Ask a Pastor: July 2024

Alright, let's pray, then we'll get started.

Lord Jesus, as we open up your word, we ask through your Holy Spirit, help us to rightly understand what you have revealed

there, so that we may properly believe, confess, and do according to your holy word, we ask in Jesus'

name.

Amen.

Okay, so I have a series of questions that my wife has put into a weird font.

We have to explain to her that I don't like fonts like this, but that's a whole other question, issue.

But all of that being said, Mary Winkles writes, I recently heard that it

said that the deliverer coming from Zion to save Israel in Romans 11 26 is

not Christ, but someone else, making the point that we Christians don't have to evangelize the

Jews.

Oh, good grief.

The argument that this is not talking about Christ is because of how the Greek works.

Is this true?

It seems to be contrary to the overall message of the Bible, so I have a hard time thinking that it is.

I'm grateful for any clarification, and I hope that I, what I'm saying is making sense.

All right, so a question from Marie Winkles is, well, let me start by

this, stating this, is that when we do theology, clear passages always govern unclear passages,

and so when it comes to evangelizing, you'll note that evangelism is something

that the church is to be about the business of doing.

Evangelism, therefore, Christ says, go and make disciples of what?

All nations.

Does that include the nations, the ethnicities that include

Jews?

Yes, of course, right?

In fact, you'll note that Christianity, when it gets going, Christ says to go and proclaim repentance

for the forgiveness of sins to all nations, beginning in where?

Jerusalem, right?

And so you'll note that Scripture, even in the New Testament, talks about to the Jew first and then to the

Greek.

The Greek is going to be the kind of, in the Jewish way of thinking back 2 ,000 years ago, the Greek is like everybody

else, okay?

You're either Jew or Gentile.

So those are your clear passages, and then I would add to this concept, then,

is that when somebody comes along and says, well, I've taken a look at the Greek,

and everything you thought you understood is to be true happens to be false because

the word in this, the word means this, all right?

I've seen this game played so many times, it's absurd, and the Word of Faith

people do it.

I have two episodes of Fighting for the Faith coming out, kind of dedicated to similar, you know, the similar types of

twisting of Scripture, where people are claiming to have secret knowledge based upon the

lexical definitions.

In fact, if you think about Katie Sousa and Robert Henderson,

we just did a video where Robert Henderson made the claim that

the reason why your prayers aren't being answered is because you're not filing

lawsuits in the courts of heaven, or answering the lawsuits that the devil has filed in the courts of heaven, and you sit

there and go, did your mother drop you on your head?

Where are you getting this from?

I mean, this is why magic mushrooms and marijuana need to stay away from the sacraments.

You know, it's just nonsense, and so what he did there is

he looked up a word in the Greek, and the word is antidekos.

Your adversary, the devil, is prowling around like a roaring lion, it says in 1st Peter, and the word

for adversary is antidekos, and so he reaches into his strong concordance,

and he pulls out the first definition and ignores the second.

Okay, first definition is a legal adversary, and I would note there are many

verses in the scripture where antidekos means that.

There's just no doubt about it.

In fact, the ESV is very good about translating antidekos when it shows up in that context

as pointing to the fact that this is a legal accuser, and so they translate it

accuser.

But there's a second definition.

There's two definitions, and the second definition is your adversary, an enemy, you

know, things like this.

That's your second definition, and so I always like to point out that when you're dealing with

definitions, you have to let the context rule, right?

So my standard way of defining this is that if you look in the Merriam -Webster's Dictionary online,

and you look for the definition of the word up, there are like 34 different definitions of the word

up.

Up can be in an upward direction.

Up can be turning up the intensity, like turn up the volume, or it can also mean to

evacuate your breakfast after, you know, after you've had some nausea when you throw up,

right?

And so there's so many different definitions of up.

How do we know what up means?

I mean, isn't it confusing that there are so many definitions?

The answer is no.

The context always dictates.

So working with that then, I'm already skeptical of what's going on here,

and when somebody says we don't have to evangelize the Jews, I

sit there and go, Jesus said make disciples of all nations, and then you

cannot ignore the phrases of Christ.

Let me, in fact, let me give you one.

Hang on a second here.

You know, I've referenced it in passing.

Probably a good idea to show it to you on the screen.

Luke chapter 22, I think, or Luke.

Yeah, let's see.

Is it Luke 22?

No, 21.

It's the end.

No, it is 22.

Hang on a second here.

Luke 22.

Luke's version of the the Great Commission, right?

Hang on a second here.

Or is it 24?

Hang on a second.

It's 24.

I'm getting old.

If you can't tell by the the paint job, you can tell just by the fact that I'm beginning to behave more like Biden

every day.

Anyway.

All right.

Luke 24 45.

Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and he said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and on

the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sin should be proclaimed in his name to all nations,

beginning from where?

Jerusalem.

Right?

And you are witnesses of these things.

And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you, but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.

So the person then that is saying, we don't need to evangelize the Jews.

Already, I'm sitting there going, ah, you've been influenced by Nazis.

And by the way, they're back.

Okay?

Nazis are a real thing.

And I dunk on them on social media regularly.

The one thing I can tell you about Nazis is they are stupid.

Okay?

The woke left have better arguments and more nuanced arguments than the Nazis.

And I hate to say this, but Nazis basically remind me basically of a bunch of 19 to

24 year olds who still live in their mom's basement.

And that's not a, it's not an homonym.

They're kind of fit into the category of beta incels, and they are very, very,

their argumentation skills are about the same level as a sixth grader.

Okay?

So when, and the thing is, is that they're extremely susceptible to the

claims of Nazis.

That all the problems in the world are caused by the Jews.

And that's just a big grand conspiracy theory.

Okay?

You know, the Jews have a part of this cabal to enslave the world to, you know, to, you know,

monetarily force us into servitude and stuff like this.

And you sit there and go, how did such a small amount of people on planet Earth come to have so much

power that they're behind every single evil that there is?

Right?

You know, and the reality is this, is that it's just a conspiracy theory.

But unfortunately, these conspiracy theories have consequences.

And the last time these conspiracy theories grew in such popularity in Europe to be,

you know, kind of overrun much of the culture, it resulted in over 5 million

people being murdered.

Just the Jews.

Right?

So we won't, you know, so already, when somebody is saying that we don't have to evangelize the Jews

because of some kind of understanding of the Greek and Romans 11

.26, you know that already there's a problem.

Already there's a huge problem.

So when we go to Luke 11 .26, I'll show you where the real action is on this text.

Luke 11 .26.

Okay, let me put it in context.

Not Luke.

It's Romans.

Sorry, Romans 11 .26.

Okay.

Here we go.

So if some of the branches were broken off, so this is Paul's big discourse on the fact that

everybody who is in Christ has been grafted into Israel.

Okay, when you read that, it's very clear.

In talking about the natural branches, these are those who are genetic descendants of Abraham.

If some of the branches were broken off, and although you, a wild olive

shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward

the branches.

If you are, remember it is not you who supports the root, but it's the root that supports you.

Then you will say, well branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.

Well, that's true.

They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith.

So do not become proud, but fear.

For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you.

Note then the kindness and the severity of God.

Severity towards those who have fallen, but kindness, but God's kindness to you provided that you continue

in His kindness.

Love this verse, by the way.

What are we to continue in?

The kindness of God.

And how is God's kindness defined and exemplified?

Christ's bleeding and dying for all of our sins, right?

Otherwise, you too will be cut off.

And even if they do not continue, and even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief,

will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

I would note, just putting the context back in here, does it sound like Jews, modern -day Jews, could be

grafted back in if they repent of their of their rabbinic nonsense and believe in the Messiah?

