Special March Q&A Part 2 with Pastor Osman

The New Heavens and the New Earth in Isaiah 65

Okay, it's a little bit past 930. So let's go ahead and get started. I'll pray and then I'll start into the Q &A. I have a list of questions here that I wanted to go through this morning. So it's powerheads Lord, we're very grateful that you give us this technology and that we can even be together.

Even if it's at a distance we can least be together and in spirit and one in purpose and we can gather together and enjoy Your word together and our fellowship. And we're just so grateful that you have called us into your body the church.

And it's our desire that in this time this morning in both this Sunday school hour With the Q &A and with our our time in your word that is to follow. We pray that you would be glorified through all that is said and done through our our fellowship together through our spirit and our demeanor pray that you would give us wisdom and clarity and understanding your word and thinking through challenging topics that we may and we our hearts may be Aligned with you and conform to you and that you would do the work of sanctifying us by and through your word.

And I do ask this in Christ's name. Amen. Alright, so I had a few Q &A or a few questions that I wanted to go over that were left over from last week one of them a first a Clarification because I made somebody asked me what fiction books that I enjoy and I mentioned that I don't read fiction.

And then I got home and my entire family corrected me with a list of fiction books that I read like animal farm. I've read that a number of times. I've read that to my children a number of times the screw tape letters.

I have read and reread those chronicles of Narnia. I've read all of those books to my children at least once and of course Pat McManus. Growing up in North, Idaho. You got to read Pat McManus if it were up to me reading Pat McManus would be required reading to be a church member.

But that's not up to me. So I do read those fictions. Those are the only fiction books that I really well, I shouldn't say those are the only ones those I've read and to my family. But those are read to my family.

Those are ones that I read to my kids. So I do read did have read fiction books to my kids. But it's not something that I pick up because I necessarily enjoy it and read a lot of fiction. So, all right.

Isaiah 65 and the Millennium

First question from this is actually submit. I was supposed to try to tackle this last week, but I didn't get around to it. And it is from the book of Isaiah chapter 65 and Lanny asked this question from the description of the new heavens and the new earth in Isaiah 65, it sounds as if there's going to be death in heaven and I'm gonna read the passage to you.

It's Isaiah 65 verse 17. It's 17 through the end of the chapter and you will as you listen here. You'll you'll hear Isaiah described the Lord creating new heavens and new earth, which we associate with heaven.

And then it seems as if that description contains Mention of death and childhood and procreation in the new heavens in the new earth. So it's a little bit confusing. Isaiah 65 verse 17. For behold, I create a new heavens and a new earth and the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create for behold I create Jerusalem for rejoicing and her people for gladness. I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people and there will no longer be heard in her the voice of weeping and the sound of crying.

No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days or an old man who does not live out his Days for the young will die at the age of 100 and the one who does not reach the age of 100 will be thought accursed.

They will build houses and inhabit them. They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They will not build in another inhabit. They will not plant in another eat for as the lifetime of a tree. So will be the days of my people and my chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.

They will not labor in vain or bear children for calamity. For they are the offspring of those blessed by the Lord and their descendants with them. It will also come to pass that before they call I will answer and while they are still speaking I will hear the wolf and the lamb will graze together and the lion will eat straw like an ox.

The dust will be the serpents food. They will do no evil or harm in all my holy mountains says the Lord. So there you have and then chapter 6 talks about God's throne in heaven or heaven being God's throne.

So there in that extended passage you see that Isaiah looking forward to the future describes the new heavens in the new earth. And then he speaks of procreation or children dying. At the at the age of 100 or Pete old age people living to old age.

So there seems to be aging and death and Procreation in what Isaiah describes as the new heavens in the new earth. So there's two ways of viewing this and I'm gonna of course going to be answering this from a pre-millennialist perspective.

There's two ways of viewing Isaiah chapter 65 that I think would answer this in terms of this apparent dilemma here. The first would be to understand that as Isaiah is looking forward into the future.

We see this often in prophecy. Isaiah is seeing the end times something yet future to us and he is looking and he is seeing aspects of two things that are covered in the book of Revelation the Millennial Kingdom in Revelation 20 and the new heavens in the new earth in Revelation 21 and 22.

