and therefore sheds light on their official nature. The word “severely” modifying the imperative, “reprove them” is used only one other place in the NT and carries legal connotations (2Co 13:10 “severe in my use of authority” = Authority used in court to prosecute the guilty based on the evidence possessed – vv1-2). 2) the nature of the factious man after a third offense: he is apostate. (11) “perverted” (Grk., ekstrepho = Turned inside out, warped, changed for the worse, corrupt; See similar in Deu 32:20 [LXX]: Same word used to speak of the apostate first generation)… self-condemned” (Grk., autokatakritos = Self-damned - which is what apostate refers to – a person who has by their actions, chosen to damn themselves to hell). 2.8. The only reasonable CONCLUSION (based on the above two considerations: the nature of the warnings themselves and the nature of the factious man after the third offense): Apostasy is to be declared against anyone guilty of being factious three times as evidenced by official/legal notices issued by the church’s leadership and accepted by her courts.[4] CLOSING CONTEMPLATION: What can we do to avoid being factious? 1) check you ego (Rom 13:3; e.g., young marriage or baptism), 2) trust God w/your leaders (Do you believe 1Pe 3:5? Then why not Tit 2:15?), 3) be self-suspicious (Mat 16:21-23; e.g., personal fears or instability) [1] The Cretans were such famous “liars” that a derivation of their name came to mean this very thing (Grk., Kreitizein = To lie). [2] Second century bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, uses the term (hairetikos) to refer to those in the church who were disobedient to the bishop’s teaching. [3] William Barclay’s comments on Titus 3:10 agree. A factious (hairetikos) man is “a man who has decided that he is right and everybody else is wrong. Paul’s warning is a warning against the man who has made his own ideas the test and standard of all truth.” (Commentary on the Book of Titus) [4] ****These verses have nothing to do with those guilty of capital crimes.

Divorce, Remarriage, and Sexual Fraud

October 20, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Deuteronomy 24:1–4, Deuteronomy 22:13–21, Jeremiah 3:1, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9

1. Like the ancient societies around them, divorce was already an axiomatic (or unquestioned) part of Jewish society when God adopted them as His people. Hence the reason there is no place in Scripture which establishes divorce but only case laws which regulate it. 1.1. (Deu 24:1-4 “When a man takes a wife…and he writes her a certificate of divorce” [1]) = Not establishing divorce but regulating what already existed as part of Israelite society. Other examples of axiomatic and inalienable practices that were a part of Israel (just as they were every other ancient society): 1) marriage = Not establishing marriage but regulating what already existed in Israelite society. (Exo 21:7-10) 2) slavery (Exo 21:1-2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave…”) = Not establishing slavery but regulating what already existed in Israelite society. 3) war (Num 10:9 “When you go to war…”) = Not establishing war but regulating what already existed in Israelite society. 1.2. The POINT NOT TO MISS: Divorce was the long-established axiomatic default for dealing with unfaithfulness in marriage - not something established later as an additional option. “Although there are not multiple instances of divorce recorded in the Pentateuch, we must assume that divorce was as prevalent in Israel then as in other ancient Near Eastern societies. Several passages speak about divorce, but none of them condemns or even discourages it… It is assumed in these passages that divorce happens, and no comment is made whether divorce itself is desirable or not.”– David Instone-Brewer (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context) 2. Under the Old Testament, God allowed divorce for almost any reason, whereas under the New Covenant, sexual immorality became the only allowable reason. 2.1. Allowance for almost any reason: 1) Under the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 21:9-14 “sent her away” = divorced her). 2) Under the Old Covenant (Exo 21:11 = Notice divorce is allowable for more than sexual abandonment/sexual immorality; Deu 24:1 w/Mat 19:1-3 = The Pharisees understood divorce (or the phrase, “some indecency”) to allow for (v3) “any reason at all.” Notice that in (v8) Jesus does not correct their understanding but rather confirms it by explaining why Moses “permitted”(allowed) such large parameters (Mat 19:7-8). Priests were the only exception (Mal 2:14-16 “hates”[2]). 2.2. Under the New Covenant, Jesus confirms not only the Law’s continuing necessity but fills it up to its fullest measure and meaning – or the meaning and measure God originally intended (As it re: continuing necessity - Mat 5:18-20; As it re: filling up to its fullest measure and meaning - Mat 5:17 “fulfill” = Confirm [LXX- 1Ki 1:14]; Fill up in measure and meaning). Hence the reason (then) for sexual immorality becoming the only valid reason for divorce. Jesus is filling up the measure/meaning of marriage to what it was intended to be “from the beginning” (v8). (Mat 19:4-6 [Gen 2:24]) = Per God’s design, when a husband and wife enter into a marriage covenant, they create a new family (v5 = Family by covenant or the covenant ratifying act of sexual activity in marriage). This new family/covenant relationship is meant to be permanent (v6, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”). Why (then) is divorce allowed for sexual immorality (v9,)? Because in the case of sexual immorality, the marriage has already been broken. All sexual acts are covenant ratifying acts, making all sexual activity outside an existing marriage an attempt to replace that marriage w/another (1Co 6:16). The divorce is therefore simply the legal notice that such has taken place (i.e., the current marriage has been broken by the attempt to replace it through marriage covenant ratifying acts w/another) and per the request of the innocent party, that marriage will not be re-consummated. This however is the only time a divorce functions this way since no other act by a spouse breaks the marriage covenant. Hence why Jesus can say that divorce for any other reason makes each party guilty of adultery. Because without the prior covenant-breaking act of sexual immorality, both parties are still bound in marriage (i.e., their divorce is not recognized by God). As a result, any sexual act (including those in a new marriage) becomes adultery in relation to their still existing first marriage. 2.3. That Jesus’ actions (re: divorce) were never meant to be an override of God’s Law (Deu 4:2) but rather a restoration (a filling up) to its originally intended meaning (to its fullest meaning and measure) is supported by the following: 1) (Mat 5:31-32) “It was said…but I say to you” = According to David Daube (The New Testament & Rabbinic Judaism) this was an ancient rabbinic way to indicate a correction was about to applied to a prior (and inaccurate) understanding of Scripture. 2) (Deu 24:4) = Defilement of the land due to remarriage to the former spouse only makes sense in the context of sexual immorality, meaning this was the reason for the first husband’s divorce. IOW: the phrase, “since she has been defiled” refers not to the fact that she was married to someone else after their divorce, but rather that the second marriage was the result of her adultery w/the new husband while still married to the former. The toleration of sexual immorality (which is what the former husband would be doing through remarrying or re-consummating marriage to his former adulteress wife), is a major reason God removed the land’s former occupants (Lev 18:1-23 w/24-28 = Toleration of adultery is viewed as a crime not only against God but the land itself). Deuteronomy 24:4’s allusion to passages like Leviticus 18 helps us to confirm adultery as the intended focus of God’s instruction regarding divorce.[3] 3) This is also how Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is used by God in (Jer 3:1) = Notice, God paraphrases Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a threat to unfaithful Judah (See 2:1). However, those identified as Judah’s new husbands prohibiting her return to God (should He enact the divorce) are seen as one and the same as those she is currently guilty of “harlot[ry]” (sexual immorality) with (her “lovers.”). In support then of the previous point and the argument as a whole, God also understands the phrase, “some indecency” in Deuteronomy 24:1 as a reference to sexual immorality. This is its fullest -or most accurate meaning and (once more) the reason God prohibits remarriage in the text.[4] And as mentioned in previous studies, this interpretation was hidden from previous generations (Mat 19:8 - “hardness of heart” = Inability to understand produced by stubbornness or immaturity) as God’s means of leading them and preserving His purposes (e.g., Gen 21:9-14; Exo 21:7 w/10-11; also possibly, Neh 13:1-3). 3. God’s authorization of His people to kill those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage does not therefore replace the axiomatic practice (or default) of divorce but rather becomes the new and additional option offered to the offended party. 3.1. One of the purposes of case law in any society – ancient or modern, is not only to regulate what already exists (i.e., divorce – e.g., Deu 24:1-4), but authorize the offer of new and additional options. Authorization is especially necessary when those other options involve capital punishment, as is the case with adultery. God’s law authorizes His people to treat sexual immorality in marriage the same way as sexual immorality outside of marriage as an additional option offered to the offended party (Lev 20:10) = The emphasis in carrying out the death sentence (“you shall surely put them to death”[5]) is to reassure those involved that they possess God’s full authorization and backing (similar to Mat 18:18-20). Hence the reason for the phrase that follows in verses 11 and 12 also dealing with adultery, “their bloodguiltiness shall be upon them.” IOW: Though you are the one putting them to death, you are not the one I will hold responsible for their death. Their blood is on their hands (not yours). 3.2. Why is the same reassurance (of authorization) not given in Deuteronomy 22:21-30 where we also find capital punishment for sexual immorality? Because as the name “Deuteronomy” indicates, what is found in its pages are simply a second giving of the laws (already established and authorized) in the previous books of the Pentateuch (e.g., Leviticus 20:10ff). 3.3. In Matthew 1:18-18, Jesus’ adopted father Joseph is the offended bridegroom of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 proving the existence of two options in the case of sexual immorality in marriage: 1) (Deu 22:13-21) = The offended husband paid the high bride-price to marry a virgin (up to fifty shekels [v29] equivalent to $25-30k today or roughly 7 yrs of servitude [think Jacob w/Leah and Rachel]), only to find evidence that she is not virgin. The only way for the offended husband to receive a refund (get the bride-price back), is to return his wife to her father’s house w/evidence that overrides that of her father. Fining the offended husband double the virgin bride-price (along w/chastisement) was meant to deter cases that waste the courts resources (i.e., cases w/o the necessary evidence). To get the refund however, requires that the girl also be charged with “harlotry” (i.e., prostitution) with a punishment of stoning (death). 2) (Mat 1:18-19) = Joseph pays the high bride-price to marry a virgin (Mary), only to find evidence that she is not a virgin (i.e., she is pregnant). He is in the predicament of the man in Deuteronomy 22. Being a “righteous man” means that Joseph will follow the Law’s prescription for justice. He chooses to divorce her[6]. If stoning were the only option (if Deuteronomy 22 were teaching death as the only prescription or punishment for dealing with this crime), then Joseph’s choice to divorce her would be unrighteous. He would be guilty of obstructing justice and subsequently not a righteous man. CONCLUSION: Divorce (the default) - or the additional option of death were both available as punishment (or for securing justice) against those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage. In Joseph’s specific case, the crime of sexual fraud. Commenting on Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Gary North writes, “If he has not been informed of her status [i.e., the girl is not a virgin], he can break the marriage through divorce, including divorce by execution, ‘because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house’ (Deu 22:21). He does not have to have her executed, for Joseph decided to put Mary away quietly for her perceived unfaithfulness (Mat 1:19), but in a biblical commonwealth, the bridegroom would have the [other] legal option of requiring her death.” (“Defrauding The Bridegroom” in Tools Of Dominion)[7] 3.4. As additional support that death was not the only recourse for punishing those guilty of sexual immorality in marriage (i.e., that divorce was the first and other option) consider (Lev 21:7) = The phrase “nor shall they take” does not exist in the original Hebrew. The sentence is an elliptical construction where the second statement functions to give further clarity to the first. A more accurate translation would therefore be, “They [the priest] shall not take [in marriage] a woman profaned by adultery, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to God.” As such the phrase “profaned by harlotry” means “a woman divorced from her husband” (because of her harlotry in her previous marriage)[8]. The prohibition against priests marrying this kind of a woman only makes sense if divorce existed as punishment for sexual immorality in marriage. If death was God’s only prescription for justice, then the prohibition becomes nonsensical since no such women would exist (they would all be dead!). Important to note also is the proximity of this verse to (Lev 20:10). If this previous injunction were prescribing death as the only option for adultery, then the level of incoherency becomes even greater with respect to God’s priestly prohibition. 3.5. The POINT (then) NOT TO MISS: When dealing w/sexual immorality in marriage today, there are two options afforded to the offended spouse: divorce or death (by excommunication) (1Co 5:1-13) (versus automatic excommunication w/the option also of divorce). 4. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 therefore expands what constitutes sexual immorality in marriage to include sexual fraud. 4.1. As discussed, all sexual activity is viewed by God as a covenant ratifying act – or as an attempt to create or confirm a marriage covenant (1Co 6:16; Hos 2:1-3, 6-7). What therefore makes an action sexually immoral (harlotry) is that action took place without the intent or ability to create or confirm a marriage covenant as is the case in adultery (sexual acts w/those bound in marriage to someone else), prostitution (sexual acts for pleasure only), perversion (sexual acts w/strange people or things – e.g., homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest) (Lev 18:6-18, 23, 20:11-16). 4.2. Pre-marital sexual activity therefore does not in and of itself constitute harlotry (i.e., prostitution). If neither the man nor the woman were betrothed or married to someone else – and consenting, then they have the ability to confirm the marriage covenant their acts were essentially attempting to create. The prescription for justice in these situations is the man must pay her father the maximum bride price for virgins and the two shall be considered legally married without the possibility of future divorce. In other words, should either party be guilty of sexual immorality in the future, death will be the only option or prescription for justice. As an additional deterrent to this pre-marital activity, the father reserves the right to refuse though the bride-price must still be paid (Exo 22:16-17). 4.3. How this relates to Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and the issue of sexual fraud? Based on the evidence provided by her new husband (or lack thereof on the part of her father), the girl had participated in sexual activity prior to her betrothal/marriage to her new husband yet never reported such activity to her father. Had she done so – and her father had refused their marriage, the current situation would have been avoided (i.e., she would not be considered guilty of harlotry). She would also not have been sold as a virgin, but at the discounted price of a concubine (a nonvirgin or virgin without a dowry or inheritance from her father). Her refusal to deal with the premarital matter- and allow herself to be sold as a virgin makes her guilty of fraud -and sexual immorality in marriage (“harlotry”), once her new husband consummates the marriage in intercourse. Why? Because her premarital act no longer possesses the ability to form a marriage covenant. Through the sexual activity of her new marital state, she has forfeited any possibility pursuing marriage with respect to her former act. As such, it can only be viewed as an act done for pleasure alone – i.e., prostitution (harlotry). Hence the reason, the girl’s charge of “harlotry” is communicated as the instrument of her sexual fraud. In other words, she is (only) now a harlot “because she has committed an act of folly in Israel (a reference to defaming the reputation of virgins in Israel)[9] by playing the harlot in her father’s house.” 4.4. The POINT NOT TO MISS: the girl’s prior sexual act does not become harlotry until two things happen: 1) she refuses to pursue marriage with her former suitor by telling her father and instead allows herself to be sold as a virgin. 2) she participates in sexual activity with her new husband (i.e., the marriage is consummated in sexual intercourse). 4.5. Sexual fraud is therefore another form of sexual immorality. Per the context and proper understanding of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 the definition of this crime is as follows: the expected and biblically sanctioned sexual intimacy promised to a spouse cannot be achieved due to outstanding sexual perversion in the other spouse of which they were aware but did not share. [1] “This is the only place in the Law where a ‘divorce certificate’ is mentioned.” David Instone-Brewer (“Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate”) [2] Gordon Hugenberger makes a strong case that “hate” refers to divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality. See Marriage As A Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi [3] See also Hugenberger (ibid, p.184) [4] At the very least, Jeremiah 3:1 confirms that under the New Covenant, we can never remarry a spouse we divorced for sexual immorality. Remarriage would only be possible to those unlawfully divorced who have not been sexually active (according to Jesus [Mat 5:32, 19:9], this too constitutes adultery since all unlawful divorces are not recognized by God – i.e., the divorced couple are still married in God’s eyes). [5] The word “surely” does not exist in the passage. Rather, the action is repeated, “(they) shall be put to death, (they) shall put to death.” Per Durham University, “Textual repetition in the Old Testament serves to foreground [make most important] a claim…as a reliable witness to the God of Israel.” [6] “It was considered very suspect if a man refused to divorce his unfaithful wife, which is why Joseph is described as righteous for wanting to divorce Mary, who appeared to be unfaithful (Mat 1:19).” D. Instone-Brewer (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The social and Literary Context) [7] “Marriage in the ANE was contractual. If either partner broke the contract, the innocent partner could opt for a divorce…Exact parallels to these practices are found in the Pentateuch.” D. Instone-Brewer (ibid) [8] Even the word translated “profaned” implies divorce for sexual immorality (Heb., halal = Adjective commonly used to communicate those defiled by divorce due to sexual immorality). [9] See North, Tools Of Dominion