So I would note in the immediate context of this verse, it is ridiculous to say

that we're not to evangelize Jews, because otherwise, how could they be grafted back in again?

Right?

For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive

tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back in to their own olive tree?

That is a whole argument in favor of evangelizing Jews, right?

Now, lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, a partial

hardening.

Does that say a total hardening or partial?

Partial.

Partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

And in this way, all Israel will be saved.

And here, Israel is a reference to the big, broad category of everybody who believes in Jesus.

And as it is written, the deliverer will come from Zion and will banish ungodliness from Jacob,

and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.

As regard the gospel, they are enemies for your sake.

But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God, but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,

so they too have now been disobedient in order that by mercy shown to you, they also may now receive

mercy.

For God has consigned all to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all.

Oh, the depths of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgments, how inscrutable

his ways.

All right.

Now, having read it in context, do I even need to read the Greek and say,

oops, we're not to be evangelizing Jews?

There's nothing that you can point to in the Greek that's going to undo the context of what this passage says.

So that being the case, the person who sits there and goes, well, here it says

the deliverer will come from Zion.

And here's their argument, by the way, which is just ridiculous.

Okay, so the deliverer, ha -ruminos.

Oh, look at that.

The deliverer, the delivering one.

That's not talking about Jesus.

That's talking about something else.

And so because we can take a look here at this present middle participle, that means that this, we

don't have to evangelize Jews.

And all my Greek students are going, what?

I was trying to be as convincing as possible and you guys aren't falling for it, right?

You get the idea here.

So you'll note, so ek, out of Zion, ek zion ha

-ruminos a -pas, a -pas tref se, okay, out of Zion

will come the delivering one.

You know, so that's the participle there.

And so the question is, who's the delivering one?

Well, have you guys noticed something here in the ESV?

That this is formatted in such a way that kind of hints at something.

What's it hinting at?

It's a cross -reference.

This is a quote from the Old Testament, okay?

So, a quote from the Old Testament takes us straight to Isaiah chapter 59,

verses 20 to 21.

So Paul is quoting the Old Testament.

And I would note here, the deliverer will come from Zion and will banish ungodliness from Jacob and this will be

my covenant with them when I take away their sins.

There's only one person this can be referring to, the deliverer, the delivering one, and that is

Christ.

And to make matters worse, for the person, again, Nazis are stupid,

all right?

And if I haven't said it with enough anger, I might start screaming that shortly.

They are dumb.

Okay, is that when you take a look at Isaiah 59, 20, and I'm going to show you this

over here.

Hang on a second here.

I'm going to go to Isaiah 59,

verse 20, and I'm going to show you from the Concordia Commentary, which does a really good job here,

of pointing out that Isaiah 59, 20, we'll put it back in context here in a minute, but I just

want, oh is it, hang on a second, 59, 20.

Let me roll down here.

Okay.

The Redeemer will come from Zion and those in Jacob who turn from transgression declares

Yahweh.

So that's how it reads in Isaiah 59, 20, and I'm going to point this out.

So I'm scrolling through the Concordia Commentary, and they point out something very important,

okay?

How are we to understand the Redeemer and how Paul uses it?

And so I'm going to scroll down here.

Salvation from Yahweh, okay.

The people have no salvation from Yahweh, the ones who persist in sin and unbelief, and then we get to the part

where there's the Redeemer.

I apologize for having to scroll.

Here we go.

Now we get to Yahweh provides justice and Yahweh provides salvation.

That's verses 15 through 20, but when we get to the end of this portion, I'm going to

show you where the real action's at, okay?

It's not whether or not this is referring to the Messiah.

That's a given when you consider the cross -reference.

Instead, let me show you where the question is.

So there's a whole section in the Concordia Commentary related to Isaiah 59, 20, and here's what it

says.

Romans 9 through 11 occupies pride of place in the Pauline corpus for

its theological complexity.

The pinnacle of the Apostles' argument appears in Romans 11, 26 through 27

where Paul concludes that all Israel will be saved.

Four different interpretations of Israel have garnered attention.

Israel equals the church, consisting of all baptized believers.

In Christ, the ecclesiological view.

Israel denotes elect ethnic Jews, the total national elect interpretation.

Israel means all ethnic Jews.

And Israel denotes all ethnic Jews whose salvation will occur at or just before Christ's second advent.

You're going to note there are questions as related to how Paul is using the text,

okay?

So the ecclesiological position was the dominant view in the patristic period,

which is important, okay?

So remember in Titus, it says that pastors to teach the word as

taught.

So when you read in the patristics, they take this view that this is the ecclesiological view, that all of Israel is

all who are baptized and believe in Jesus.

That's going to have greater weight as this is what the Apostles taught.

This is how the Apostles understood this.

And it remains the correct interpretation, okay?

But I'm going to note here that the real action then in

talking about this is that in looking at Paul's usage, there's a secondary

issue.

And the secondary issue is this, was Paul referring to Christ in his

first advent or his second?

Okay, that's where the debate really is.

So among real scholars, nobody, nobody doubts that the

Redeemer is referring to Christ.

You know, the Deliverer will come out of Zion.

Among all the biblical scholars and the patristic period, everybody is unified.

Paul is referring to Christ.

The question is, is he coming, is this talking about his first or his second advent?

And so that's really where the action is on this passage.

So I would note that Nazis are stupid.

Anybody who tells you that Jews are evil and we shouldn't evangelize them, you need to

rebuke them to their face.

Call them heretics.

Tell them that unless they repent, they're going to burn in hell.

Okay?

Because these are not matters where we have freedom.

And you don't get to contradict Christ.

Christ said make disciples of all nations.

That's the clear passage of Scripture.

So does that answer the question, by the way?

Yeah.

I don't know if Marie is.

All right.

Now next question.

All right.

This one's going to take a little bit of work.

Okay, which which I think is going to be fun.

Okay.

I've pulled up here on BibleHub .com.

All right.

Now when it comes to online tools, if you want a online tool

that will take a verse, if you take a verse and you want to see it, how it's translated in multiple

translations, BibleHub is the simplest out there.

Go to BibleHub .com, type in Psalm 138 verse 2, and it's going to

give you the translation of multiple translations.

Old and new and things like this.

And so let me read the question here.

And this is from Dan Johnston.

It says, so he quotes to me several different translations.

He says, I think I've read somewhere that the Hebrew construction of this passage is somewhat difficult.

What do you think is the best rendering?

Super easy question, not easy to get at the answer.

Okay.

And so let's take a look at where the challenge is.

Okay.

So let me pull this up in the Hebrew real quick here.

And so I want Psalm 138

verse 2b.

Okay.

So the focus here is on this last part.

For you have exalted above all things your name and your word.

That's how the ESV reads.

And here's the issue.

When you read this in the Hebrew, so, you know,

Higdaltah, yeah, Ki Higdaltah, Al -Khal, and then you've got

this.

You got name.

Here's the issue is that when you read this then in the Hebrew, what is

being exalted?

You have exalted either your name or your word.

Which is it?

Well, the thing is, it's one above the other.

And the way the Hebrew construction is, the way the word Imrat here is

focused, the word for word, it doesn't look like it's the emphasis, but it technically can.

And if you make this distributive, it doesn't work because you have to have one exalted above the other.

You can't exalt both.

And so the way this reads in the Hebrew, it's a little bit

unclear.

I happen to favor you have exalted your name, you know,

and kind of we're resolving that, but there's a reason why I do.

However, let's take a look at some of the different translations.

So you get the idea.

And I got to make this readable for my small, for my old eyes.