From Isaiah's perspective being 700 years BC. So 2700 years ago from Isaiah's perspective What he saw in the future vision. He saw all of these events together as if they were part of the next age. Which we would consider the Millennial Kingdom as well as the new heavens and new earth.

That would be from a pre-millennial perspective the age to come. So it's not like the Millennial Kingdom is part of this age that is part of the age to come so Isaiah looking forward saw the age that is to come and In that he saw elements of both the Millennial Kingdom, which would have procreation as well as death in it and As well as children being born etc and people aging that would be aspects of the Millennial Kingdom here on earth found in Revelation chapter 20.

Isaiah would have seen aspects of that or elements of that as well as Elements of the new heavens and the new earth. So he would say the Lord says I create a new heavens new earth. He would be seeing the establishment of heaven or the creation of heaven Which is after the Millennial Kingdom and then he would also see as part of that age to come which which involves both the the new heavens in the new earth the recreation or the regeneration of all creation.

He would have seen that as well as The elements of the Millennial Kingdom and he would have seen them together. So from Isaiah's perspective It's what we call mountain peaks of prophecy where an Old Testament prophet would look forward in time.

He would see different events that belonged to a period of time but he wouldn't necessarily see the distance or the all of the events that are incorporated with that so. That I think is the easiest or the best explanation of it the other way and this is sort of a different pre Millennial perspective Is to say that the creation of the new heavens and the new earth in Isaiah chapter 65 is a reference to the beginning of? the Millennial Kingdom and so in the book of Revelation we see the creation of the new heavens and the new earth being a reference to To heaven to the final heaven after the Millennial Kingdom.

But in Isaiah, he could use that exact same phrase to describe the establishment of a renewed creation. But not a regenerated creation not a resurrected creation that will be part of heaven. He would see that new heavens and new earth as a reference to the establishment at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom which will which will involve a lifting and a mitigation of the effects of the curse as well as the binding of Satan for a thousand years and the utter prosperity and almost Edenic like qualities of the Messianic Kingdom that is to come so Isaiah could describe that as the new heavens in the new earth and be speaking of some sort of a reformation or a Recreation or a renewal of creation by the lifting of the curse under which everything groans now.

He could be looking forward in time and seeing that as the beginning of the new heavens in the new earth. So that new heavens and new earth is a phrase that could be used to describe both heaven as it is in Revelation 21 as well as the beginning or the renewal of creation the lifting of the curse that begins the Messianic reign in Revelation chapter 20 either one of those would be a good way of a way of which the new heavens and new earth that phrase Could describe that makes sense.

That makes sense. I'm turning to our live studio audience, which we have in in studio here with us this morning. All right. Second question is what podcast do you listen to? This is kind of a personal one.

Podcasts I Listen To

So I'm gonna I'm gonna give you some of the podcasts that I listen to and which ones that I would recommend. These are in alphabetic order because I'm pulling these right out of my own podcast player.

I listened to STR ask hashtag STR ask with Greg Koukl from stand reason ministries. It's about a 20-minute show that incorporates some short answers to short apologetics questions Alpha and Omega ministries with James White the dividing line.

I listen to that. There's another one called American conservative University, which is sort of a political Political show but it incorporates it's run by a Mormon guy. So I don't listen to any of the Sunday stuff, but some of the political it kind of collates like the Dennis Prager show Who are other guys Michael Medved and some guys like that and gets little clippets from some of their stuff.

Which is always kind of fascinating. It's kind of an eclectic blend. The art of manliness is another one that I listen to. I enjoy that. It's a lot of interviews with different people from from different walks of life.

Some psychologists some Navy SEALs and military veterans and it's kind of just sort of a manly man's man type of a podcast. I enjoy that not everything that I listen to is religious or sermons obviously because I have a very Eclectic blend of educational interests that I like to kind of stay a pride apprised of.

I listen to the Ben Shapiro show. I listen to the Christian worldview radio program with David Wheaton. That's a very good one. He deals with a lot of cultural relevant stuff from a Christian worldview perspective.

There's an economics podcast I listen to called Contra Krugman that talks about economics basically answering Paul Krugman's New York Times column. Every week, of course, I listen to Crossroads Bible Church, which is Tim Carr's ministry.

