Expedition 44

Doc Ryan and Matt continue their series on Biblical Atonement.

Sacrifice:

KFR-Kaphar (atonement): They're six different KPR words in Hebrew, four of them are nouns, two of them are verbs. The basic sense of the verb kaphar means to purge. It comes from Acadian word kuppuru, which means to wipe clean. The blood the offering will be used to purge the tabernacle, purge the sacred space, to purge the altar, to purge this or that vessel. It's never applying to the human, to the human offerer. It's to make sure that sacred space is not rendered impure by a common human being who is not sanctified as a priest to occupy. A lot of sacrificial system is about preparing sacred space for your visit or preparing sacred space that God deems it fit to spend time there. It's really not about what goes on with the offerer’s sin.

The sacrificial system for an Israelite wasn’t about us, wasn't about the offerer so much as protecting the offerer from God, from the divine presence or purging sacred space of any impurities so that God could meet the priests there, or God can meet the offerer there.So the blood was a decontaminant or ritual detergent to purify sacred space. Atonement is purging of the stain of sin from sacred space.

Blood: the blood manipulation was about cleansing sacred space. In combination with atonement language, it meant to purge or cover to decontaminate the sanctuary. The blood was never applied to people except in the ordination of the priests or when the covenant was enacted at Sinai. Sin was seen as a stain and part of the forces of death. Blood was seen was part of one’s life force so the blood would overpower, dissolve, cover over the forces of death in sacred space and purge it from God’s presence.

Did God require blood to forgive? blood was about purifying sacred space and not about purchasing personal forgiveness. God can just forgive when we come in faith to him.

Our view in the west is often of the virgin needing to be thrown into the volcano to appease God but as we’ve seen here in Leviticus this is not the way Yahweh works. That was the way the pagan deities worked. Israel’s sacrificial system looked like the pagans’ systems on the outside but when we look closely Yahweh is moving his people away from that way of thinking while using a framework that was in their ancient culture.

In the Torah sacrifice and forgiveness were not necessarily connected. Here are some examples:

God allowed the sacrificial system as a way of meeting His people in their culture and allowing them to worship him through it. It was allowed not demanded.

The sacrificial system was a signpost that pointed to Jesus as the greater sacrifice, but God allowed it as a way for Israel to show their allegiance and worship to Yahweh.

Doc Ryan and Matt begin a series on Biblical Atonement.

Today’s Episode covers

Some questions to think about on this journey through Atonement:

Atonement Theories

Some interesting History

Though PSA is seen in evangelicalism as the gospel (This has been depicted in the recent documentary “the American Gospel”) but it is interesting to note that in all the orthodox creeds and early church ecumenical councils there is no definition of the atonement in terms of accepted or rejected theories. Where the early church agreed that Christ had saved the human race from sin and its consequences, there was no unambiguous tradition as to how this was brought about. The only line in the creeds that talks about the cross is in the Nicaean Creed and it’s “For us and for our salvation”. There was no discussion on the mechanics of the cross except in Christ’s victory over sin and death, and our salvation because of that. So, to make PSA “the gospel” and the rejection of that view as heresy actually flies in the face of church history.

Dr. Will Ryan and Pastor Matt continue the series on women in ministry.

1 Timothy 3:1-7

Titus 1:6-9

Can women be elders?

Nearly all English versions use the masculine pronoun (he) and the possessive (his) in 1 Tim 3:1-7. For example, the NIV above uses “he” seven times and “his” four times. But in the Greek text all the verbs are generically expressed, capable of being either gender, and there are no masculine pronouns or possessives.

One Woman Man

the purpose of this phrase is not the gender but the sexual ethic and faithfulness. Against polygamy and homosexuality.

Paul also writes about the gift of singleness in 1 Cor 7 and that it does have spiritual advantages for men and women. Does being unmarried exclude one from eldership? If it does then Paul and Jesus couldn’t be elders at our church. This furthermore points to the meaning of “one-woman man” being about sexual ethic rather than gender or marriage requirements.