As you can tell, I'm not a faith healer, and I have not yet decreed and declared my healing over my eyes.

So the King James Version, and if I'm not mistaken, it's the KJV only crowd that is

really kind of pushing hard on this.

Because they're always looking for ways in which modern translations deviate from the King

James Version.

So here's the last part.

For thou has magnified thy word above all thy name.

So you'll note the King James, when you have to, which are you going to magnify?

Either God's name or his word?

The King James magnifies the word above all thy name.

And that's kind of an interesting translation.

Okay, the ESV, when you read the ESV, you have exalted above all things your name and your word.

The ESV takes a distributive path.

Basically saying, I've exalted above all both.

But then that lends the question, how can you exalt both, if otherwise one has to be above the other?

This is kind of how the argument goes.

And then so when you look at the New King James, you have magnified your word above all your name.

New King James goes that way.

The NASB, let me go with the 77, says for thou has magnified thy word

according to all thy name.

Well, that begins to get a little bit more periphrastic.

So how do you come up with a preferred translation of this?

And I would ask this question.

At the end of the day, how much does it really matter?

Okay, let me give you the cheater's answer to the question.

Okay.

I like when I come across something in the Hebrew where I go, I don't

know how to do this.

I'm not sure.

And here's the thing.

My Hebrew skills are not up to world -class snuff.

They're just not.

Okay.

I can manage my way through a Hebrew text, but that doesn't mean you would want to do a

commentary on the book of Job.

Okay, that's just not gonna happen.

But that being the case, you know, when I come across something, I cheat.

Okay, and let me explain to you how I do so.

All right.

I cheat by going to something called the Septuagint.

Okay.

Now, let me explain.

What is the Septuagint?

So a couple of hundred years before Christ, as the story goes, 70

Jewish scholars, who were native -speaking Hebrews, got together, and they

could see the handwriting on the wall because they had been subjugated to the Greeks thanks to the

conquest of Alexander the Great.

And the Greek culture was having a huge impact, and Greek itself became the lingua franca of the

ancient world.

If, like, if Jeff Kenney, you know, if somebody were studying at UND, and they were from

China, and they were studying to be a pilot, what language would they be required to speak when

they're on, when they're talking to, you know, ATC?

English.

Okay, so English is the lingua franca of the aviation world.

You have to speak pilot English in order to fly an airplane.

End of story.

Similarly, in the ancient world, Greek became that.

And so you're going to note the the Septuagint, it predates Christ by a long time, and was well

established as the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek that was taught

even in the synagogues of Christ.

And a little bit of a note regarding Septuagint.

The Christians became so effective at using the Septuagint to show and to

argue that Jesus was the Messiah, that the Jews abandoned it a couple

hundred years after Christ.

They didn't want, they refused to touch it after that.

Okay, they came up with a different translation in order to make it so that so many people wouldn't be

converting to to Christianity from among them.

So, and as a result of that then, since the, really since the

fall of Rome and the Latin Vulgate and the and the ascension of the of the Romance languages,

the Septuagint has fallen into disuse.

And there, I would note that Septuagint studies are some of the most interesting studies there are right now.

Okay, so when I cheat, and I do, okay, I

will go to the Septuagint.

Hang on, that's the New International.

Let me get to my Septuagint here.

So here is the English translation of that psalm.

You're going to note something here.

There's a psalm missing in the Septuagint, and I don't know which one it is.

I'd have to study it.

But here's, here's the equivalent, okay?

Psalm 137, okay?

And here's the translation of it.

I could show it to you in the Greek if you would like.

It's right here.

Okay, but this is a very faithful translation from the Lexham group.

Okay, so Psalm 137, which is the same as Psalm 138,

because you have magnified your holy name over all.

Okay, so let me show it to you in the Greek, okay?

Okay, so, and this is where it's going to get interesting.

Okay, okay, so you have, you, okay, you have above all,

your, the name of you, and then they're taking the word Logos, and they're, and

they're not making the word word.

It's Logion, which is an oracle.

Okay, so the idea then here is, is that they're taking the Hebrew, and they're translating,

they're not translating it as word the way we're thinking of us, you know, in that sense.

And so then, the way it works out then, you have magnified your holy name, your name, of over

all, and then that's, they're, they're, they're basically using it in an oracle kind of sense.

So, there would be my preference.

If you, which do I prefer?

I would refer to the Septuagint for this very reason, is that these people are way

closer and way more skilled at biblical Hebrew than I am, and I can

read their translation in the Greek well, and, and I can understand

why they made the decisions that they made a lot easier, and taking a look at how they translate, you can

see the moves that they make.

And I would, I think that modern scholarship would improve in some of these cases,

if we studied the Septuagint a little bit more, you know, and gave it a greater weight, because

I, I, I think it's a faithful translation.

And then, when you talk about textual criticism, the Septuagint has verses that

are tweaked, or there's variant readings in the Septuagint that we don't have, which kind of, which

kind of begs this question.

So, when we talk about the Hebrew Bible, so, the Hebrew Bible that we have, the

Hebrew text that we have, it, it comes from Russia, from the Middle Ages.

It's not the oldest manuscript of the Hebrew.

And there are variant readings in that that are missing from the older versions that we have.

And so, one of the fun things about the Dead Sea Scrolls studies, you know, the things that we're learning from the Dead Sea Scrolls,

is that, yes, we, the Old Testament we have can be trusted, but there are variant readings in the older manuscripts that

seem to have been expunged by the rabbis.

And so, there's, there's, there's a, there's an argument to be made that the Hebrew text that many people use

today has been tampered with.

So, it's fascinating.

They claim kind of miraculous unity.

Yeah.

And did you get, did you get two Jews to agree on anything?

They say where, where two Jews are present, there are three opinions.

The, the fact that you can get 70 miraculously agreeing on the, on this translation is, is a miracle.

Okay, so.

Right.

Okay, so that's the answer to your question.

Are you satisfied with the answer, sir?

Okay, very good.

All right, from Nathaniel Henley, he has two.

He says, I'm sitting in church, and I want to ask this before I forget.

My pastor is talking about fighting Satan.

He's using Ephesians 6, 10 through 17.

That's the armor of God portion.

So, my question is about verse 13.

He used the section, having done all, as a means to say that we fight or conquer

Satan.

Oh, goof.

Okay.

When I look at the Greek, the word used is only used once here.

In context, it seems to mean to withstand in every way or in every struggle.

Does this seem accurate?

It does not seem in this passage that we are to be aggressors or to try to fight Satan.

Nathaniel Henley, you must have been catechized by Pastor Rose, bro.

Okay.

I'm just saying.

Now, so let me do this.

I'm going to come down here.

I need to get out of the Septuagint.

Hang on a second here.

I'm going to come here, and I'm going to go down to Ephesians chapter 6,

specifically verse 13.

And in fact, let me do, you know, actually, let's just take a look at the ESV on this one.

Okay.

So here's the text.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.

Whose might?

His might.

Put on the whole armor of God that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.

I would note, put it back in context, Nathaniel Henley seems to have a very good point.

Does this sound like we are to go and to conquer?

Okay.

Now, Matt Sylvester's not here.

He's actually been in the military.

He's fought, you know, over in war zones.

He's participated in American wars.

And that being the case, if a soldier has orders to stand, do they have

orders to advance?

Right.

Okay.

There's a difference between advance and stand.

Okay.

And the soldier that advances, when he's been told to stand, is going to be court -martialed.

Okay.

So that being the case, putting this back into context, so that you may be able to what?

Stand against the schemes of the devil.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present

darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Therefore, take up the whole armor of God that you may be able to what?

Withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand,

stand firm.

Right?

Now, the ESV, I think, gets at this, but there's a better resource, if you want to actually take a look at it,

and that is the Concordia Commentary.

And this is, one of the things I love about the Concordia Commentary series, is that they will, the

scholar who put the commentary together, will give you their translation.

And their translation is going to be wooden, and stiff, and not that readable, but

far more faithful to the original languages.

And so I would note, when we take a look at the Concordia Commentary for Ephesians 6 .13, watch

what his translation is.

For this reason, take up the full armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and

so having accomplished all things to stand.

So, note here, I would note, again coming back to Nathaniel Hundley, I don't know who

catechized you, but dang, he did a good job.

You were right.

Okay, the emphasis is on withstanding, not on advancing.

And so the thing is, is that you don't have to take the fight to the devil, and how would you do that

anyway?

Okay.

Do you have a demon detector?

Right, right, you know.

Okay, what do you do instead?

Don't worry, the fight's gonna come to you, right?

And if you're doing evangelism, you're not going toe -to -toe, mano -a -mano against Satan.

You're preaching the gospel, and Satan's going to make you suffer for doing so, right?

So the idea here is, is that there's nothing in the context that says that we need to take it to the devil.

We need to take it to Satan, and the people who want to go out there and chase windmills,

yeah, I'm gonna stay here.

I'm just gonna stand here.

Thank you.

Okay, you know, so I mean, let me be blunt.

I'll be blunt, okay?

You know, we just celebrated the fact that I've been at Kongsvinger for ten years, and I don't think, I don't think it

was a miracle that I got called here.

I think it was a miracle that I'm still here.

Okay, okay, and I'll be blunt.

It's part of, part of the reason I'm still here is because this passage told me what to do.

Stand your ground.

Okay, who placed me here?

God did.

Okay, so when people are running against me, it's like, okay, I'm just gonna sit here and let

all the fiery darts come flying in.

Okay, and that's all you can do, right?

So believe me, you don't have to look for the devil.

He'll find you.

He knows exactly where you are, and he hates your guts.

Okay, and he's not gonna leave you alone.

I don't know any Christian who gets left alone by the devil.

You know, poor me, I never get, the devil never bothers me.

I never have to suffer.

You know, it's just, yeah.

Right, so, okay, all right, let's, there was a secondary question

here, and let's see here.

So, I have to, I have to share my audio, Josh.

Is that gonna be a challenge?

All right, are you guys ready?

I have an idea.

Here's the solution.

Since this guy has captions on his video, we're gonna have to read them.

So, that's the only solution that I can come up with.

All right, so, Josh, read the captions as a fight voice.

Hold on a second here, because this is like some kind of an atheist.

All right, let's see here.

This thing shows how disingenuous yeah, belief in God absolutely is.

He absolutely is not arguing good faith because the clip here, he cut out something that

was really important.

And when you see what he cut out, I'm going to rewind and replay it so it looks like here we can, you guys can see

it.

And then we'll, we're gonna put the actual unedited clip of what I said and see what he left out.

And there is no possible way that he did this on accident, and he did this on purpose

because that, I said, did not include this is what I said.

So, these guys are basically arguing that somebody who's taking him on is misquoting him.

Okay, now I've seen this before, so I know what his, his argument is going to be.

Okay, and he's like an, it's like an atheist.

All right, notice that there's an edit, a cut, something that he said to watch.

Okay, so I wonder if this guy knows that Jesus actually appealed to other authorities.

In Matthew chapter 23, Jesus appealed to the seat of Moses.

Okay, this is true, by the way, okay.

Says, now watch what I actually said, okay, with the unedited video.

Look at the part that he took out.

All right, let's see here.

Jesus actually appealed to other authorities, and he actually appealed to other beliefs

that are not in the Bible.

I wonder if Protestants know this.

Okay, so this guy is an anti -Sola Scriptura guy, by the way, okay.

He took out the part where it happened to mention that the seat of Moses is not in the Old Covenant,

Testament scriptures, in the Old Testament, and you'll find nothing about the seat of Moses.

It's extra biblical.

It's outside of the Bible.

That was the entire point I was making, and he just happened to edit that part out.

Okay, so the basic claim is, is because Jesus made an appeal to the seat of Moses,

that therefore, Sola Scriptura is bad, and you shouldn't believe in Sola Scriptura.

Here's the issue, okay, and this is the part where this guy is not actually being

correct.

Okay, let me explain.

The concept of the seat of Moses, all right, the Moses seat.

Nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament, that is true.

Let me ask you this, where in the New Testament does it mention pulpits?

No, nowhere.

Okay, nowhere in the New Testament does it talk about the pastor has to have a pulpit, right?

So, the question then is this, who has the authority to preach the word in

Christ's Church?

Rightly called pastors, right?

And so, when we say, well listen, we need to guard the pulpit.

Are we making an extra biblical argument?

No, we're not.

Okay, so when we talk about the seat of Moses, the question is not, you know,

is that an extra biblical authority?

The question is what is meant by it, and where does the authority of the seat of Moses come from?

According to the Mosaic Covenant, who did God task with the job of

preaching the word and teaching the word to Israel?

Levites.

Okay, so here's what happened.

The Jews, and actually Jews are from the tribe of Judah, the Israelites, in obeying this, the

Levites went to work in doing what?

Setting up synagogues.

And what did they do?

They started teaching.

And what happens when you start having things like this happen?

Certain traditions and certain norms come into place.

And so, the seat of Moses became the place from which rabbis would teach in the

synagogue.

It's the same as the pulpit.

Okay, they would sit, we stand.

As I get older, I might adopt a Moses seat.

I never know, you know, just it's an option, right?

But the point is this, is that the Moses seat then symbolically became the focus of

the teaching of the Word of God.

And the Levites were the ones tasked with the job of teaching Israelites the Word of God.

And so they sat while they taught, and that became known as the Moses seat, just like the pulpit.

Okay, that is not an extra biblical argument.

All it is, is pointing to the fact that God is the one who called the Levites to do this in the Old Testament, in the New

Covenant, pastors are tasked with the job of preaching the Word.

And we've come up with a standard way of doing that.

We have pulpits, and we all preach from the pulpit.

But, you know, if so, you would say, if this would be like Christ, if he were saying, you know, you know,

listen, don't listen to the Pharisees.

But do what they tell you to do, but don't do what they do, for they stand behind the pulpit.

All right, but they don't practice what they preach, is the point of what Christ was making.

Okay, well, there's no pulpit mentioned in the New Testament anywhere.

Correct.

Duh.

Okay, you know, it's just a symbol of the preaching authority that God has given in the church

to pastors, just like the teaching authority was to the Levites.

Okay, so that's the idea here.

Okay, so his argument against sola scriptura, bunk.

In fact, I might even have to do a Fighting for the Faith video against this guy.

It'd be kind of fun.

You know, just sit there and go, you know, Atah loma v 'navrit.

Okay.

Anyway, all right.

Let's see here.

So I took a look at the video.

Make sure I answered the question.

I think I did.

Okay, so Matthew Hundley's question was this.

I found this clip.

I'm struggling to understand his point.

I think I disagree with what I think his point is, but I just want to make sure my thought process is

accurate.

It seems like he's making the claim that sola scriptura doesn't work because Matthew 23 refers to the seed of Moses, which is outside of the Bible.

However, when you look at the text, it says that Jesus is encouraging people to obey authority, but not for it to be like them to

practice because they are hypocrites.

I think this actually works against him because the Pharisees were the extra biblical group.

That's right, they were, and they were using it to control and manipulate people.