Overcoming Sexual Sin

September 29, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • 2 Peter 2:13–14, Job 31:1, Proverbs 5:1–5, Romans 1:18–27, Genesis 4:7

1. If you are going to follow Christ and make it to heaven, then you must be a person characterized by sexual purity not sexual sin. (Gal 5:19 w/21; Eph 5:5; 1Th 4:1-6; 2Pe 3:14 “spotless” [Grk., aspilos = Without stain versus 2Pe 2:13-14 “eyes full of adultery” consider w/Job 31:1) = IOW: their eyes/minds are not fixed on covenant faithfulness to their wives (or God) but instead their next illicit sexual fix (Jer 2:22-24; Rev 22:15). 2. Those who struggle with sexual sin – or possess strong desires to commit sexual sin, are people guilty of idolatry. 2.1. IOW: struggles with-or strong desires to commit sexual sin, are a sure sign that the person you are dealing with is an idolator. 2.2. Idolatry is the worship of something other than the Creator, or God. You worship the creature or what is created - which in practical terms means that you trust your flesh (your senses or sense of perception) and/or the propaganda of the world (the creature v. the Creator) when determining the value of things in this life (e.g., Pro 5:1-5, 6:20-26). 2.3. The consequence of such idolatry is God’s wrath surrendering you to the power of your flesh and its sexual deviance (Rom 1:18-27) = God is incredibly angry w/those who refuse to value the things of this world according to His truth (they “suppress the truth”) – though they know He exists (He is their “Creator” and therefore the One Who knows best). They choose instead to “worship” (Grk., sebazomai = To give devotion to) the creature, to give their loyalty and trust in valuing things to what is created (i.e., their physical senses or perception and what is touted and taught as valuable by the creatures of their culture or propaganda of this world – which has always included things related to sexual pleasure). As punishment, God “[gives] them over (Grk., paradidomai = Surrenders them to the power of what they trust as the determiners of value -i.e., “the lusts of their hearts.”) which means they are now enslaved and emboldened “to impurity…[and] degrading passions.” (i.e., sexually deviant desires). 2.4. What would be a “2” on the scale of sexual temptation for the Christian (the person worshipping God) becomes a “10” for the person worshipping the creature (trusting the value system placed on things by their flesh and the world). They are now slaves to sexual sin and unable to sustain faithfulness to God (Jon 2:8; the danger of such enslavement for those already saved – 2Pe 2:18-22). 2.5. This connection between idolatry and sexual sin is testified throughout the Bible (Exo 32; Isa 57:7-8; Hos 4:12-14; 1Co 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Col 3:5; Rev 2:14, 20, 21:25). 2.6. God’s act of surrendering the idolator is congruent with the moral physics established at Creation: loyalty, attraction and affection are all the function of value. IOW: those things are the result of where we chose to see value (and who or what we chose to trust as the determiner of value – the creature or the Creator) (Mat 6:21). 2.7. Why idolatry makes God so angry is because of what it says about Him and us. By choosing self (or the world) to be the ones who will decide what is valuable in this life, we are equally choosing those things to be the determiners of right and wrong. We have replaced God with ourselves as the source of such things. In essence, we have declared ourselves to be false gods and true God - expendable. 2.8. This was the sin of our original parents (Gen 3:5-7) = In choosing to violate God’s prohibition, Adam and Eve were committing the sin of idolatry. Trust in God was no longer needed, they would now be the ones determining right and wrong. Their flesh and intellect were sufficient for determining the true value of the new world they barely knew. The reign of earth’s first false gods had begun. And (once more) we are following in their footsteps when we choose to trust our flesh and the world to determine the value of things (what is right and wrong, wise or foolish, safe or dangerous, necessary or unnecessary, essential or expendable). 3. Overcoming sexual sin (and being sexually pure) therefore requires ending our idolatry - our reign as false gods, by changing who we worship from creature to Creator. 3.1. In practical terms this means we make the decision to 100% distrust what is being communicated by our flesh and the world (as to the value of things – no matter how shiny or sexy or cool) and instead give 100% of our trust to God and His Word for determining what is truly valuable. IOW: we make the decision to surrender our entire value system to God. No matter how we feel or how persuasive the world is in selling us on something, we make the decision to always view it with suspicion until we can square it with God’s Word. We refuse to consider anything as valuable, important, necessary, essential, righteous or wise unless God’s Word agrees that it is. We only place the value on things that God’s Word places on those things (Luk 16:15). 3.2. This is what it means to die to self and live for Christ which is the bare minimum requirement to following Him and getting to heaven (Mat 16:21-23 w/24). 3.3. This is also what it means to love God with our entire creature (Mar 12:29 and Exo 20; Rom 12:1 w/Jer 31:1; Consider how this is the opposite of idolatry which is loving the creature as god). 3.4. The result of worshipping the Creator will be loyalty, attraction and affection for God and the things He says are valuable (i.e., those things that are righteous, wise and safe) and disgust for the things that He says are not (i.e. those things that are wicked, foolish and dangerous) (again, Mat 6:21). IOW: faithfulness becomes completely doable (even in respect to sexual things). 4. Changing how you view sex is also a big part of how you overcome sexual sin and be sexually pure. 4.1.(Rom 12:2) = The transformation that happens when you renew your thinking is not something that happens passively. Like the previous principle, renewing your mind takes action – most especially w/respect to the subject of sex. It means making the decision to no longer think about sex the way the world thinks about it. You will only think about sex the way God thinks about sex, the way He created it. 4.2. The way the world attempts to frame sex gives you the impression that it is better – or possesses more value than God’s design – which means trusting God (or His value system) is important (here) also. IOW: I need to trust that by viewing sex His way (and rejecting the world’s view) I will not be missing out (or less blessed) in this life. 4.3. Though the way the world views and experiences sex looks superior to God’s design, it is a dark hole leading to the destruction of those things you care most about – including your soul. 4.4. Why do I say that? Because the way the world views and experiences sex creates an insatiable appetite often leading to deviant activity, sexual addiction and severed relationships – most especially marriages and families. For example, studies show that people who watch porn feel less satisfied and less connected to their spouses. Porn also creates feelings of sexual inadequacy and frustration leading to the search for help in the form of sexual products or deviant sexual activity. From a biological perspective, the hit on dopamine receptors can be similar to drugs like cocaine - creating not only addiction but the need for more –or more deviant behavior to feel the same way. At least 50% of all failed marriages and family issues are related to porn. 4.5. What (then) is difference between how the world and God view sex? 4.5.1. According to the world’s view, the goal of sexual activity is to satisfy whatever fleshly desire I am using it for (pleasure, power, approval, security, etc). Those involved in sexual activity therefore exist for utilitarian reasons. They are nothing more than the objects or instruments by which I accomplish the goal. As such, a Christian husband with this view of sex sees and treats his wife as his “in-home hooker” and his home as the “holy whorehouse.” His wife is viewed as the tool God gave him to fulfill his fleshly (or worldly) desires without being guilty of sexual immorality. As mentioned, possessing this view of sex leaves that person always wanting and needing more – leading to a preoccupation with sexual thoughts (“when are we going to have sex again?”), the need for sexual enhancement (‘what can I do to spice up our sex life or my sexual experience?”) – and in many cases, deviant sexual behavior or sexual immorality. 4.5.2. In contrast, God created all sexual activity to be a covenant ratifying act (1Co 6:16; Hos 2:1-3, 6-7)– which means this is what the pleasure it affords is meant to communicate. It is the physical celebration and communication of marital loyalty, purity and unity. Which means every time a person has sex -or is involved in sexual activity this is what they are expressing – whether they like it or not. Hence the reason God is angry with those who do it outside of marriage – because they are committing fraud. The same is true for those who are unfaithful in their marriages. Their sexual activity is communicating fidelity which in reality, is a lie. In the past, the term “love-making has been applied to sex, and understood biblically, that is an accurate description since love is defined by those three things: loyalty, purity and unity. When couples adopt God’s view and purpose for sex, satisfaction is attained every time since the expression of each other’s loyalty, purity and unity is the mission—and the mission is being accomplished by the act itself. It also brings a change in focus. It’s no longer about me getting a dopamine hit, but my wife receiving the message of my love and loyalty to her and the covenant we share. My affection through sexual activity becomes my way (per God’s design) of telling her in the most intimate or deeply emotional of ways how much I value our marriage and how faithful I have been to my covenant vows. Hence the reason (again) for it being pleasurable. It is a celebration of covenant fidelity! This (then) is what is being communicated in passages like (Gen 2:24-25 “become one flesh” = Celebrate thru sexual activity your covenant loyalty, purity and unity to one another; “were both naked” = Involved in sexual relations, intercourse; “were not ashamed” = Why? b/c what was being communicated was true: they were exclusive in their love and fidelity to one another; See also Psa 25:14 “The secret [intimacy] of the Lord is for those who fear Him; And He will make them know His covenant [fidelity] [through such intimacy].”). 4.6. This view (then) is also what is expected of those escaping the sexual immorality of the world through marriage: that they will adopt God’s view of sex in their relationship with their spouse (1Co 7:1-4) “duty” = Frequent sexual activity (or acts of sexual intimacy) communicating covenant fidelity and their rejection of former “immoralities.” 4.7. If a person is to overcome sexual sin, then they must make the choice to change to God’s view and never again think of sex in the ways presented by our flesh and the world. 5. Finally, if you are going to overcome sexual sin and reach the goal of sexual purity then you must always practice inversion. 5.1. Former vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, Charlie Munger used to say to get rich (or to reach the goal of financial independence) you must “invert, always invert.” 5.2. What is inversion? Or what does it mean to “always invert”? It means that you achieve your goal by not focusing directly on the goal but avoiding all those things that can keep you from achieving your goal. 5.3. More people achieve their goals by inversion than anything else. Why? B/C it is much easier to achieve a goal (no matter what it is) by not actually focusing on the goal, but on those things that will keep you from achieving it. That (then) is the genius of inversion: achievement is attained by winning the war on the “2”s versus focusing our energy on the “10”s – which is what we are doing when we focus instead on what to avoid rather than the goal itself. (BTW) the principle of inversion did not originate with Charlie Munger, but God (Pro 22:3; 1Co 6:18). 5.4. In the case of money – or the goal of financial independence that means focusing your attention on avoiding those things that are most associated w/poverty (e.g., failing to budget, failing to understand how money works, failing to go to college, impulse spending, etc.) versus focusing your attention on how to get rich. The former is much easier to do than the latter. Statistics also show that those who focus on getting rich (or the goal of getting rich) tend to be less patient, far too risk tolerant and rarely achieve their goal (e.g., people who buy lottery tickets or gamble). 5.5. In the case of sexual purity (or overcoming sexual sin) inversion therefore means focusing your attention on avoiding those things associated with sexual immorality (e.g., sexually charged tv shows and movies, music, social media or events). It means also avoiding all thoughts that may pop up in your mind related to sexually immoral things or the temptations to lust that can come after seeing an attractive person or having a sexual dream - again, winning the war of the “2”s (Job 31:1; 2Co 10:5). CLOSING CONTEMPLATION: (Gen 4:7): The only way to master (or overcome) sexual sin is by trusting God’s value system and adopting His view of sex and sexual activity. Those who don’t master their sexual sin will be mastered by their sexual sin. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Life For Dummies

July 21, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett

1. The book, "Life for Dummies" is the Bible, which means the less you know and believe, the more you reveal yourself to be a dummy. (Is 8:20) 2. Life is a test, and God is the proctor of that test. He is the one judging/grading how you do. It is why you exist. This is our purpose: pass His test. Those who pass the test seek Him through the constant, consistent, and permanent practice of learning about Him. (Heb 11:6; Jer 29:13; Jer 9:24; Col 1:28; Col 2:1-10; Joh 1:18; 2 Pe 3:17-18; 2 Pe 1:16-190 3. Because life is a test, you will be tested. (Deu 8:2; 1 Pe 4:12-18; Jam 1:1-2; Phi 1:28 w/ 1 Pe 4; 1 Co 10:13; Eze 3:8; Rom 6:20-22). 3.1 We choose one or more of 3 things that are overcomer killers (e.g., enhancers). 3.1.1 Ignore, or refuse to believe, God's Truth. (Rom 1:18-24; Deu 8:2) 3.1.2 Give in to fear. (Eze 3; Rev 21:7-8; Psa 11) 3.1.3 Listen to the lies of your flesh and the world. (1 Joh 2:15-17; 1 Joh 2:3; Eph 5:5-6; Jer 17:9; Heb 3:12; Rom 8:4-14; Eph 4:17-24). 4. The key to passing life's test is overcompensating conviction, the inverse of the overcomer killers. 5. Dummies go to hell. Don't be a dummy.

Gospel Fitness Test

July 7, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett

QUESTIONS 1. Can you give the Big Picture (from God's Word)? 2. Can you show that salvation is a marriage? 3. Can you show it is a marriage to Jesus? 4. Can you show who Jesus is and what He did? 5. Can you show that baptism necessary as the place where we pledge our allegiance to Jesus? 6. Can you show that God's vow to us is dependent on us being faithful? 7. Can you show that obedience is necessary to salvation? 8. Can you show that the obedience God requires is faithfulness and not perfection? 9. Can you show that this is something you can do? 10. Can you show faithfulness means our new life will be characterized by righteousness and repentance? ANSWERS 1. (Heb 11:6; Romans 2:6-8) 2. (Jer 31:31-32) 3. (Eph 5:32; Acts 4:12; Jude 1:5) 4. (1 Cor 15:1-4; John 1:1-5, 14) 5. (1 Pe 3:21; John 3:5; Gal 3:26-27) 6. (Luk 10:25-28; Hebrews 3-4) 7. (Jam 2:24) 8. (Deu 28:1; Mat 25:14-30; Mat 5:48 w/ Col 1:28) 9. (Deu 30:10-14) 10. (1 John 3:4, 7-10; Luk 13:1-9; Acts 26:20)

Young Church Loyalty Pledge

July 1, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Leviticus 19:15–18, Hebrews 2:9—3:6, Hebrews 3:12–14, Hebrews 4:1–11

1. God is real. This life is the test. 2. Extreme ownership. 3. Self suspicion before evil suspicion. 4. See something, say something. 5. No victim mentality. 6. Use the courts. 7. Those who fail to fulfill the second greatest commandment are fit only for the pit. CLOSING THOUGHTS 1. The first generation ministry is to raise up the second generation. 2. Hold them accountable so that their generations are not marked by the same failures. 3. we all need to own the failures of our first generation and vow to be better.