I listen to his sermons enjoy those. The Dan Bongino show is a political political commentary podcast. I listen to the expositor with Steven Lawson from one passion ministries. He talks about issues and elements related to expository ministry and positive pository teaching and preaching and it's kind of a preachers Oriented podcast and I enjoy that one.

Freakonomics is kind of an economics podcast and I listen to some of those things not all of their episodes. Some subjects interest me. Others do not necessarily the grace to you pulpit podcast, which is John MacArthur's weekly sermon.

I listen to that as well as the grace of life pulpit, which is Steve No, not Steve Lawson. Phil Johnson his Sunday school class. Phil Johnson and Mike Riccardi their Sunday school class at Grace Community Church to the grace life pulpit is an excellent one.

And now I see that I see that Peter is trying to keep links to all of these in the feed, which is good. See if you can keep up Peter listening in from world magazine. That's kind of a good with some of those interviews are really Interesting some of them not the Matt Wall shows another political one.

Motley Fool money is about investing Stand to reason weekly podcast. That's two hours a week of apologetics question and answer and Interactions with Greg Koukl. I've enjoyed that for years. I don't listen to all of every episode of this but the Steve Day show is another political podcast.

Thinking out loud with Alan Schlieman is an apologetics podcast. The Tom would show is Libertarian podcast. I don't. I don't necessarily agree with every libertarian perspective on every issue. But it is sort of outside of my normal Political box to listen to different subjects from people from all over the spectrum.

Some guys I really agree with some guys that I wouldn't. The verdict with Ted Cruz is a new one, which I kind of enjoy that when it's about 20 minutes a week the way I heard it with Mike Rowe is kind of a Paul Harvey kind of a podcast where it he tells a story about somebody or something that happened and and Kind of keeps the identity of that person secret to the very end.

It's very engaging and I enjoy that the world and everything in it, which is World Magazine's podcast. It's a 30 minutes a day of news. News commentary and News reports and then wretched radio with Todd Friel is an hour a day.

I enjoy that as well. Other ones I listen to how I built this with Guy Raz sometimes I read that or listen to that sometimes not. It kind of depends. So some of those are you might be thinking how do you listen to all of that?

Which I saw one question come up. How do you have time for all of that? I listen to most of my podcast at two and a half Speed I skipped through a lot of the commercials. I have it set up to cut out the intros and cut out the exits of my Podcasts and I enjoy list.

I'm kind of behind about two three weeks behind in my podcast now. But I listen to him while I'm while I'm walking while I'm riding my bike while I'm mowing the lawn while I'm in my garden. While I'm driving around while I'm doing mindless stuff here at the church cleaning up my office or or something like that.

So I have I have lots of time. I try and fill it with try to fill it with that stuff. Shouldn't say I have lots of time. I have I Have lots of all my spare time I should say I try and fill with listening to something taking in some sort of information.

That would be a benefit to me. Somebody asked a question how much coffee drink drinking a day apparently that's connected to the number of podcasts. I listen to Four or five cups coffee. It's not much.

The Sign Over My Shoulder and the Books in Quarantine

Somebody asked about the sign hanging over my shoulder. This is what it says. That's gonna be that's gonna be. Backwards, I guess it says wacky books. I have to read for a writing project. So these are all of the books like surprised by the voice of God by Jack Deere.

He speaks to me by Priscilla Shire how to listen to the voice of God by Charles Stanley. All of that seal theological sewage that I had to read in order for my new writing project. I put all of those on a shelf and I put this sign up Wacky books that I have to read for a writing project.

Right below it because what happened is we were having some trouble with internet service and the plug-in for my data. Wire was right below that shelf and one of the technicians was here and he walked into my office he was taking that apart and right in front of his face where all of those books and I saw him look up and kind of glance at him and I was horrified and I had to point out to him Those are not good books.

Those are ones that I'm I'm reading for a writing project. And so then I just wanted to make sure that those books were labeled as not something that it's kind of right by my arm that I can that I use as references, but books instead that are Theological sewage that I have to I have to plow through in order to Write a book so I have a mark for that reason if I die I don't want people walking into my office and thinking those are my those are my go-to resources right next to my desk.

All right, I kind of teased this last week and I want to deal with the subject is is it always wrong To lie. Somebody said it's backwards for you and correct for us. Oh, okay. Yes, those books are in quarantine.