Is there something that I am not seeing or does this guy not see that his point is just bad?

I would note he doesn't see that his point is bad.

He thinks he's actually smart because the name of his Instagram channel is the

voice of reason clips.

So I know that if you have to say that you probably don't have much of a voice of reason, but that's a different story altogether.

And so and then you're gonna note in the days of Christ, there were people sitting on the Moses seat who were not

authorized.

All right, so many of the Pharisees were not Levites

and yet they became the teachers in the synagogue.

They sat on Moses's seat when they had no authority to be doing so.

And I would note we have a similar problem today.

So for instance, in our day, we have people behind the pulpit who have no authority to be in the pulpit.

You know, that would include women, those who have not rightly studied God's Word and shown themselves approved.

Right?

And then you have men who are just absolutely egregiously sinful who have no business being in the

pulpit at all either.

And then you'll note that in many charismatic churches today, as the older guard is getting long of tooth

and ugly like myself, they pass the torch to their untrained children, okay?

I would ask the question, where did Joel Osteen go to seminary again?

Right, okay.

He didn't, okay.

He was the video editor for his father.

Okay, don't even get any ideas, Josh.

Okay, so I would note that just because Joshua is my son

and is witty and handsome like me

does not mean that he's qualified to be a pastor, okay?

And then you'll note within the Lutheran confessions, we actually have in the Augsburg Confession a

standard that must, that is biblical, that somebody who is a pastor has to have what we

call a rete vucatus.

They have to have a rightly ordered call to be able to preach in Christ's Church.

And so you'll note that those who do not have a right to preach in Christ's Church and do not have a rightly ordered call, they're the ones who keep bringing heresy into the church,

okay?

And I would note that women, there's no such thing as a female pastor.

Any woman who claims to be a pastor is a feminist who is twisting and ignoring scripture.

Let's just call that for what it is, okay?

There's no such thing.

All right, next question.

How does John 3 .13 line up with Elijah going up to heaven in a whirlwind?

This is from Cliff Warren.

The answer is it doesn't, okay?

Let me explain.

I have to go here to John chapter 3.

And here, we'll actually reference the Greek here on this.

We talked about this a little bit.

So here's Jesus with, this is the Nicodemus passage.

Nicodemus said to Jesus, how can these things be?

Jesus is talking about being born anothen, born from above.

And Jesus answered him, are you the teacher of Israel?

And yet you do not understand these things.

Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

No one has ascended into heaven.

This is our verse.

No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have

eternal life.

So this is not talking about Elijah.

Okay, and let me offer an alternative translation here.

No one has accepted and ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of

Man.

So the AMA here, and I talked about this in a recent Bible study, William

Mounts has an article on this on his website.

There is very good reason to believe that the AMA here should be translated as but.

So when you read it as no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man,

when you translate that as but, and then I would note the ESV has except, which is close, except

he who descended from heaven.

The idea then is that Christ is being, he's not talking about his ascension into heaven, he's talking about his

descent.

And talking about his descent, he's making it clear he has the authority to tell us what he has received

from the Father and the things he's speaking are heavenly.

So this is talking about the authority of Christ, not about his ascension, okay?

All right, from Jacob in Malawi.

Jacob writes, my question, Revelation 7 verses 4 through 8, who are the 144 ,000?

Who are these people?

Some say it is a group of people sealed and saved and they are going to be in heaven with Jesus and return with him

and rule the world with Christ.

The remaining people on earth will inherit the world but not rule with Christ.

What is the real meaning of the 144 ,000?

Great question.

All right, this is a mystery, okay?

And so here's rule number one, when we are trying to understand the book of Revelation,

the book of Revelation is written in code.

Okay, so many people err horrifically when they try to interpret

Revelation literally.

Okay, so for instance, okay, when it talks about the

thousands years, okay, that's talking about a particular

time period that's longer than a thousand.

It's a symbolic number.

Many of the numbers in the book of Revelation are symbolic.

So I would note, and the key indicator in this text, that

the 144 ,000 is a symbolic number.

A coded number comes in the details of the tribes that are named.

Okay, so if you know, if I were to ask you, what are the 12 tribes of Israel, y 'all would have to

look.

Okay, but you would all point to, well, there's two half tribes.

Okay, tribe of Ephraim, tribe of Manasseh, two half tribes.

Well, if you have two half tribes, how many tribes are there then?

Twelve.

Okay, there's 11 plus two halves.

Okay, but here's the thing, is that Ephraim and Manasseh were quite

wicked.

And Ephraim is one of the early tribes of Israel that went into rank

idolatry, led Israel into idolatry.

And so when you take a look at the listing of the tribes, there's

some stuff that doesn't sound Old Testamently familiar.

Is that a right way to do that?

Can I turn Old Testament into an adverb?

Okay, but alas, here we go.

So let's read this out.

So after this, I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.

Oh, look, the earth is flat.

No.

Okay, no.

Holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind might blow on the earth or sea or against any tree.

And then I saw an angel.

By the way, if you want to just be, if somebody points this out and says, see the earth is flat, you say, well that

rules out the space pizza.

Because, you know, you look at the flat earth as they believe in this disc kind of thing.

Well, there's got to be four corners.

You know, it's like, oh, well, okay.

So I saw another angel ascending and rising from the sun, the seal of the living God.

And he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the earth and the sea.

Saying, do not harm the earth or the sea or the tree until we have sealed the servants of our God on their

foreheads.

And I heard the number of the sealed.

One hundred and forty four thousand.

This is twelve times twelve, or twelve thousand times twelve thousand, right?

So from every tribe of the sons of Israel.

From the twelve thousand from the tribe of Judah.

And I'm not gonna, at this point, just keep, just keep the numbers in mind.

I'm gonna list these out.

Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh,

Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin.

Isn't Manasseh of the half tribe?

How now do we have a tribe of Joseph?

Okay.

So the fact that the numbers don't line up, or the names don't line up, is also part of the

mystery.

How are we to understand this?

The answer is actually quite simple.

This isn't a literal number.

So, put the Tim LaHaye books away.

Okay?

So put the Tim LaHaye books away.

And forget this idea that there's going to be a secret rapture of the church, and

that after the church is raptured, the hundred and forty four thousand will be literal Jews

who will then carry on the fight for Christianity in the time of the Great Tribulation.

It is Balogna.

Okay, and that's how it's spelled, by the way.

Okay?

That's not what this is pointing to.

And the fact that Joseph is listed and Ephraim is missing, and

Manasseh is listed as a whole tribe when it's a half tribe, tells you something's going on here.

Okay?

Why would God take Ephraim out?

Because they led Israel into idolatry.

They were the first to go whole hog into it.

You can read this at the end of the book of Judges.

It's absolutely just irreprehensible what they did.

So that being the case, Ephraim is not going to be listed among the tribes of Israel.

So think of it this way.

We've all been grafted into Israel, right?

Okay?

Now, forgive me for making a reference like this, okay?

When you go to Hogwarts for the first time, you put a hat on and the hat tells you which house you're in.

Okay?

All right.

So let me ask you all, which tribe have you been grafted into?

I have no idea.

Okay, I might be from Issachar.

Okay, because I know the times and the seasons, those of you.

Never mind.

I Sorry, it's a charismatic joke if you know, you know, okay,

right?

You might be from Benjamin.

You could be from Zebulun, but I think the idea that you've been grafted into Israel,

Joseph's back.

Ephraim's gone.

Okay?

So however you get sorted, okay, I just don't want to be in Gad.

That's just a terrible name.

Gad Zooks is how every time I hear it.

That, watch, I'll be in Gad.