The Ministry of Mercy

June 23, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Acts 6:1–4, Galatians 2:1–10, Luke 9:59–60, James 5:14–16, Luke 10:1–2

An important ministry in the church is the ministry of mercy. This study will discuss various aspects related to this subject. 1. Historically the church has recognized the existence of only two forms of ministry: the ministry of mediation and the ministry of mercy. The ministry of mediation includes all those gifts and tasks related to teaching (e.g., preaching, discipleship, counseling, music/worship, sacraments), justice (e.g., discipline, establishing policy, counseling, judgment/JUDCO, sacraments) and operations (security, administration, finances, building and grounds maintenance) whereas the ministry of mercy includes all those gifts and tasks related to caring for the disadvantaged (e.g., poor, elderly, sick, injured and incapacitated) and dying. Support for this two-fold division is as follows: 1.1. The division of labor practiced by the church of the apostles (Act 6:1-4) = A division between those officers who would oversee the ministry of mediation (“ministry of the word”) and those who would function in the ministry of mercy (“serve tables”; e.g., chaplains). 1.2. The charge to Paul by the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:1-10) “remember the poor” = IOW: make sure that in addition to your preaching of the gospel and planting churches (the ministry of mediation) that you make sure those churches also possess ministry devoted to mercy. 1.3. The distinction that seemingly exists among the angels between those who report truth and carry out judgment (i.e., mediators or messenger angels; e.g., Gabriel and Michael, the watchers and cherubs – Dan 4:17) and those who help the disadvantaged and dying (i.e., angels of mercy – Luk 22:43-44; Heb 1:14). 2. Pastors (the ordained officers) are commanded to spend their time and energy on the ministry of mediation and therefore need the help of others in the congregation to fulfill the ministry of mercy. (Act 6:2) “it is not desirable” = It is not what God wants us to do (Hence v4). 3. This was true even in relation to Jesus. Though involved in acts of mercy, His ministry focus was mediation. (Heb 12:24 “mediator of the new covenant”; Luk 4:38-44 = Notice how the people tried to monopolize His time in the direction of mercy). 4. Because the ministry of preaching and teaching takes so much energy and time, Jesus prohibited those He recruited to this task, to be involved in mercy-related ministry – including with those who are dying. (Luk 9:59-60) = Based on Jesus’ charge to this man (a faithful Jew), he is being called to a ministry of mediation – most specifically preaching (“go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God”)[1]. To do so however, this man would need to leave the care of dying saints (his faithful Jewish father) to others – those involved in the ministry of mercy. He was not allowed to do both (“Let the dead bury their own dead”) = Ancient idiom referring to those whose function was to care for the dying in the covenant community (“their own dead”). A paraphrase of Jesus’ words to this man: “Let those tasked with caring for the dying worry about caring for your dad’s death. Your responsibility is to grow the covenant community through preaching the gospel.” That this is what Jesus is indeed communicating versus calling this man to ignore the death of his father and condemning anyone involved in the care of the dead (or dying) as spiritually undead (a common way of looking at the phrase “Let the dead bury their own dead”) is supported by the fact that Jesus cared deeply and did not ignore the deaths of those close to Him – including not only family but also friends (e.g., friends – Lazarus, Joh 11:1-15; family – John the Baptist, Mat 14:12-13). 5. The only time we see pastors involved in the care of the sick, is when it concerns the baptism of those dying. (Jam 5:14-16) = This person’s sickness is unto death. He is also bed-ridden. Hence why the elders “pray over him. Their prayer is due to his request for salvation. In such circumstances, ancient tradition prescribed a baptism (“anointing”) with oil (rather than water). Since it is only the ordained officers (“elders” or pastors) who possess such authority - i.e., the authority to baptize or “loose” someone from their sins” (Mat 16:19 w/Joh 20:21-23; 1Pe 3:21; Act 2:38), it is their services (or the ministry of mediation) that is necessary (versus the ministry of mercy). Do not miss the fact that the pre-requisite to receiving this death-bed baptism is no different than what is required in normal cases (v15 “prayer of faith” [belief], v16 “confess your sins” [repentance]). Notice also that it is the “effective prayer” (calling out to God) by the “righteous man” (i.e., the elders – Mat 28:19 “I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”) that secures the repentant and believing person’s restoration to God and future resurrection (v15 “restore the one who is sick [to God] and the Lord will raise him up [in the resurrection].”). 6. Why God has made such a division in the church with respect to these two ministries is no doubt related to: 6.1. The opportunity it provides to every person to be productive for kingdom – something absolutely necessary to our faithfulness and fitness for heaven (Mat 25:14-46). 6.2. The equity it establishes in the covenant community. IOW: no one person is doing all the work or carrying all the burden. It is instead an “every member ministry” (1Co 12:14-25 “The body is not one member, but many…[Therefore] the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you.’”). 7. Three conclusions should be drawn from this study: 7.1. Those not laboring in the ministry of mediation, need to give themselves to the ministry of mercy (Luk 10:1-2) “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into the harvest = Similar to the twelve commissioned before them, the seventy were most likely also sent out “in pairs” (Mar 6:7) to fulfill the tasks of mediation and mercy (Luk 9:2 “He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and perform healing”). The reason these men were sent in pairs was due to the church’s two-fold division of ministry (mediation and mercy); one would be focused on preaching and teaching, while the other was focused healing and caring for people’s needs. The POINT NOT TO MISS: Jesus’ plea for additional workers (“beseech the Lord of the harvest…”) is not just in relation to preaching; the kingdom also needs people to labor in the fields of mercy! 7.2. Pastors are in the ministry of mediation, and therefore should never be expected to function in those roles related to the ministry of mercy. We must be careful not to confuse the role of pastor with the role of chaplain. 7.3. The chaplain is an officer whose focus is overseeing the ministry of mercy in the church (i.e., seeing that the needs of the disadvantaged or dying in the covenant community are being met; e.g., Epaphroditus – Phi 2:25-30 w/1:13). [1] That this man was a Jew and faithful to God is supported by the fact that: 1) the focus of Jesus’ ministry was the Jewish community (Mat 10:6). 2) Hardly would Jesus have attempted to recruit this man to preaching about the kingdom had he been an unfaithful Jew. He would have instead called him to repentance (Luk 13:1-5). Based on the context (vv57-62), each of the men mentioned were more than simply faithful Jews, they were already disciples of Jesus. This includes the third or final man (v62, no one after putting his hand to the plow…”).

Culpability, Correction, Compliance, and Counsel

June 16, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett

1. Culpability: without exception, every person able to reason, who knows that what they are doing is wrong (Jam 4:17) is not only fully culpable for their actions but also fully capable of turning from them (repentance) (Act 17:30; Deu 30:9-14). With respect to one’s ability to reason consider: 1) God makes such a distinction in multiple OT texts (Jon 4:11 “know the difference between their right and left hand”; Isa 7:15-16 “know enough to refuse evil and choose good”; Isa 8:4 “My father...my mother” ) = A person able to demonstrate (e.g., in conversation w/others) cognitive reasoning skills (i.e., able to make distinctions for the purpose of comparing and contrasting -or use deduction as part of their thinking process [“if this then that”]). 2) God’s makes a punitive distinction between those who are able/old enough to reason and those who are not in (Deu 1:39 “have no knowledge of good and evil”) = Not yet old enough to reason. A person’s ability to reason therefore renders that person subject to the full weight (or punishment) of the Law with respect to their sin (e.g., penalties related to restitution, death for a capital crime). 3) That no distinction should be made between a person’s ability to reason in general and a person’s ability to reason from a moral perspective (i.e., one implies the other) is confirmed in Jesus’ condemnation of the Jewish leaders (Mat 16:1-4). 4) Though not fully culpable, those unable to reason still commit sin and possess some level of culpability (e.g., Isa 48:8; Psa 51:5 [hence, vv6-9]; Psa 58:3). Hence the reason God commands parents to be diligent and severe in the corrective punishment of their children (Pro 23:13-14). 5) The age at which a person is able to reason is not the same as the age of bar/bat mitzvah (“son/daughter of the law”), the age at which all legal rights were extended to a Jewish boy or girl including the ability to marry and own property. 2. Correction: God’s relatively easy first expectation of parents in relation to their children is that the level of correction (negative reinforcement) applied to their children will be swift, consistent and severe enough to immediately establish their authority and stop those children from practicing all forms of overt rebellion against them or any other authority figure before those children possess the ability to reason. (Exo 21:15; Deu 21:18-21) = All capital crimes are crimes that could have been easily avoided had the responsible parties been obedient to God’s preventative prescription. They are therefore crimes which are the result of sizable neglect, unbelief, cowardice and selfishness. Hence why: 1) parents who fail to meet this first expectation are said to be desiring their child’s death (Pro 19:18). 2) spanking is required until this first expectation is met (Pro 29:19 “does not respond”) = Words will not be enough to secure compliance. This is especially true in children not yet old enough to reason. In this respect, they are like a slave (Gal 4:1-3 “elemental things”) = Rudimentary means of learning/education – i.e., spanking or “association training.”. This is the law of the animal kingdom or the base level of brain operation found in creatures possessing a brain (e.g., canines – wolves establish order/peace through the association training of negative reinforcement)[1]. 3) Though the indwelling Spirit given at baptism allows us to eventually leave spanking behind, the Spirit does not replace a person’s ability to reason. Rather the Spirit works w/our ability to reason. Hence in those unable to reason, other measures must be adopted. 4) the modern world’s embrace of only those forms of correction which employ reason reveals their great ignorance of - and obstinance to, both General and Special Revelation (Ecc 8:11 and Isa 26:9-10) = Justice (swift and painful punishment fitting the crime) is the key to effective correction and the mitigation of similar actions in others. 3. Compliance: doing better than you did before, yet still not meeting God’s expectation (of faithfulness) means that you are still in sin (or not fully) repentant and will go to hell if you do not do what it takes to become fully compliant. Consider: 1) The serial killer who reduces his murders from five every month to two every month is still guilty of practicing murder. 2) (1Jo 3:7-10; Heb 12:1-4; Mat 5:29-30, 18:8-9; 1Co 9:27-30; Mat 16:24-26 w/27). 4. Counsel: attempting to play the spiritual physician in the covenant community when you do not possess the proper training or have passed the proper tests is worse than medical malpractice (Mat 18:6-7). Hence the reason all spiritual council (advice) given by the church’s members should be immediately reported to its licensed spiritual physician, the (ordained) pastor (“physicians of the soul” – Richard Baxter). 1) (Pro 6:19, 13:10, 16:28, 17:19, 18:1-7 w/15; Rom 16:19 w/1Co 5:1 w/2Co 7:7; Phi 2:19; 1Th 3:5; 1Co 1:10 w/ Phi 1:27 = Standing together for the gospel requires we be of the same mind which is impossible if the counsel we give or receive is contrary to God’s appointed teacher in the church – i.e., the ordained pastor). 2) In this light consider (2Co 10:3-6) = Paul saw the censorship, removal and even prosecution of every form of bad counsel, thinking or theology posited by the congregation as an important part of his role as a pastor and responsibility to protect the flock (“spiritual warfare…fortresses” = Mental strongholds inhibiting people’s obedience that will eventually lead to their apostasy). 3) How we should think about our relationship to the ordained pastor: like the doctor-nurse relationship in a hospital (nurses are to report all treatments administered or new symptoms to the attending doctor) or the relationship between the Executive Director of an Assisted Living facility and his staff (e.g., Richard Conklin’s job as E-D at Morning Star = Protective oversight req’g all depts and staff to share all counsel and situations affecting the safety and prosperity of the residents – e.g., staff tells a resident that it is okay to keep a coffee table in their apartment who unbeknownst to them has a history of falling). 4) How we should NOT think about our relationship to the ordained pastor: like the relationship between the police and a criminal (“criminals don’t rat out fellow criminals to the cops”). This is the mindset of the wicked and the world w/respect to authority – including the authority in the church (a ghetto or street theology/mindset; e.g., “I want to confide in others or receive advice from others who will not seek pastor’s counsel”) = I am a stumbling block/attempting to make another guilty of collusion or malpractice. 5) If we are truly family, then nothing should be hidden from those God has made our spiritual parents for our protection and prosperity (pastor = our spiritual father; “father knows best”; 1Co 4:14-15; 2Ti 1:2). [1] Colorado Law: A parent, guardian, or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor can use reasonable and appropriate physical force, if it is reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain or promote welfare of child. Sec. 18-1-703.[Cr.] "Reasonable" or "appropriate" physical force which is "reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain or promote the welfare of the child" is defined as follows: not excessive or abusive. Colorado Law: “Abuse” or “child abuse or neglect” means an act or omission that threatens the health or welfare of a child in one of the following categories: Skin bruising, bleeding, malnutrition, failure to thrive, burns, fracture of any bone, subdural hematoma, soft tissue swelling, or death and: The condition or death is not justifiably explained; The history given concerning the condition is at variance with the degree or type of such condition or death; The circumstances indicate that the condition may not be the result of an accidental occurrence. Those investigating cases of child abuse shall take into account child-rearing practices of the culture in which the child participates [this includes the religious beliefs of the home]. The reasonable exercise of parental discipline is not considered abuse. Citation: Rev. Stat. §§ 19-1-103; 19-3-103.