• The list of behaviors in Timothy and Titus that are criteria for eldership that Paul says are capable of women:

o  Eldership is good work (3:1), Paul expects women to do good work (5:10​)

o  Elder must be above reproach (3:2), Paul expects women to be irreproachable (5:7)

o  Elders must be temperate (3:2), Paul expects women to be temperate (3:11​)

o  Elders must be self-controlled (3:2), Paul expects women to be self-controlled (2:9,15)

o  Elders must be respectable (3:2), Paul expects women to be respectable (2:9)

o  Elders must be hospitable (3:2), Paul expects women to be hospitable (5:10​)

o  Elders must be able to teach (3:2), Paul expects women to be teachers of what is good (Titus 2:3)

o  Elders must not be drunkards (3:3), Paul expects women not to be drunkards (Titus 2:3)

o  Elders must not be lovers of money (3:3), Paul expects women to avoid being adorned with gold, pearls, and expensive clothing (2:9)

o  Elders must be good managers of their household (3:4), Paul expects women to rule their households (5:14​)

o  Elder must show dignity in the they keep children under control (3:4), Paul expects women to show dignity (3:11​)

o  Elders must not be new converts, falling into condemnation on account of pride (3:6), Paul expects women to be humble and not under condemnation (5:10​,12)

o  Elders must have a good testimony from outsiders (3:7), Paul expects women to have a good testimony from others (5:7,10)

Every item on Paul’s list of qualifications for eldership are things he expects of both women and men in 1 Timothy and Titus. Every item listed here we see Paul encouraging the women to become elsewhere in these same letters.

Paul specifically uses gender neutral terms to show that women and men should both aspire to this office and these behaviors. The masculine pronouns and possessives are not in the Greek text.

“One-Woman Man” is an idiomatic phrase that is about sexual faithfulness between one man and one woman in marriage.

Scripture does not ban women from being elder but rather encourages men and women to mutually work together leading and guarding the flock.

 Dr. Will Ryan and Pastor Matt continue the series on women in ministry.  

Can Women Preach/Teach/Lead? 

 1 Cor 14:31​-39  

1 Tim 2:11​-15 

Textual Criticism 

Are 1 Cor 14:34​-35 original to the text?  

Manuscript evidence indicates that verses 34-35 may be a later addition and not original and should possibly be omitted or put in brackets or as a footnote in our translations. If this is original, it must fit the context where women and men are permitted to prophesy and pray.   

Context of 1 Timothy 

The purpose or occasion for Paul’s writing is to stop the spread of false teaching. It is in his intro, throughout his letter and in his conclusion.     The cult of Artemis (Diana) was based in Ephesus where Paul is writing, and her temple was one of the wonders of the ancient world. This cult had a female only priesthood and many other female dominated groups existed in Ephesus during the time of Paul. But Especially the Artemis cult was hostile towards men. This may play in the background of Paul’s conversation here. 

Authority 

The first issue here is the word for assume/exercise authority is not the usual word for authority (Arce or Exousia). It is authentein and is a word only used one time in the Bible (hapax legomenon). Outside the Bible this indicates the meaning of violently usurping authority or domination.  I do not permit The Greek word here is epitrepo. It is in the present active indicative grammatical form. That means it is not a command (imperative) and it is not an ongoing action but an “at this time” action.  

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission 

Does this teach that a woman must be silent in church? Complementarians will say yes, Egalitarians will say no.  The only command (imperative) in this whole section is that a woman/wife must learn. Notice that this part comes before Paul’s comment on not teaching. The logic is that one must learn before they can teach. Quietness and submission are the posture of a student.   

Creation Principal: Are women more easily deceived? 

The references here to Genesis 2-3 are framed by the women’s need to learn and their deception by the false teachers. Just as Eve listened to the snake the women are listening to and spreading false teaching and becoming like Eve. The antidote to being like Eve is to learn. Paul is not saying that all women are more easily deceived (and should never teach), he’s saying the women in Ephesus are acting like Eve in the creation narrative. 

•      1 Cor 14:34​-35 is questionable in the text at face value as it contradicts 2 other explicit statements in 1 Corinthians of women not being silent in Corinth and participating in worship through their speech. If it is legitimate, it is about order in the service that is not distracting, but also a call to learn as in 1 Tim 2.  