Okay.

So what is this number then?

And you know, it's like one of these perfect numbers, right?

12 ,000 times 12 ,000 equals 144 ,000.

Here's the answer.

What this is, is a symbolic figure of everybody who's saved.

From the, from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, to Adam and Eve, everybody who has had

faith in the coming Messiah, to everybody who has faith in the Messiah who's come, that this is the, a

symbolic number of everybody who's saved.

The end.

That's what it is.

But you're gonna note here, here in the ESV, you have this thing

show up.

Okay?

Let's forget that thing, because it's not part of the original text.

If we were to just keep reading, okay?

12 ,000 from the tribe of Benjamin was sealed, and after this I looked, and behold, a

great multitude that no one could number.

The great multitude is the same thing as the 144 ,000.

So that, that's the idea.

There's no, there's no segue.

The one you're looking at gives way to the vision of the other.

They are one and the same.

From every tribe, nation, language, people, standing before the throne of the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with

palm branches in their hands.

So the 144 ,000 and the great multitude are the one and the same.

It's, it's representative of everybody who's saved.

Okay?

Let's see.

Some say it's a group of people.

Yeah, we got that.

All right.

So hopefully that answers Jacob's question from Malawi.

And Jacob's just wonderful to see online when he's online.

So, all right.

And let me check to see if there are any other further questions that came in.

Yeah, Dan is also missing.

Sherry says, that's right.

Dan is also missing.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, Carlos, for the, the link to the Bill Mounts article.

Okay.

Carlos, regarding pulpits.

In Nehemiah chapter 8, verse 4, it says,.

And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden platform, and they had made for the purpose.

That's the closest thing you can get to a pulpit.

Okay.

All right.

Let's see here.

Carlos tried to help us with the, the technical issue.

We weren't able to solve that.

I had to engage in lip -reading.

Okay.

All right.

He said to him, truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.

And I heard that there is a textual variant where the comma is in the wrong place.

Okay.

So here's the question.

Jason MC says, in Luke 23, 43, I, truly, truly, I say to

you today, you will be with me in paradise.

I have heard that there's a textual variant where the comma is in the wrong place, that the comma should be after today.

Is this true?

And I would say, Jason, no, absolutely not.

So the, so, let me show you something here.

Let me see if I can still find this.

Codex Sinaticus.

Hang on a second.

Let's do a quick Google search for Codex, Codex, no, Codex

Sinaticus.

All right.

Let's find this.

All right.

All right.

So here's the home of Codex Sinaticus.

Let me show you something.

And let me just see if I can, I'm going to go to see the manuscript.

This is an old website and it's, it's just, doesn't work as well as it used to,

but I want to zoom in on a passage.

So I don't want Genesis.

Let me go to, let me go to one of the better ones.

John chapter one.

Here we go.

Okay.

Now I got to zoom in.

Let me see if I can do this.

No, I don't want to do that.

No, no.

Sorry.

I'm zooming away.

I don't want to zoom away.

I want to zoom in.

Okay.

Hold on a second here.

There we go.

Okay.

If I can make that just a little bit bigger than we're going to be cooking with gas.

Okay.

Let me see if I can cheat.

There we go.

Okay.

That is a portion of the gospel of John chapter one.

What do you notice?

There ain't no punctuation.

Okay.

There is no punctuation.

And notice another thing.

There are no spaces between words and there are no capital

letters and lowercase letters.

Okay.

So you, when you talk about written language, written language is similar to computers.

Okay.

Do you guys remember windows 3 .1?

Okay.

As a Mac user, I only remember it as the butt end of many jokes.

Okay.

But some of you were foolish enough to actually try to do work on that thing.

Okay.

But do, does your, do our operating systems look like they looked like back in the

nineties?

No, not at all.

What's happened?

Incremental improvements, right?

So written language, you have to think of it this way.

So in the ancient world, written language had a particular look and feel to it.

So written language 1 .1, there were no uppercase and lowercase.

There was no punctuation.

There was no spaces between words.

And somebody later said, you know what?

It would be a lot easier to read these things if we put some spaces between words and we

put in punctuation.

So the idea then is, is that when somebody says there's a variant reading in Luke 23, where the comma is

moved, I sit there and laugh.

Okay.

Because when Luke wrote Luke, the original manuscript, this is what it looked like.

There were no commas.

There were no upper and lower cases.

There were no spaces between words.

So somebody claiming there was a variant reading based upon a comma, I chuckle because

that's not how this worked.

Okay.

So and it wasn't until well after Sinaiticus that they, that they, that, you know, they started adding some of

these things.

So our best two old manuscripts of the, of the Bible are Codex Vaticanus and

Codex Sinaiticus.

These are our two best.

And we have a whole bunch of other different manuscripts, but these are two, but this is a great example of what, what this

stuff looked like.

So you know, so today you will be with me in paradise.

Today you will be with me in paradise.

That's, you know, that there's, there's no, that distinction doesn't exist.

So, all right.

Good questions, by the way.

All right.

Let's see here.

All right.

Another question.

How do we, so here's a question from Crystal.

How do we as true believers explain how repentance works and why it is needed for eternal salvation?

Thank you.

All right.

Good question.

Okay.

So first of all, here's the question.

What is repentance?

Okay.

Now insufficient answer, and I do mean this, insufficient answer would

be it's sorrow for sin.

It involves that.

Okay.

So when we talk about what repentance is, it involves two things.

And I won't, I won't go into the longer study on this, although I have in the past.

Just, we'll make reference to the basic idea.

So according to the scriptures, and I'm summarizing how the scriptures describe repentance.

Repentance is going to for sure involve sorrow for sin.

That comes through the preaching of the law.

God's law convicts us of our sin and we just feel awful.

However, that's not sufficient because, we'll note, did Judas feel sorry

for betraying Christ?

Yeah.

Eventually he did.

Did that do him any good?

No.

Right.

Okay.

So the second part of repentance then is going to be

confident faith that Christ forgives us of our sins.

And so the two have to go together.

So for instance, Saul, when he was confronted with his sin of disobeying the orders of God,

what did he do?

Did he, did he have any sorrow or remorse?

Nope.

He deflected.

It was their fault.

They made me do it.

It's like, did you wear your big boy pants today, King Saul?

I mean, doesn't the buck stop with you?

Right?

So he didn't own his sin at all.

He deflected.

When Judas came to his senses, he didn't deflect.

He completely admitted that he had done wrong, but he didn't have confidence that Christ would forgive him.

He went to his co -conspirators, who happened to also be the chief priests, and looking for an

absolution.

Did they give him one?

They basically said, no, it's all on you.

He threw the money back into the temple and they didn't even want to touch it because it was blood money.

Of course it was blood money.

You're the ones who gave it to him.

You know, it's like, okay.

So on the one hand, you have Saul not repenting at all.

There's no repentance.

Judas repenting.

So a great example then of biblical repentance is going to be King David.

Okay.

In the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite.

Okay.

David, wow.

I mean, sins horrifically.

Compounds the sin even more and covers it up and

makes it look like he's done this wonderful thing by marrying the widow of a war hero.

And so he's going on in his merry way and God's not happy with this.

He sends Nathan the prophet.

Nathan the prophet confronts him.

And the first words out of David's mouth are, I have sinned against the Lord.

Full stop.

I've sinned.

Now I would note, okay.

Wives pay attention to me on this one.

Okay.

Have you ever said to your husband, your apology doesn't count because I had to

point out that you were wrong.

Okay.

Nathan had to point out David's sin.

Did his repentance not count?

Okay.

You'll note that sometimes God has to use other people to confront us

with our sin.