God's Existence, Religion and Gospel

June 2, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett

GOD’S EXISTENCE (The Moral Test argument) 1. Through our inescapable drive to assess (judge) all things from an ethical perspective (right and wrong), we (humanity) are not only confirming our unique identity as moral creatures but also our belief in: 1) this life as a test (ethics indicate a test) and 2) the existence of God (i.e., an objective test-grader) Who in the after-life, will reward or punish us based on our performance of the test. 1.1. Hence the reason humans suffer guilt, depression and mental illness, b/c we as moral creatures sense our failures in relation to the test we instinctively know exists (Deu 28:20, 28). 1.2. The Moral Test argument cannot be refuted nor should anyone want to refute it given the other options: 1) this life is the only life or 2) everyone goes to heaven makes all suffering and evil meaningless and unbearably cruel (Deu 28:34 “you will be driven mad by what you see”). 1.3. Support: (Rom 1:18-21; Luk 20:35; Rev 3:4-5; Jam 1:12 [Hence Jam 1:1-3]; Psa 62:12 Pro 24:12; Mat 16:27; Joh 5:28-30; Rom 2:6, 14:12; 1Co 3:13; 2Co 5:10; Eph 6:8; Col 3:25; Rev 2:23, 20:12, 22:12). RELIGION 2. The principles (i.e. rules for the test) established by God’s Word and gospel is the only ancient system of morality (i.e., religion) that creates true equity in the world. 2.1. There are two important things to consider when determining the rules of the test: 2.1.1. He is there and not silent. It is only reasonable to assume that when God created humanity, He provided them with the rules to the test – i.e., the system of morality (religion) they would need to follow to pass the test. 2.1.2. Ancient is better. Given the correspondence between time and corruption - or the fact that the reliability of something diminishes the further you move from its point of origin, those religions closest to the beginning of Creation would therefore be the most likely to possess an accurate record. Two of the oldest possessing a record of rules are: 1) the religion of the Babylonians (Code of Hammurabi [18th century BC]), 2) the religion of the Hebrews/Jews (Mosaic Code [15th century BC]).[1] 2.2. Though the similarities between these two ancient religions confirm prior oral tradition (the laws originally given to Adam and Eve were passed down to Noah and his sons and their descendants)[2], only the Mosaic Code establishes the same moral expectations and justice for all people without discrimination due to status, health or race (Deu 16:20; Num 15:16. IOW: it is the only ancient religion that truly establishes equity (or love – Lev 19:15-18). GOSPEL 3. The only way human beings have ever received salvation (i.e., passed the test/avoiding failing the test) is by entering into a marriage covenant with God (i.e., by marrying Jesus)[3]. Support: (Jer 31:31-32 w/Jud 1:5) 4. Because the way we get saved is through entering into a marriage covenant with Jesus: 4.1. Gaining that relationship has always required a faith-pledge of our allegiance - i.e., our solemn promise to obey the latest version/application of Jesus’ moral law (e.g., 1Co 5:1-5 versus Lev 20:11) and observe its associated covenant signs (“clean laws”)[4]. Support: (Deu 32:51)[5] Covenant signs associated w/our faith-pledge in our human marriages = Wedding rings exchanged at the time of our vows (our faith-pledge of allegiance to one another) Covenant signs (CS) associated w/our faith-pledge in our marriage to Jesus: 4.1.1. Adamic and Noahic Covenants (Gen 6:9 “Noah walked with God) = Most likely indicating that pledges or vows of allegiance have been taken and that the respective parties have entered into a covenant relationship with one another – (Consider for example, Amo 3:3 “Can two walk together unless they are in agreement?” = Context is that of covenant agreement); CS = Animal sacrifice (Gen 3:21 ,8:20). 4.1.2. Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 15:6); CS = Animal sacrifice and circumcision (Gen 17:1-14) = The obligation to obedience being communicated by God is not new to Abe. No doubt this is what Abe originally committed to in his pledge of faith. Seeing however that this is what his new “sign in [the] flesh” is meant to communicate, necessitates its rehearsal by God. 4.1.3. Old Covenant (Exo 24:7-8); CS = Animal sacrifice, circumcision, separation and sabbaths. In the NT these are referred to as “the works of the law”(Exo 31:13). 4.1.4. New Covenant (1Pe 1:2 w/3:21 “appeal to God”) = Pledge of allegiance; CS = Baptism and the Lords Table. 4.2. Maintaining that relationship has always required faithfulness to our prior faith-pledge of allegiance. Support: Human marriage = Unfaithfulness leads to divorce (Mat 5:32); Marriage to Jesus = Unfaithfulness likewise leads to divorce/apostasy (Heb 10:26-30, 12:14-17; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:38; 1Co 10:1-12 [5-6 and 11-12]) = The only way the OC Jews can serve as an example w/respect to NC salvation is if the same consequences suffered by them for unfaithfulness can also be suffered by us. 5. To simply say that people under the OC gained their salvation by observing the OC clean laws erroneously implies they were only necessary – or needed to be observed at the initial point of a person’s salvation. Reductio Absurdum: no bacon on the Israelite’s burger the day they got saved, but after that it was okay. 6. That a bi-partite distinction exists within God’s Word and that it is the OT covenant signs that Paul is opposed to when speaking of the end of the Law (Rom 10:4) is not only confirmed by their proximity to the phrase “works of the law” (e.g., the mention of circumcision in Rom 3:28-30 where Paul also states that we are “justified by faith apart from the works of the law”), but also what Paul says in (1Co 7:19 “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, what matters is keeping the commands of God” ). 7. Though they may look different in application, the principles established by the moral commands of the OT remain in full force today as confirmed not only by their repeated mention in the New Testament, but also the principle of stare decisis.[6] 7.1. In re: to repeat: (Rom 13:9) “if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” = Love is accomplished through obedience to God’s moral commands (w/Gal 5:13-14) “through love serve one another…the whole Law is fulfilled…in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” = Paul’s command to love is a repeat of the second greatest commandment which requires observance of all God’s moral commands to accomplish [again, Rom 13]). 7.2. In re: to stare decisis: (e.g., 1Co 6:18) = Unless I am willing to think that only sex with a prostitute (v16) constitutes immorality, I need the OT to determine the scope of the crime which means the moral commands established in the OT remain authoritative. [1] The distinction between these two religions is the different path taken by the sons of Noah and their descendants: 1) the descendants of Ham and Japheth who rebelled against God (Gen 10:1-11:9 = The Tower of Babel, the Babylonians), and 2) the descendants of Shem who continued following God (Gen 11:10-35:29 = Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - or Israel, the Hebrews/Jews). [2] For example consider: 1) (CH197) “If he has broken a [landowner’s] bone, they shall break his bone.” with (Lev 24:19-20) “Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.”; 2) (CH195) “If a son has struck his father, they shall cut off his hand.” with (Exo 21:15) “Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.” [3] As should be expected, the concept of divine marriage for salvation was likewise a part of ancient religion – including the religion of the Babylonians, “The very ancient rite of the sacred marriage was of the utmost importance, if not the essential and pivotal element of Babylonian religion. The principal role was played by the god of the city-state, and the sacred marriage was celebrated in order that, by a species of sympathetic magic, the resulting fruitfulness might be extended to the people and the whole land, that is to say, that fertility and abundance might be bestowed upon the head of every family, his flocks and herds, and the land he cultivated.” – E. Douglas Van Buren (“The Sacred Marriage in Early Times in Mesopotamia”) [4] Jesus represents the Law’s personal embodiment and author – including its historical codification at Sinai (Joh 1:1; Heb 9:16). [5] See Matthew W. Bates, Salvation By Allegiance Alone [6] This principle assumes - among other things, that laws established in the past remain authoritative in the future unless overturned. As a result, it is this legal maxim that allows us to assume that when previous laws are cited as support for present cases – or used to understand them, it is because those laws continue in force. As such this too provides an irrefutable argument for the Law’s continuing authority under the New Covenant since how could Jesus, the apostle Paul and the rest of the New Testament authors use the Old Testament as their support unless those commands are still in force?