•      Women should not dominate men in a harmful way as to usurp authority. Men should not do this as well.  

•      One should learn before they teach

 Dr. Will Ryan and Pastor Matt continue the series on women in ministry.    

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 

Ephesians 5   

Head in 1 Cor 11:3 

• Christ is the head of man- meaning Jesus is both the creator and the 2nd Adam. He is the source of the man’s life in the familial sense and as creator. 

• Man is the head of the woman- meaning source. Woman came from man. Paul in verse 12 levels the field by saying every man since Adam has come from a woman. 

• Head of Christ is God- The messiah came from God to us (the incarnation). The source of Jesus is in the Godhead. This is not about God creating Jesus or about subordination within the God head (this thought was condemned as a heresy (Arianism) by the early church- Eternal Subordination of the Son [ESS])  

• “Head” is about source (provision/savior) and not authority. It is a metaphor.  

• Paul is concerned about modesty and equality in the church.  

• He doesn’t want their beauty of women to distract from the worship or the honor of God.  

• Paul wants men to act like men but also be separate from the world.  

• Head coverings are cultural, and Paul was using it as an equalizing factor in the church. In our culture what can we do to create equality in the church?

Doc Ryan and Matt Mouzakis with Expedition 44  look at the wrath of God. 

We just finished a series on hell and sometimes when we think of Hell we think of divine wrath. We are also doing a series on Tough Topics in the Bible at our church and did an installment on divine violence and wrath came up in our conversation pertaining to that. When we think of God’s wrath it is sometime in the context of an angry dad who “flies off the handle” without a moment’s notice. If we already think of God as a distant, all-powerful sovereign, then his anger will seem more like a dangerous and volatile expression of a deeply angry being. But if we already think of God as a generous, creative father, then his anger will seem measured, fair, and a reasonable expression of his justice and fairness. So, what we need to do is clear the deck and trace the development of God’s anger through the storyline of the Bible.  

The character of God 

We need to start with the way God describes himself: Exodus 34:6-7 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” 

 o Here God describes himself as slow to anger. It literally means “long of nose”. When someone gets angry their face or nose (burning nose) gets red so when the biblical authors say that God has a long nose it means that it takes him a long time to get angry.   

God’s anger 

God’s hot anger and wrath in the Bible are a major reason why many people struggle to read the Bible. These words are fairly common in the Hebrew Bible, and they depict God in ways that make many people uncomfortable.   

Conclusions from the Portrait of God’s Anger and Judgment in the Torah  

God’s anger is his just and measured response to the covenant betrayal of his own people. It is not a volatile or unpredictable explosion of abusive violence.  

o The most consistent response of God’s anger is to give people what they have chosen, even if it leads to self-destruction.  

o This anger is expressed either as exile from God’s presence or in the hiding of God’s face and the removal of his protective and or- der-creating power.  

God is slow to anger, which means:  

o God will put up with people’s betrayal for much longer than is reasonable.  

o God will always accept people who turn to him with soft hearts and genuine humility, no matter what they’ve done.   

Jesus, God’s Kingdom and Judgment, and Divine Anger   

When Jesus came onto the scene announcing the arrival of God’s Kingdom, part of his announcement was warning about the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Much like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus warned of God’s coming judgement if Israel did not accept his offer of the Kingdom. 

  o God’s wrath is not abusive anger but a protective anger. God is not a rage-a-holic  

o God’s wrath is passive at times. Taking his hand off and allowing the natural consequences to happen 

o God is slow to anger, which means:  

 God will put up with people’s betrayal for much longer than is reasonable. 

  God will always accept people who turn to him with soft hearts and genuine humility, no matter what they’ve done.  

o God’s wrath is not an eternal attribute of God but rather a response to injustice.

Dr. Will Ryan, Pastor Matt Mouzakis, and Jana Diaz finish up a great series on the different views on hell.

In this episode we answer a few questions we've been asked and also revisit our framing questions from the intro episode. 

• Traditionalists believe that the soul was created immortal.  

o Greek philosophy held to an immortal soul and some early church theologians held this view as well and it became the default position in the church since.  