My wife doesn't like me drinking coffee during the podcast. So every time I do that, that's for you, sweetie. Okay, is it always wrong to lie? This is a tough question and one that Christian moral philosophers are a little bit divided over and there's kind of a broad spectrum Of approaches to this I want to lay out two of them and then kind of tell you What I think the moral reasoning is behind the position that I would take There is the either the answer that question is either yes or no for one.

It's either always wrong to lie in which case even if you lie for a good purpose like to save somebody's life that would be considered a moral sin or It's not always wrong to lie in which case then there is a there's a moral reasoning behind situations and circumstances in which It is it is not a sin to lie because the what you say with your mouth.

Did it is used to deceive people for a good end? So on the one hand John MacArthur would say that it is always wrong to lie in every circumstance that Rahab was wrong that even if you were to to lie in order to save somebody's life that That that would be sin in itself and that you would have to tell the truth in that That that situation and leave the results to God.

I think that that would be John MacArthur's perspective on that on the other side of The moral equation are people who would say there are circumstances and situations in which it is not only just morally justified to deceive somebody With your words, but that is morally obligatory to deceive somebody with your words on that side of the spectrum would be Greg Koukla standard reason ministries.

He wrote the book Relativism relativism feet firmly planted in midair. He wrote that with Francis Beckwith.

So.

Here's the moral equation of the moral logic behind somebody who would say that and sometimes it is justified that you You can lie in certain situations. The go-to example is always the Nazis come to the door and you're hiding Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and the Gestapo asked you do you have any Jews in your home and you were you're confronted with the The opportunity to say either.

Yes, we are hiding Jews here or no. We are not hiding Jews here. And that's kind of always the the moral dilemma. You're faced with two moral morally to conflicting moral standards or ethical Requirements one to tell the truth and the other one to do what you can to preserve life.

Those are the two Moral dilemmas that are kind of at odds there in that situation. Before I answer that before we answer that question or that situation specifically, let's back up for a moment. And ask the question is it always a moral sin to deceive somebody.

Is it always a moral sin to deceive somebody or are there situations in which? Deception is morally justified. Is all deception wrong. And it's not my perspective that all deception is wrong. And I'll give you a few examples of that when you play a football game You are you are required to deceive the defense if you don't read to see the defense in Making them think you're going to run when you really are in a pass or that you're going to pass when you're really going To run you're gonna lose the game.

The whole craft of Sporting event is to deceive the other team into thinking you're going to do something that you're not going to do and to trick them Into not expecting what you're going to do. There are games that are that are intended where you use deception whether you're playing a card game or a board game.

There are games that are all set up around Deceiving or tricking other people and trying to gain an advantage and in a certain way that I would argue that those are not Morally compromised or sinful activities to engage in those.

I would also argue that it is not it is not sin to leave the lights on at your home to Communicate that somebody's home when they're not that's an act of deception. You're deceiving potential would-be thieves by making them think that you're home or by even installing things in your lighting system or in your house that would turn the lights on at a certain time turn them off at a certain time.

To give the appearance that you're home when you're actually not home. That would be an act of deception. And so not all deception is is sinful. I think that everybody on both sides of the more of both sides of this moral argument would agree that not all deception is wrong.

There are times when deception is wrong when you intend to do somebody harm or you descend to trick somebody into doing harm to themselves. Or whether you are trying to gain an advantage for yourself, for instance that it is wrong to deceive the IRS.

It is wrong to deceive your spouse it is wrong to to deceive in in certain situations where Obviously the deception is akin to lying and you're doing harm to another individual. Is it wrong to deceive somebody in order to preserve or protect life?

And this is where we get back now to the illustration with the Nazis at the door. Some people would say even those who would say that it is sinful to it is always sinful to lie. Some people would say that in the situation where the Nazis come to your door you would be you would be free to To give a half-truth to present the truth in such a way as to deceive because you're trying to preserve life.

It would be all right to give part of the truth or to even withhold some of the truth in order to Trick the Nazis at the door. So for instance, I think it was it was Corrie ten boom who who says that one time when then when the Nazis did this?