Big Picture Gospel - Part 2

May 12, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Galatians 3:26–27, Exodus 24:7–8, Leviticus 18:5, 1 Peter 1:1–2

What does it mean to be a human being? Why are we here or what is our purpose? What is truth and where do I find it? Why do we suffer? Where is everything heading? In sharing the gospel, these are the questions that also need to be answered. We need a “big picture gospel”, one that not only provides the answers to life’s larger ontological questions but shows their connection to God’s redemptive plan[1]. 1. God created men and women in His image as eternal[2], free-will spirits[3] with a moral conscience[4] and a two-fold purpose: 1) to have relationship with Him and others (and) 2) to promote and protect moral physics (truth, beauty and justice[5]) in relation to Him and the rest of Creation. It is this two-fold purpose that establishes the two greatest commandments in the Bible (love the Lord your God and love your neighbor) (Mat 22:37-40). It should therefore come as no surprise that moral physics – most specifically the practice of justice (or equity), is what makes us peacemakers (Mat 5:9 “peacemakers” = Equity promoters and protectors – Mat 7:12 “for this is the Law and the Prophets” [Mat 22:40 “on these two commandments depend the whole Law and Prophets”]; IOW: Equity [or justice] is the foundation of moral physics, the Bible and our creation mandate. Hence Psa 89:14 “justice is the foundation of your throne”). 2. God created everything that exists according to His moral physics (truth, beauty and justice) which is defined by the Bible (God’s written words). Anything therefore not agreement w/the Bible is not truth, beauty or justice. 3. Our rebellion (sin) against our two-fold purpose is the biggest reason we suffer and die. It is b/c we fail to have relationship w/God or others and/or violate truth, beauty and justice in our image-bearer relationships w/God and the rest of Creation. 4. This Creation was never meant to be the final version but rather the test to determine who is worthy to enter the New Creation where there will be no suffering, sin, death or disappointment but rather perfect and perennial truth, beauty and justice. This then is the other reason we suffer; this life is a test. 5. If we are to make it to the New Creation (i.e., be saved), we must exist with God in a marriage covenant - which could also be called a “new creation covenant” since this is not only its goal (to enter the New Creation), but the same goal given in the first human marriage (new creation). 6. Like our human marriages, the covenant relationship we exist in with God operates according to the principles of gain and maintain: we gain the relationship w/God by grace through vows of faith (expressed in baptism) and we must maintain it through faithful submission to the rest of His covenant laws (His moral physics: truth, beauty and justice) as our Head or Husband. 1) (Exo 24:7-8 w/Lev 18:5 [Eze 20:11]; 1Pe 1:1-2 w/3:21 w/Gal 3:26-27 [“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”; IOW: faith = baptism]; Mat 28:19-20). 2) (Mat 19:16-19 [v21, “if you wish to be complete”]; Luk 10:25-28; Rom 3:28 w/Jam 2:21-24 [v22, “faith was completed”]; Phi 2:12-13; Phi 3:16 [“let us keep on living by that standard to which we have attained” = Let us maintain what we gained] followed by a warning vv17-19; Deu 29:18-20 w/Heb 10:26-30; Jer 3:3-8; Isa 50:1). 3) Faithful not perfect (Deu 28:1); We can be faithful (Deu 30:11-14). 4) God is our head/husband (Isa 54:5). 5) We must obey the latest version of God’s Law and its application – i.e., the one associated w//His current salvific covenant. In our case, the New Covenant. In every case, this Law is comprised of two-parts: clean laws (the signs associated w/that covenant’s justification/right standing w/God: 1] Adamic and Noahic = Animal sacrifice, 2] Abrahamic = Animal sacrifice and circumcision, 3] Old = Animal sacrifice, circumcision, separation and sabbaths [in the NT these are referred to as “the works of the law”], 4] New = baptism and the LT) and moral commands (the rest of God’s commands according to the current covenant’s prescribed application – e.g., 1Co 5:1-5 versus Lev 20:11). 7. Jesus, the fully God - Son of God is not only the specific Person of the Godhead[6] with whom we must gain and maintain a marriage covenant if we want to be a part of the new Creation (i.e., He is the divine Husband), but also the One lovingly sent to earth by the Father so that through His death and resurrection, sin could be sufficiently cleansed from His covenant people and the way of salvation finally opened to all those nations who formerly rejected Him. 1) (Joh 1:1 “Word” [Grk., logos] = Jewish philosopher Philo id’d Melchizedek as “the logos of God” before the time of Jesus w/Joh 8:56 [Gen 14:17-20 w/Heb 7:1-28 and Heb 11:10 “city whose builder was God” = Jewish tradition says that Mel was the builder of Jerusalem – i.e., Jesus built Jerusalem; Jud 1:5; Heb 9:15-16 w/Exo 24:1-8; Eph 5:22-23). 2) (Joh 3:16; Eph 2:4-5; Rom 3:25 w/Heb 10:1-18; Rom 4:25; 1Co 15:1-4). 3) (Mat 1:21; Luk 2:32 [Act 13:47]; Act 17:26-31; Luk 10:1w/17 = Seventy sent out to take control back from the demons as a sign of Jesus’ coming deliverance of the seventy gentile nations given over to Satan and the demons [Gen 10:1-11:9 w/Psa 106:35-37 w/1Jo 5:19]. Hence v18; Eph 2:12). 8. Because God is reasonable and just (or equitable), He will give to people as their eternal home what they freely chose based on their deeds in this life which means hell – or a place of nothing but fire - for those who rejected their two-fold purpose since this is all that is left after God takes His truth, beauty and justice with Him into the New Creation. 1) (Deu 7:9-10; 1Sa 26:23; Mat 16:27; Rom 2:6-10; 1Pe 1:17; Hence Rev 20:11-15). 2) (2Pe 3:10-13) = The removal of the righteous and all that is righteous from this Creation will start a blaze that will never be put out or escaped by those left behind.[7] CLOSING CHALLENGE = Do your best to give people the big picture (gospel). [1] Without the big picture, we run the risk of people hearing our gospel as the answer to the larger ontological questions. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that our world is becoming increasingly post-Christian. IOW: more and more people are operating without a biblical worldview. As such what the typical 3 point gospel of: 1) God is holy, 2) you are not (your are sinful and suck), 3) God sent Jesus to save you from His holy wrath (b/c you sin and suck) is interpreted as God created humans unlike Him (as image-offenders not image-bearers) whose purpose for existence is escaping His wrath through self-deprecation at the feet of His Son. [2] Eternal = Cannot cease to exist. [3] Free-will spirits = Spiritual beings characterized by unrestrained choice. [4] Moral conscience = Ethical right and wrong are lens and limits (locus) of one’s operation in the world (we do b/c we deem it right). [5] Truth = Agreement w/reality; Beauty = Agreement w/symmetry; Justice = Agreement w/equity. [6] The one true and only God of heaven and earth eternally exists as three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hence the reason all three are named in our baptism of allegiance (Mat 28:19 w/1Pe 3:21). [7] Hell or the lake of fire is also described as a place of utter darkness (Rev 21:8 and Mat 25:41 w/Mat 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 and 2Pe 2:12, 17 and Jud 13). Is it possible this is all that remains when the elements of Creation are removed? A field of dark energy or burning plasma similar to that found in space? Is it possible that the expansion of the universe caused by this dark energy (which scientists believe came after initial creation of the universe) is a result of sin and the countless demons and dead spirits which are expanding its realm (Eph 6:12 “forces of this darkness”)? “An exotic possibility is that [dark energy] springs from the physics of extra dimensions.”(Ron Cowen, "A Dark Force in the Universe," Science News).