• The fire may be literal or figurative 

o CS Lewis and NT Wright take the view of someone becoming less of the image of God (Eternal Goluming) 

o Tertullian, Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, and Johnathan Edwards believed that the saints would rejoice to see the justice of God in the torment of the lost.    

Scriptural 

• Genesis 2:17​  

• Daniel 12:2  

• Isaiah 66:24 

• Mark 9:43​-44 43   

• Matt 25:41​,46 41  

• Luke 16:24​ 24  

• 2 Thes 1:9  

• Revelation 14:10​-11  

• Revelation 20:10​, 14-15     

Strengths 

• Tradition and History 

• A Motivational tool for evangelism (turn or burn) 

• “Takes sin seriously”   

Weaknesses 

• Many assumptions built into their exegesis of scripture which we’ll address in the next video.  

• Paints a picture of God that is a bit monstrous. Why create people just to torture them? 

• Doesn’t account well for the severity of punishment based on the crime. All is equal. Some try to say that there is a spectrum of pain based on the sinner, but this is speculation and not in the Bible.  

• No text in the Bible states that the lost will live forever and there’s no text in the bible that says man is immortal 

• God giving people a lobotomy so that they don’t remember parts of their life in order to not mourn the lost is problematic. If we are made for fellowship with God and each other it seems like it’s a terrible thing to do to eliminate memories of those we loved.  

• Though ECT is a good tool for evangelism, is it true? In Acts the disciples and evangelists never used Hell in their evangelism sermons. They occasionally used judgment but talked about the one who was going to judge (Jesus) and not the method of judgement. ECT is not in Acts at all, so should we use it as a tool to evangelize?  

• No torment text in the OT (Daniel just says contempt and Isaiah talks about dead bodies). If this was that important why wouldn’t God mention it earlier? And why not have Israel evangelize the pagans, instead God has nothing to do with them.  

• ECT’s view of infinite punishment for sin against and infinite God goes in the face of “each will be judged according to their works”. There seems to be levels of reward and punishment that ECT doesn’t account for except in the level of pain which is nowhere in scripture.   

• ECT never actually deals with the problem of sin if sinners are allowed to exist eternally. So God never actually wins and as a creation where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3) and he is all in all (1 Cor 15). The books are never closed.

Today Dr. Will Ryan and Matt tackle Christian Universalism, or Ultimate Reconciliation, Or Universal Restoration, Or Patristic Universalism. This view states that all shall be saved. It is not pluralism which means all roads lead to God. This Christian view of universalism states that through faith in Christ alone all shall be saved. This view affirms all cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith and believes in judgement and many believe in a literal Hell, Universal Restorationists (UR) just believe that it won’t last forever.    

Strengths 

• Consistent with the character of God who is love 

• Scripture seems to support the possibility of all being saved 

• Affirms God is powerful and able to accomplish what he wants to 

• Give a sense of Hope for the world 

• If God truly does love all and save all then it really motives followers of Jesus to see people in a reflection of that love and not just see them as people God wants to judge.  

• Can make sense of the death passages and the salvation passages 

• Makes sense of Retributive and Restorative justice passages  

Weaknesses 

• All doesn’t always mean all. Sometimes it means all kind. Like as in the gospels where it said, “all of Jerusalem came out to see Jesus”.  

• Tradition following the 4th century has been pretty silent for UR 

• May decrease evangelistic efforts. But do we need Hell to convince people? The disciples didn’t use it in Acts, they simply proclaimed Jesus’ kingship. 

• If we are all saved why not live however we want to?  

• UR has a hard time explaining the 2 paths and gates and point of no return passages. Some arguments seem to be a stretch.  

• Free Will- Does God override people’s will? He seems to give them over to their desires if they don’t want Him and allows their heart to be hardened. Will he force himself on them through torment (at gunpoint?)? UR seems to go against free will that hold to God’s non-coercion (but to His persuasion).   

• Hitler and the Satan will be saved? 

• Some will say that this makes the cross useless without (capitol) punishment.  

• A lot hangs on post modem repentance. The bible neither affirms not denies this. Maybe it depends on the amount of light given?