She said well, the Jews are under the table. And of course the Nazis laughed at that and they eventually left. Well, it's true that the Jews were under the table. They were under the floorboards under the table.

And so her statement was technically true, but it was not accurate in the sense that it actually communicated a true thing. It was intended to deceive them by tricking them into thinking that she was joking when in fact she was Technically telling them the truth.

So she used the truth in that sense to really trick them or to deceive them. So, is it always wrong to deceive somebody even if you use your mouth to do so.

And.

My position is that it is not wrong to always do that now some people would say you can deceive somebody or trick them or withhold truth or do part of the truth or or trick them into believing something as long as you don't utter an untruth with your mouth and.

And for me, but if but if you say the untruth with your mouth in order to deceive somebody for a good end. Then that's lying and that's sinful. That is that is the equivalent of saying that it is. It is okay to use every resource at your disposal.

Your your property your possessions the way you say things how you communicate the truth even giving untruths giving partial truth withholding truth you can do everything in your power to trick or deceive somebody into thinking that something is true.

As Long as you don't say it with your mouth it's the uttering of it with the mouth the falsehood that then makes that deception immoral or wrong. And I would say that if it is not Sinful to deceive somebody into thinking that something is true by using every other resource that you have.

Why is it sinful to deceive somebody into thinking that something is true by using your mouth to do so? If you're able to use every other resource that you have to deceive somebody. Why is using your mouth all of a sudden make it wrong to do that?

So in the event of the Nazis at the door I don't think it would be wrong to lie to them in order to preserve life because in a sinful world where we have two conflicting moral obligations. You look at those two conflicting moral obligations and you have a moral responsibility.

To do the greater good in that situation, which would be to preserve life rather than tell the truth. Telling the truth might end up in somebody dying in which case you have a responsibility to do everything.

You can to deceive that individual in order to preserve the life and in that event Deception and lying in that case is not morally wrong now. Wayne Grudem in his book Christian ethics. He says in there the God because God has promised to never lead us into temptation and to never Put us in a place where there's no way of escape.

The God will never put his people into a situation where we are confronted with two conflicting moral Obligations. God will never put us into a situation where we are forced where we have to lie. Or where we're forced to sin.

I guess that'd be a better way of describing this position. God will never put us in a situation where we have two choices and we will send into the either one. I would agree with that now. Wayne Grudem would say that God will never put us into a situation where you have to either Either preserve life or lie and he would say but or sorry cost somebody the life by telling the truth or lie and preserve life.

And either one of those would be sin. God will never put a Christian in a position where they have to choose between those two options. And I would agree that God never puts us in a position where we are forced to sin but my position is that when you are placed in a position where you are you can deceive somebody into thinking that something is true and Preserve life that that act of deception even if it involves the use of your lips is not itself sin.

Not only you're not you're not required. You're not sinning in that sense because you are doing something to preserve life. Now some people would say well, that's a pragmatic argument that you do evil that good may come of it.

No a prank but in my position that's not evil to lie in that situation. It's not any more evil than it is to tell a half-truth in that situation or to use some other way of deceiving people or Communicating an untruth.

This is this is it we are allowed supposedly to use every resource at our disposal to Communicate an untruth for the sake of doing good as long as we don't communicate it with our mouth. And see that I think is not consistent.

If really the violation of the commandment to not thou shalt not lie just like thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt not murder. Has it involves the attitude of the heart the disposition of the heart and the motive behind it if.

If if it is the motive and the thoughts and the intentions that also violates that commandment then speaking an untruth to deceive is just as much a violation of that commandment as as or sorry in using every other resource at your disposal to deceive is just then as much a violation of that commandment thou shalt not lie as speaking the untruth.

So.

Yeah.

That I think is the best answer to that. I don't I don't believe that the bearing of false witness against your neighbor is The same thing as using your words to deceive in order to Accomplish a good end in that situation and I'm talking about that extreme moral situation.

So if you think that okay pastor Jimmy's condoning lying in any every situation. No, that's not what I'm saying question of God condones lying. How can you be trusted? Can he be trusted. God's not condoning lying.

God does condone. It is okay to deceive people that that I think is is fine. There is a. Just as when God gives instructions to the children of Israel to come up to the the gate of AI and then flee away In order to draw people out That was a military tactic that deceived them into thinking that they were being defeated when there was an ambush in store for them.