Big Picture Gospel - Part 1

May 5, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Genesis 1:27–31

What does it mean to be a human being? Why are we here or what is our purpose? What is truth and where do I find it? Why do we suffer? Where is everything heading? In sharing the gospel, these are the questions that also need to be answered. We need a “big picture gospel”, one that not only provides the answers to life’s larger ontological questions but shows their connection to God’s redemptive plan[1]. 1. God created men and women in His image as eternal[2], free-will spirits[3] with a moral conscience[4] and a two-fold purpose: 1) to have relationship with Him and others. 1) (Gen 1:27 “image”) = Not only does this word infer humans are eternal, free-will spirits w/a moral conscience like God but also relationship w/God and other image-bearers given this is the primary reason things are created to be like one another: to make them compatible in relationship. 2) (Gen 1:28 “be fruitful and multiply” = Create others w/Gen 2:18-20 “there was not a suitable helper found for him”) = Because of the massive dissimilarity between humans and animals, animals cannot be used to create other humans and remove loneliness (deficiency of deep relationships w/others like you -i.e., humans). 2) to promote and protect moral physics (truth, beauty and justice[5]) in relation to Him and the rest of Creation. 1) (Gen 1:31 w/2:15-17 “cultivate”) = Promote or develop and expand…the borders of Eden according to its moral design (“Eden” = Paradise – a place filled w/truth, beauty and justice); “keep” = Protect and care for… Eden according to its moral design. 2) God’s moral physics (t/b/j) were to be promoted and protected in relation to both Him and His Creation – which included the woman or other image-bearers since the garden of Eden was her (or humanity’s) original residence as well. 3) It is this two-fold purpose that establishes not only the two greatest commandments (love the Lord your God and love your neighbor) but the entirety of God’s Law and Word (Mat 22:37-40). 2. God created everything that exists according to His moral physics (truth, beauty and justice) which is always in agreement with His law, as established by His written words in the Bible. 1) (Gen 1:31 [Heb., tobe]) = Full of truth, beauty and justice (excellence). 2) (Gen 2:7 w/19) “formed” [Heb., yasar] = To form as art (beauty); “breathed” = Filled w/His moral essence (t/b/j). This same idea is communicated when speaking about the Bible (2Ti 3:16). 3) Consider also (Psa 119:142, 15, 160 w/Joh 17:17 “your Word is truth”; Psa 119:96 “I have seen a limit to perfection [beauty]; Your commandment is exceedingly broad” [the most beautiful] w/ also Ecc 3:11 “everything [in God’s Word] is appropriate [beautiful] in its time [perfect for understanding God’s purpose and plan]”; Psa 19:7-9 = God’s Word establishes justice). 3. Our rebellion (sin) against our two-fold purpose is the biggest reason we suffer and die. 1) IOW: it is b/c we fail to have relationship w/God or others and/or violate truth, beauty and justice in our image-bearer relationships and/or w/the rest of Creation. 2) (Gen 2:17 w/3:16-19; Rom 6:23; 1 Jo 3:4) 3) Consider also (Rom 8:19-21) = The rest of Creation suffers b/c of the sin of humanity in failing to promote and protect her according to t/b/j. As a result, we suffer also. Hence the reason the Creation waits w/eagerness for the revealing (or arrival) of those who will be her good moral stewards (i.e., “the sons [children] of God”). 4. This Creation was never meant to be the final version but rather the test to determine who is worthy to enter the New Creation[6] where there will be no suffering, sin, death or disappointment but rather perfect and perennial truth, beauty and justice. (Mat 10:37-38 [Contra Mat 22:8]; Luk 20:35; Rev 3:4-5; Jam 1:12 [Hence Jam 1:1-3]; Rev 21:1-8) 5. If we are to make it to the New Creation (i.e., be saved), we must exist with God in a marriage covenant - which could also be called a “new creation covenant” since this is not only its goal (to enter the New Creation), but the same goal given in the first human marriage (new creation - Gen 1:28 w/Gen 2:18). 1) What you discover when you read the Bible is that God uses covenants to save people. And those covenants are marriage covenants (e.g., Jer 31:31-32). Hence the reason the Bible begins with a marriage and ends with a marriage (Gen 2 and Rev 19) and a great portion of the language of Scripture is marital in nature (e.g., Rev 21:2). 2) In addition, the first marriage (Gen 2:23), possesses the same Hebrew structure as the Bundesformel [“I will be their God and they will be My people”], the vow of allegiance God makes when He enters into covenant w/people for the purpose of salvation (Lev 26:12; Jer 31:33; 2Co 6:16). 3) We likewise take vows of allegiance in our marriage to God (Exo 24:7-8 and 1Pe 1:1-2 and 1Pe 3:21 “appeal to God for a good conscience” = Pledge/vow of our allegiance to God). 4) As an additional connection between marriage and new creation, consider what we become when we get saved/enter into marriage w/God (a new creation – 2Co 5:17). To be continued… [1] Without the big picture, we run the risk of people hearing our gospel as the answer to the larger ontological questions. This risk is exacerbated by the fact that our world is becoming increasingly post-Christian. IOW: more and more people are operating without a biblical worldview. As such what the typical 3 point gospel of: 1) God is holy, 2) you are not (you are sinful and suck), 3) God sent Jesus to save you from His holy wrath (b/c you sin and suck) is interpreted as God created humans unlike Him (as image-offenders not image-bearers) whose purpose for existence is escaping His wrath through self-deprecation at the feet of His Son. [2] Eternal = Cannot cease to exist. [3] Free-will spirits = Spiritual beings characterized by unrestrained choice. [4] Moral conscience = Ethical right and wrong are the lens and limits (locus) of one’s operation in the world (we do b/c we deem it right). [5] Truth = Agreement w/reality; Beauty = Agreement w/symmetry; Justice = Agreement w/equity. [6] This then is the other reason we suffer: this life is the test.

God's New Covenant Prescription for Singing in the Church

April 28, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett • Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16

Scholars agree that the subject of Paul’s instruction in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 is corporate worship on the Lord’s Day (Sunday). What many also agree on is the interchangeability of the terms “psalms”, “hymns” and “spiritual songs.”[1] IOW: these terms do not refer to different types of songs but rather function as “overlapping near synonyms”[2] meant to emphasize the imperative of congregational singing.[3] With that in mind, here (then) is God’s prescription for our congregational singing: 1. The focus must be on God and His work not us or ours. 1.1. (Eph 5:19, “singing…to the Lord”; Col 3:16 “singing… to God”) 1.2. Too many songs in MCW (modern Christian worship) are guilty of placing the focus on us (what we are feeling, doing or going to do for God) w/very little – to no communication in respect to God (Who He is and what He has done or is doing). IOW: they are heavy on us and light on God.[4] 1.3. Compare: 1) (Psa 8, 46) = Words focused on God: Who He is and what He has done.[5] 2) Crown Him With Many Crowns (“the Lamb upon the throne…Awake my soul and sing of Him Who died for Me; And hail Him as they matchless King thru all eternity…Crown Him the Lord of heaven; One with the Father known…His glories now we sing; Who died and rose on high; Who died eternal life to bring; And lives that death may die.”) = The focus is on God (Jesus): Who He is and what He has done (not us or what we are going to do). to [Last week’s top 20 worship songs, CCLI]: 1) I Speak Jesus (“I just wanna speak the name of Jesus, Over every heart and every mind, Cause I know there is peace within Your Presence, I speak Jesus, I just wanna speak Jesus”) = The focus of this song is what we are going to do – not Jesus or His work. 2) How Great Is Our God (“sing with me, how great is our God and then the world will see how great is our God…name above all names worthy of all praise, my heart will sing…”) = Besides being entirely about what we are doing or singing (we are the primary acting agent), the song makes no mention of Who God is or what He has done or is doing, nor speaks any of words directly to God. Consider also [the 7 top cliches in MCW]: 1) I want you, 2) I need you, 3) I lift you up, 4) I lay it down, 5) I’m in awe, 6) I’m alive in you, 7) I am living for you. = All focused on us as the primary acting agent. 1.4. PNTM: We are here to sing to God – or about God not ourselves (i.e., bows not vows is how we give praise to God).[6] 2. The words (and music) must communicate God as our King not our girlfriend. 2.1. (Eph 5:19) “Lord” = A term used to confer majesty to those in positions of authority. Our songs must therefore communicate this majesty. IOW: the songs we sing must sound like an expression of majesty to a king versus a solicitation for intimacy with our girlfriend. 2.2. Example: All Hail The Power Of Jesus’ Name (“All hail the power of Jesus’ name let angels prostrate fall, to Him ascribe all majesty and crown Him Lord of all, to Him all majesty ascribe and crown Him Lord of all!”). 2.3. Compare: The Secret Place by Phil Wickham (“Where are you going to run my soul…How you gonna keep this flame alive…In the fading light when night is breaking, I know you will always be waiting, You’ll always be there, I running to the secret place. Where you are…you stole my heart, stole my heart. Better is a moment I spend with you…I’m running, I’m running to the secret place.”). to The Secret Place by RC Sproul (“He who dwells within His most secret place, Is never far from His blessed grace…The secret place of God Most High, The shadow of our Mighty King, The dwelling place where angels cry, Is where our praise will forever ring.”). 