The true measure of whether or not somebody's repented is not that it dawned on them all by

themselves that they did wrong.

If you were truly sorry, you would have figured it out yourself.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

So Nathan confronts David.

David says, I have sinned against the Lord.

Nathan's response, God has put away your sin.

He gets an absolution.

Now there were consequences, pretty good ones, well -earned ones, but he was

forgiven.

So the idea then is repentance is going to always include those two things.

Sorrow for sin, acknowledging it, and also confidence in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins.

And then read Psalm 51 if you're confused about this, right?

Where he says, against you and you only have I sinned.

And yet he says, wash me and I'll be whiter than snow.

Clean me.

Open my lips and my mouth will declare your praise.

So he's the one who has confidence that God forgives, despite the fact that he had sinned horrifically.

And so God puts it all away.

So that's what true repentance is.

It always involves those two things.

So.

All right.

There was another question.

My daughter Victoria asks, how do we praise?

The Bible tells us to make a joyful noise and to sing Psalms and such, but it doesn't tell us

how.

How do I do this in my daily life?

Karen Goodwin.

All right.

Good question.

Okay.

I would note praise oftentimes is taking what God has said

in his word and putting it to music and verse and things like this.

And so this would involve singing Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs and stuff like this.

One of the things that we've been able to do here at Kungsvinger over the past year and a half, two years now really,

is that we sing the intro.

Okay.

And so I would note that it is a good practice that if you are

using a good piece of software, like the Pray Now app or whatever, the Pray Now app

will have the Psalm, a portion of the Psalms for the day, and learning how to chant and to sing those things.

And then there's, what is the name of that?

There's some really good, like Lutheran worship, like if, you know, the Contre

from Fort Wayne and stuff like this.

So the idea that praise is, you know, learn the hymns, get some good CDs, sing along with them, choose a

hymn for the day, sing the Psalms and things like this is praise.

And then, of course, we do this when we come to church, right?

This is a musical church.

Okay.

Thank God.

And you'll note we engage in congregational singing.

Thank God.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Evening and morning, the music of Lutheran daily prayer, that you can find that on Apple Music, and things like,

right?

Yeah, you can find it on YouTube.

Okay.

There's some wonderful, like, for instance, if you find the channel for Higher Things on

YouTube, sometimes they, at their conferences, they will videotape some of the

congregational singing that takes place.

And it's spectacular.

It's absolutely spectacular.

Some just wonderful hymns that you can find there.

So that's what I would recommend.

And then, note, if you don't own a hymnal, get a hymnal.

Lutheran service book, it's not that expensive.

Get a hymnal.

My hymnals wear out very regularly, not only for use in the divine service, but for

daily use, you know, as part of my devotional.

So, yeah, next to my Bible, my hymnal is like the most important book I got.

So, I don't know what you just said or why you just said that, but I

rebuke that in the name of Jesus.

I would note, when Lutherans try to do contemporary music, that it comes across as really bad karaoke.

Yeah, just shout to the Lord.

Yeah, yeah.

Sorry, sorry.

It's just, it's just no, yeah.

No, we do contemporary music really poorly, just really bad.

And I would note, somebody who pays attention to what's going on in, like, megachurch

evangelicalism, congregational singing is dead in those churches.

The praise and worship time is a performance, and them putting the words on the screen is kind of a

courtesy now, but there is no ongoing

expectation that the people are participating in congregational singing.

You couldn't hear anyone singing even if they were standing next to you in those venues now,

right?

So, and y 'all can always tell when Nikki Roseborough's in the congregation, because, you know, her voice really

kind of stands out among the, yeah.

And when she's gone, we're like, fall apart.

Oh no, Nikki's not here.

Dang it.

What are we going to do?

Don't follow Pastor Roseborough.

He'll lead us over a cliff.

Right, yeah.

So the idea then here, and then you'll note, many of the hymns that we sing take large portions of scripture and put them to

verse, or take the themes of scripture and put them to verse.

And if you haven't figured it out, when I have a singular passage,

I have a passage where I have a major theme that I'm preaching on, oftentimes the hymn that is going to be chosen

to enhance and to kind of buttress that theme.

During the summer months, it's a little trickier to do that because the readings are kind of all over the place.

So, but I'm kind of excited for tomorrow's sermon because I'm going to be focusing on that 1 Corinthians 10

bit about the Old Testament being written for our, as examples to us.

We're going to take a look at an Old Testament text.

You know, it's like, well, it references it.

Why don't we read one?

You know, it's like, you know, so if you haven't heard my issues, et cetera, lecture that I gave

just a few weeks ago, I was talking against the fad driven church.

But one of the fads I went after really hard was the nine minute homily.

If you've heard some confessional Lutheran churches, the pastor preaches for like eight or nine minutes.

And I'm sitting there going, no, this has got to stop.

I mean, when you read like Walther, like, you know, so when I was required to read Walther back in seminary,

Walther says the sermon needs to be 45 minutes long.

Okay.

45.

I haven't even quite, there's a few times I've hit that.

Okay.

But that takes a lot, a lot more work.

But the thing is, is that if you, if you, if I were to preach nine to 10 minutes every Sunday and you

guys come with the regularity, you know, on good week months, you'll hit three Sundays a month,

right?

You've only heard 30 minutes of Bible.

If I preach, this is no way to disciple people.

So, all right.

You're going to be given the Bible, whether you like it or not.

Okay.

Carlos says, Romans 11, 23.

If this implies that one can be saved, lost, and then saved again, using the never saved argument can't be

applied inversely.

That's a good point, Carlos.

I like, I like your exegesis.

Lutherans do not teach one saved, always saved.

Okay.

Clear passages always govern.

Paul says in Galatians 5, I think verse 4, you who would be justified by the law,

you have been alienated from Christ and you have fallen from grace.

Right.

And then Jesus in Matthew 13, Matthew 13, you think of the parable of the sower and

the soils, right?

Okay.

They hear the word, they receive it with joy and they survive for a little bit of time, but when the cares of this

world come in, they fall away, Jesus said.

Does that sound like once saved, always saved?

No.

Okay.

So, the idea here is, is that that being the case, so you're saying that if somebody is

baptized, that's not a guarantee they'll be in heaven.

Correct.

You have to continue in the faith that you have been given.

And let me give you an example.

All right.

Did any of you choose to be born?

Were any of you pestering your parents saying, you know, I really want to be born and you guys need to like, you know, have a

date night or something?

Nope.

None of you did that.

Okay.

So, your physical life was given to you as a gift.

Was it not?

Okay.

You didn't ask for it.

It was given to you.

That being the case, are you required to steward the gift that you've been given?

Yes.

Okay.

If I decided that I was going to, you know, go into parkour, okay, and start bouncing off of

the buildings in downtown Grand Forks, okay.

Right.

Would I be stewarding my life?

Well, if I took up parkour and you've heard that I perished, fell into a

dumpster and died, would you be shocked?

No.

You'd be saying, why was he so stupid to be doing parkour?

The man was 56 years old.

He had no business bouncing off of anything.

Right.

Okay.

But it looks so fun.

Okay.

That's bad stewardship.

Okay.

The person who skydives without a parachute because they want more views on YouTube.

When they make a big splat on the ground, is that a good stewarding of the life that God has given them?

No.

It is entertaining.

Okay.

And you'll note then that, you know, there's certain other things that you can engage in, you know, like an unhealthy lifestyle and things like

this.

So, similarly, how do you steward the gift of eternal life that God has given you in the waters of your

baptism?

Because the text says baptizing, teaching all that Christ has commanded.

Baptism and teaching have to go together.