That was an act of deception. So that was an act of deception that God instructed the children of Israel to do in order to deceive Them into thinking something was true. That was not so. Is it sinful then for a police officer who is?

Pursuing a child predator to go into a chat room and pretend to be a little 13 year old girl in order to catch child Predators that is a lie. It's an act of deception. Is it immoral or wrong for a police officer to do that in the situation?

I don't think it is. What about a police officer is one undercover to bust child sex traffickers. He has to pretend that things are true that are not he has to deceive people. He has to even lie in those situations in order to catch a child predator.

Is that itself morally wrong?

So.

That doesn't mean that necessarily every lie recorded in Scripture is justified. So Abraham lying about Sarah Intended to protect her. That's not necessarily to say that every moral sin or every act of lying in Scripture is justified.

It is to say that in certain situations the act of deception is the deception itself Morally wrong and sinful if to set if deceiving somebody is not sinful. Which if it is then we do this all the time in day-to-day life.

Because we leave the lights on at home or We do other things to communicate certain things are true about us in our situations when they're not Actually true if that act of deception is sinful if it's the exact same thing as lying.

Then then I guess and all all if every every act of deception is lying. Then yeah, every lying would be wrong. All lying would be wrong. But if deception, but I'm but I'm I'm Differentiating between the act of deceiving somebody Using your words and using every other resource at your disposal.

So is was Abraham justed lying about Sarah? No, not necessarily. Was Abraham was what was the other one? There was another question. Oh David and Jonathan. They lied to Saul when they devised the plan to test whether Saul was going to kill David or not by David and Jonathan saying well, let's tell Saul that you requested to go celebrate the feast in Bethlehem and.

Well, then we'll find out if he is angry and intends to kill you or not. And that did indeed involve protecting David as well as exposing Saul's sin. So in that situation was David was where David and justified David and Jonathan Justified in deceiving Saul in that way and that I think is something that would need to be determined a little bit by the historical Context judging from what they did there.

I think that there was it was obvious that Saul intended to kill David. So I don't think that that was the only way to preserve David's life at that moment. So I would say that that sin probably was not justified or that that deception was not justified in that situation.

So.

That's a tough one. Those are two sides of the moral equation. Is it always lying? Is it always sin to lie or to deceive somebody with your mouth? It is if it's always a sin to deceive someone in every single situation ever.

That I think is the moral. That I think is the moral logic if we're gonna make the case that it is always. To trick somebody into thinking that something is true when it's not that is a form of lying.

That is a form of of deception. If we're gonna make the case that all of that every instance of that is sinful that I think is the case that needs to Be made in order to say that every act of communicating an untruth with your mouth is also sinful.

I think that that's a package deal. If we're gonna differentiate between tricking and deceiving somebody for a good purpose. Then I think that there's a form of deceiving people with your mouth that would fall into that category that it is morally justified at times when the op the only other option that you have is The death of somebody.

If somebody broke into my house and said is your wife at home? I'm going to rape her and murder her. Am I morally justified to say?

Yeah.

She's upstairs in the bedroom. Or would I be morally justified to to lie to that individual to tell them an untruth in order to Divert them or to delay them or to deceive them or do in some other way protect my wife and kids.

So I think that Yeah, that's it that's it for that one, I think I've exhausted that one for all I can and I see that there is just page after page of comments in here, but I'll have to go back and and Look at some of those a little later on and by the way, I'm not saying that Scripture doesn't say anything about false witnesses and lying.

Obviously lying is a sin. There are certain situations where There most situations most situations the vast majority of situations in which when we bear false witness It is a sin and I'm not talking about every situation.

I'm saying it's justified to lie in everything. Nobody would make that case. Nobody on that side of that moral philosophy is making the case that there's no such thing as the sin of lying. That's not the point that they're making.

So if you hear me saying that in this little narrow situation where we have a conflict of moral duties and We have one that is lesser and one that is greater if we choose the greater and violate the lesser that therefore Just therefore that therefore justifies the violation of the lesser in every other circumstance.

That's not the case I'm making and if you think that that's the case I'm making then you haven't heard anything that I've said up to this point. Because I'm not talking about the vast majority of those of those activities or those actions.