2.4. Examples from other MCW songs: 1) “Capture my heart again, your love is extravagant, your friendship, intimate.” (Your Love Is Extravagant by Casting Crowns), 2) “As I feel your touch, you bring a freedom to all that is within.” (Pour Out My Heart by Craig Musseau), 3) “A sloppy wet kiss and my heart turns violently inside my chest.” (How He Loves – John Mark McMillan), 4) “Lay back against you and breath, hear your heartbeat, this love is so deep, it’s more than I can stand” (The More I Seek You - Kari Jobe), 5) “We’re going all the way, and the wonder of it all is that I’m living just to fall more in love with you.” (Deeper ’99 by Delirious) 2.5. It is not just a song’s lyrics that can make us be guilty of treating God like our girlfriend. It can also be the music. Does the music [melody etc.,] make you feel like God is your king or your lover? Does it sound more like the Michigan Wolverine’s fight song, Hail To The Victors! or Marvin Gaye’s Let’s Get It On? 2.6. PNTM: what we sing and how it sounds must be majestic. If it doesn’t feel majestic, then we probably shouldn’t be singing it. “Care must always be taken that the song be neither light nor frivolous, but that it have weight and majesty.” – John Calvin “There is a great difference between music which one makes to entertain men at table and in their houses, and the [songs] which are sung in the Church in the presence of God and his angels.”- St. Augustine 3. Songs must also communicate rich wisdom and theology that will aid in the congregation’s spiritual formation and fortitude. 3.1. (Col 3:16) “Let the word of Christ [or early manuscript version: the Lord] richly dwell within you [in] all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” = Because of its large biblical content, our congregational singing should represent the first sermon of our church service. Our worship in song should feel like “the meal before the main course.” 3.2. With the exception of the Getty’s (and a few other modern hymn writers), the wisdom and theology found in most MCW is extremely lacking or completely non-existent. "Too often today the church serves up affective sentiments without much care for the discipline of the Word." - R. Kent Hughes “One of the saddest features of contemporary worship is that [it is filled with] trite jingles that have more in common with contemporary advertising ditties than with [God’s inspired music], the Psalms. The problem here is not so much the style of the music, though trite words fit best with trite tunes and harmonies. Rather the problem is with the content of the songs…Today’s songs reflect our shallow or nonexistent theology and do almost nothing to elevate one’s thoughts about God.” – James Montgomery Boice “Many American evangelicals continue to exhibit a considerable gap between the materials they sing and the theology they preach. They confess to believe in a transcendent God who is above all creation, yet they sing few [songs] which properly reveal God’s excellences. Some congregations expect “strong meat” in biblical preaching but seem to be satisfied with “milk” or even lollipops in song.” – Donald Hustad 3.4. MCW Examples: Oceans by Hillsong (“You call me out upon the waters; The great unknown where feet may fail; And there I find You in the mystery; In oceans deep my faith will stand, I will call upon Your Name; And keep my eyes above the waves; When oceans rise; My soul will rest in Your embrace; For I am Yours and You are mine; Your grace abounds in deepest waters; Your sovereign hand will be my guide; Where feet may fail and fear surrounds me; You’ve never failed and You won’t start now; Spirit lead me where my trust is without borders; Let me walk upon the waters; Wherever You would call me; Take me deeper than my feet could ever wander; And my faith will be made stronger; In the presence of my Saviour; I will call upon Your Name; Keep my eyes above the waves; My soul will rest in Your embrace; I am Yours and You are mine.”) = This song could be talking to any (so-called) God given there is nothing specific or any theology which exclusively ties it to the God of the Bible. It is completely void of any biblical wisdom or theology. 3.5. We need to be concerned about more than simply making sure the lyrics are orthodox, they need to also be rich in wisdom and theology (“Poor songs [also] lead us to idolatry. Not just inferior worship – idolatry. It’s that important.” – Chris Anderson). [7] 3.6. In contrast, most hymns - including modern hymns (e.g., Getty’s) are packed full of wisdom and theology that aids the saints in their spiritual formation and fortitude. 3.7. Example: Crown Him With Many Crowns (“The Lamb upon the throne; Hark How the heav'nly anthems drowns; All music but its own! Awake, my soul And sing; Of Him Who died for thee; And hail Him as thy matchless King; Thru all eternity [Rev 5 and 7]…Crown Him the Lord of heav'n; One with the Father known; One with the Spirit thru him giv'n; From yonder glorious throne; To Thee be endless praise; For thou has died for me; Be Thou, O Lord, thru endless days; Adored and magnified [Heb 1; Rev 15 and 22]; …His glories now we sing; Who died and rose on high; Who died eternal life to bring; And lives that death may die.” [Rom 4 and 5; Rev 5, 12 and 13]).[8] 3.8. PTNM: Worship (in song) is not testimony it’s teaching (“rhythmic theology” – Anderson). The question then to ask when deciding whether a song should be sung by the congregation: What is it teaching? Is it (this “first” sermon) doctrinal sound or sinfully idolatrous? Additionally, how much wisdom or theology is being communicated through its verses and chorus? Is it an aid to the congregation’s spiritual formation and fortitude?[9] 4. The words and music must be beautiful but without a feminine vibe. 4.1. Similar to the above point, much of MCW makes God seem more like a metrosexual than the mighty warrior portrayed in Scripture (e.g., most if not all music/songs by Chris Tomlin especially when it is sung by Chris Tomlin). 4.2. Among the many reasons God only identifies Himself in masculine terms in the Scripture is most certainly this: to make clear that His tastes are not feminine. The words we sing and the music we use must therefore never be anything less than fully masculine. No feminine vibes allowed! 4.3. That being said, our God also cares deeply about beauty – especially in His house and what takes place there (Exo 28:2, 40; Psa 27:4, 50:2, 96:6). 4.4. What this means is that: 1) beauty is not a feminine invention - nor something that only women should care about. It is instead at the heart of masculinity (rightly understood), 2) the masculine music we sing must also be beautiful (e.g., masculine music that is not majestic/beautiful = Country worship music [words may promote aspects of masculinity but the music is not beautiful – it is instead as the saying goes, “like clean underwear covered in a sh*tty suit”]). 4.4. “The Christian Life should not only produce truth– but also beauty” – Francis Schaeffer 4.5. Beauty is achieved when our music/songs are “skillful” (i.e., complexity performed w/excellence; Psa 33:3), “glorious” (i.e., filled w/rich wisdom and right theology; Psa 66:2) – and (again) majestic (def., beauty expressed in dignity, power, perfection and stateliness). PNTM: We must protect the masculinity of God and the beauty He loves (and is!) in the songs we sing since anything less can also make us guilty of idolatry. CLOSING COMMITMENT: 1) song-writing group to start writing hymns, 2) a hearty diet of singing only hymns for the next 8 weeks (to inspire our song-writing group and strengthen our souls) 3) a removal of all music from our congregational singing that do not meet the criteria discussed today. [1] See for example, F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians; Douglas J Moo, The Letters to Colossians and Philemon; Andrew Lincol, Ephesians; Frank Thielman, Ephesians; See also David F Detwiler, “Church Music and Colossians 3:16” [2] Scott Aniol (Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs: Assessing the Debate”). That the terms psalms, hymns and spiritual songs should be viewed as referring to the same thing (as overlapping near synonyms) is supported by their interchangeable use in Scripture. For example: 1) all three terms are used in the LXX as titles for the Psalms, 2) The NT writers use the term “psalm” (Grk., psalmois) to refer to “hymns” ([Grk., hymnois]1Co 14:26; cf. 1Co 14:15) and spiritual songs ([Grk., odais] Jam 5:13). “Since [these three Greek terms] are each used as translations of psalm titles in the LXX and are employed interchangeably in the NT, the weight of evidence seems to suggest that Paul did not intend the terms to designate clearly identifiable genre of corporate song.” – Aniol (ibid) [3] That Paul expects the church to be characterized by singing that involves the entire congregation (versus a select few – or one) is established by the “one another” phrase found in both verses. Additional PNTM: 1) the people leading us in worship are not the only ones ministering to others thru singing (we are all “speaking [ministering] to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”), 2) singing is not optional (how we accomplish the command to “let the word of Christ [or the Lord] dwell richly in [us]” is by “singing”), 3) refusing to sing or singing w/an unthankful heart is sin which not only qualifies as a threat to our eternal future (Heb 10:26-30), but may also place us under God’s immediate and special wrath (Heb 13:28-29 w/13:15), 4) the songs we sing together must be something that is easy for us to sing (hymns are “songs for unmusical people to sing together” – Erik Routley) . [4] “In many cases, congregations have unwittingly begun to sing about themselves and how they are feeling rather than about God and His glory.” – Chris Anderson (Theology That Sticks) [5] Keep in mind that not all of the Psalms were meant to be sung by the congregation. Only 55 of the 150 are directed to the choirmaster. Most of the psalms were meant for special music or special occasions (e.g., songs of ascent). [6] Music must be tethered to God – His attributes, His names, His works, His purposes, and His glory. This is vital, perhaps more than anything else.” – Anderson (ibid) [7] "Careful attention to the selection of hymns and praise songs is important. People learn from everything that happens in a worship service, not just the sermon. Indeed, there are probably many Christians who imbibe more of their theology, for good or ill, from what they sing than from what they hear taught.” – Carl Trueman (“The Trinity and Prayer”) [8] “The old hymns expressed the theology of the church in profound and perceptive ways and with winsome, memorable language. They lifted the worshiper’s thoughts to God and gave him striking words by which to remember God’s attributes.” – James Montgomery Boice [9] “Congregational song is part of the teaching ministry of the church. Church musicians and pastors should ask themselves: if our people learned their theology from our songs what would they know in twenty years about God, the cross, the resurrection, the offices of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, creation, justification, election, regeneration, the church, the sacraments, and all the other fundamental doctrines of the faith?” – Anderson (ibid)