If they go together, that means you have to come to church.

Okay.

You want me to become a pagan?

It's super simple.

All right.

Just keep me out of church for a good year and a half and I will have like face paint on and I

will have gone rogue.

Okay.

I've gotten completely native and pagan.

Okay.

Feed your faith.

Steward the gift that God has given you.

Don't imbibe on false doctrine and false teaching.

It'll poison you.

Right.

Okay.

You know, good points.

All right.

Let's see here.

For first -time Bible readers, where is a good place to start?

A strategy, et cetera.

Thank you.

They're curious and I've been trying.

Okay.

So, this is a question from Crystal Halverson about, where is a good place for Christians to start?

Boy, you know, I used to have an answer to this that I've changed.

So, kind of the standard answer that people will give for first -time Christians is to read the Gospel of John.

And I think that's not a bad place to start.

I still think that's a good one.

I would start with the Gospel of John, then go to Genesis and

read up to Exodus chapter 20, but then switch over

to Romans and Ephesians and Philippians, you know, to kind of work that

out.

And then I would note that once they've gotten to that part, if they're not in my catechism class, then

we declare them to be anathema and cast them out.

No.

By the time they've finished with that part, they really need to be in my catechism class or in a good catechism class so that they can

have proper guidance on how to understand what it is that they're reading, you know.

And so, you're going to note that, coming back to the words of Christ,

go make disciples of all nations.

If there are disciples, disciples are learners, what does that require that there be?

Teachers.

So, you'll note that in Christ's great commission is the implied and absolutely necessary

understanding that teachers are necessary.

So, anybody who is new to Christianity, yes, they need to begin reading the

Bible.

And because we're making disciples, they need to be under the care and tutelage of a faithful

pastor.

That's absolutely necessary.

So, okay.

Let me see here.

All right.

I think that I got the earlier questions.

Let's see here.

We have to wrap up soon.

Okay.

Oh, John.

Terrible joke.

I have to share it.

John Paletto says, leading people off the cliff needs to be updated to a musical notation called the

cleft.

Okay.

So, here's where we're going to.

Oh, yes, Dan.

Okay.

Can you be the representative for the discordant ones?

Una.

Okay.

That's a great question.

In the types and shadows, the coat of many colors that Joseph

wears, I think, is a reference to the throne of Christ.

Because behind the throne of Christ is something that looks like a rainbow of many

colors.

And so, I think it's a visible representation of the fact that Joseph is a type and shadow of Christ.

And I think it finds its antecedent.

I think it finds its fulfillment in the throne room of Christ and the

many colors behind his throne.

That's what I think it's a reference of.

Okay.

Another question?

So, here's the trick.

When you look at ancient tribes, even if they inhabit similar, the same

regions, because of the mobility of people groups and because of the conquest of

different nations, like the Persians.

So, you got the Medes and the Persians coming after the Chaldeans.

You can't make a direct connection between ancient groups, even if

they're inhabiting the same place, to the current situation.

Because there's just too much intermarriage and things like this.

I would say that there are probably good genetic antecedents there, but it's not going to be pure.

So, you just, you can't make these one -to -one equivalents.

So, next.

One more.

Oh, it's a statement.

Here we go.

No.

I think I know the answer.

No, you are not David.

Okay.

So, when you read.

Okay.

So, here's the thing.

When you read the different historical accounts of David, there's a long

narrative that has different vignette stories in it.

Okay.

In each vignette story, somebody in that story is going to be an antecedent to Christ,

or a type and shadow of Christ.

But the thing is, is that it's not always David.

That's the thing.

So, in the story of David and Goliath, you are not David.

Okay.

You do not need five smooth stones.

I know that you constantly miss all the time.

So do I.

So, just don't sweat it.

Jesus is the one who comes on the field for you.

When you look at the story of David and Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite,

yes, you are David.

Okay.

That is a correct way.

And then, Abigail.

There's a wonderful story of this woman who was married to a man by the name of Naboth.

And in Hebrew, that means fool.

Okay.

Could you imagine a guy embracing that as his name?

Okay.

Was it Naboth?

Yeah.

Nabal.

Nabal.

Nabal.

Fool.

Nabal.

And so, the guy embraces the name.

He goes by the name of Fool.

It's like, how stupid do you have to be to do this?

Okay.

And he was really thick and stupid.

And he received from David protection, like legitimate protection.

And he returned David's kindness with complete disrespect.

Okay.

He completely dissed on him.

And David was ready to murder the guy.

Okay.

And Abigail, his wife, did what was absolutely necessary, and

by doing so, saved the guy's life.

Okay.

And in that particular story, Abigail becomes the type and shadow of Christ.

Okay.

And so, the answer is that it depends on the vignette story.

You know, when David screws up, yes, you're David.

When David has victory, no, he's Christ.

Okay.

Well, why do I always have to be the loser?

Because you're the sinner, and Christ is the righteous one.

Okay.

This is how it works.

Okay.

You're never the solution.

You're always the problem.

Christ is always the solution, never the problem.

Okay.

Exegetical rules here.

Okay.

Great question, by the way.

Anything else?

All right.

Cool.

That was fun.

All right.

So, let's see here.

One more just kind of comes sneaking in here.

A question, what is the meaning of the story where Joshua and Caleb supported Moses in

the fight to lift up his staff?

Was he sitting on the seat of Moses?

No.

Corey, yes, this is being recorded.

So, this is real simple.

Okay.

So, there's a particular account.

I forget where this is.

I know it's in the Torah, but where the Israelites are having a battle.

And as long as Moses kept his hands up, they were winning.

And when his hands went down, they were losing.

Oh, my arms are tired.

Moses, keep those hands up.

Okay.

Okay.

So, this is not touchdown.

This isn't this.

Okay.

Anyway.

Okay.

So, just work this out with me.

They're losing the battle unless Moses' hands are like this.

So, Joshua and Caleb had to keep his arms up.

What does Moses look like standing there on that cliff with his arms up?

The cross.

It's that simple.

So, yeah.

Good questions.

All right.

And yes, this has been recorded.

I think it was actually Aaron and her.

Carlos is right.

Yeah.

Probably Aaron and her.

But either way, he's got his hands out and he looks and from every distance, as long as he's

making the sign of the cross, we're winning.

Okay.

And by the way, when Israel would camp, okay, the presence of the Lord would stop and they would set up camp.

If we were to take a drone and lift it up and look at how Israel was organized, what would we see?

A cross.

Okay.

It's absolutely amazing.

And when there's one particular account in the Torah where after they had been camped for a while, they

were setting out and they were being led out.

The tribe that led them all out was Judah.

And the person who led them out, who was at the front of Judah, was a guy whose name is mentioned in the

genealogy of Christ.

Very interesting stuff.

So, yeah.

The cross and Christ are all over the Old Testament.

You just gotta learn how to look for it.

So, all right.

All right.

This is where we're going to finish up.

All right.

Those of you online, we're going to end the stream here.

And I don't have to head out anywhere.

We're gonna pull out a salad bowl and see what we can do.

We'll have a little bit of fun here.

But we will reconvene tomorrow at Kangsvinger Lutheran Church in Oslo, Minnesota at 9

30 a .m. for the divine service.

And we will be having a normal Bible study afterwards tomorrow.

And we intend to have this type of

Bible study once a month.

So, the last Sunday of the month moving forward.

So, like last Sunday in August we'll do ask a pastor kind of thing.

But make sure all the questions, including the discordant ones, get to secretary.

Otherwise, I will not be able to get them all.

All right.

Peace to you brothers and sisters.

Lord willing, we'll see you guys next time.