What the Bible Teaches About Resurrection

March 31, 2024 • R. Scott Jarrett

Resurrection (def.,): The supernatural phenomenon whereby the present state of those who have died is replaced by once more being alive in a physical/material body yet unable to die again. 1. Easter is also known as “Resurrection Sunday” since it marks the day Jesus Christ became the first person to experience resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection is also the reason God’s people corporately worship God on Sunday rather than Saturday (Rom 6:9; 1 Co 15:20; Act 20:7 = Every Sunday is Resurrection Sunday). 2. Jesus’ resurrection (to Paradise): 1) proved that He is the Divine Son of God (Rom 1:4 w/Joh 10:18), 2) means His sacrificial death was sufficient to propitiate - or satisfy God’s requirements for cleansing the sins of His people and make them truly righteous before God the Father. As such, the temporary injunction of animal sacrifices (“pass-over atonement”) was forever canceled (Rom 3:23-25, 4:25 w/Heb 10:10-17; also Mat 1:21). 3. No one since Jesus has experienced resurrection since: 1) the son of the Shunammite woman, the widows’ sons, Lazarus, Dorcas, and Eutychus experienced resuscitations not resurrections given they died again (1Ki 7:17-23; 2 Ki 4:18-37; Luk 7:12-15; Joh 11:39-44; Act 9:36-41, 20:9-10), 2) all those who have died in the past currently exist like God without physical/material bodies ([Due 4:15-18 w/Joh 4:24 w/Luk 24:39] w/1Co 15:20-23; 1Th 4:16-17; 2Co 5:8). 4. Every person who has ever lived will experience a resurrection at the return of Jesus to earth (Joh 5:28-29; Act 24:15 [Dan 12:2; Psa 11:7]). 5. Before Jesus’ resurrection, those who died went either to Abraham’s bosom (the temporary resting place of righteous disembodied spirits) or Hades (the temporary torturing place of wicked disembodied spirits) and neither could cross over to the other (Luk 16:19-26). 6. After Jesus’ resurrection, those in Abraham’s bosom were allowed into heaven (their sins having been propitiated versus simply passed over) to fellowship w/the Trinity, the angels and the righteous disembodied spirits of those who die after Jesus’ resurrection (Heb 9:15-16 w/Eph 4:8-10; 2Co 5:8; Luk 23:43). 7. Experiencing the resurrection of the wicked will: 1) be the fate of most human beings because they chose to love wickedness rather than put faith in and be faithful to Jesus during their earthly life (Mat 7:18-23; Luk 13:23-24; 2Th 2:1:5-9, 2:10-12, 2) be followed by God’s condemning judgment and then being tortured in a lake of fire everyday forever (Psa 11:4-6; Rev 20:11-15; 2Th 2:10-12; again Joh 5:28-29 and Dan 12:2). 8. Experiencing the resurrection of the righteous will: 1) be followed by God’s approving judgment then an eternal life of never sinning, suffering or being bored, as they will be forever equipped with superhuman bodies and forever occupied with discovering, developing and enjoying King Jesus’ perfect new - and infinite universe to His glory (Rev 21-22), 2) require not only pledging your allegiance to Jesus in this life through baptismal faith but then living in faithful obedience to those vows until you die or Jesus returns (1Pe 3:21; 1Jo 3:7-10; Luk 20:35 “those considered worthy to attain to the resurrection [of the righteous] w/Joh 5:29). 9. We should not be surprised that people mock our belief in a future resurrection, the resurrection was as unpopular (a belief) in the ANE as it is today (e.g., Act 17:18 w/31-32). To not believe in a resurrection – most especially, the resurrection of Jesus, will eternally condemn you (1Co 15:1-4 “the gospel which I preached to you” w/Gal 1:6-9 “a different gospel…anathema”). “Nobody in the pagan world of Jesus’ day and thereafter claimed that somebody had been truly dead and had then come to be truly, and bodily, alive once more.” - N.T. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God). 10. The fact that there will be a future resurrection not only confirms that this is not the only life we will live, but that the point of this very temporal life is to determine what version of eternal life we deserve (1Co 15:32). TODAY’S TAKEAWAY: GOD IS REAL. THIS LIFE IS THE TEST. GAIN THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS AND THE RIGHTEOUS. PHI 3:10-11 “10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.”

Righteous Fighting

November 27, 2022 • R. Scott Jarrett

Fighting or conflict is an inevitable part of life. It is, in many cases, the only way to resolve human problems. As a result the Bible is filled with examples of fighting. Jesus fought with Jews and Christians (Mar 8:11; Rev 2:16). Paul likewise, fought with Jews and Christians (Peter, Barnabas and other brothers in the church) (Act 9:28-29, 25:7-8; Gal 2:11-14; Act 15:1-2, 36-40). We must never therefore think of fighting as a bad thing – or that somehow fighting less, means we are better Christians (or mature). Rather what needs to be considered is, “Are we fighting righteously?”