Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

I was asked during the break when we were doing the meet and greet how we came up with the title Downhill Apologetics and I don't remember. I know what I think it means to me but Sean, what did we mean by that when we came up with that? Well, we have the uphill position in the battle and we act like everybody has the better position than us and we're constantly struggling and fighting up hill when, in fact, that's not our position in any way, shape, or form. We're the ones who have the upper hand, the upper position. And so we ought to act like it, not give pride, not that kind of upper part of the hill position.

But in terms of our reasons, being confident and bold as we speak with people, we have every reason to be excited about where we're at. Yeah. Good, that's exactly what I thought we were talking about. Love it when it comes together. So tonight, Ron, that makes sense. He's the one that asked me. Tonight is then part two of our series on this downhill apologetics. In part one, a few weeks ago, Dave shared the idea that we get the idea of Christian apologetics. One place we get it from is First Peter 3.15, which says, but in your hearts honor Christ, the Lord is holy. always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect.

And again, the Greek word that's found in that verse is apologia, from which we get the English word apologetic. You're probably familiar with a number of modern day Christian apologists, Norm Geisler, Robby Zacharias, Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and Hank Hanegraaff, just to name a few. Now not all of those though were what we would call presuppositional apologists. When I first became a believer, which is now 45 years ago, hard to imagine that, but 45 years ago I gave my life to Christ and at the time Francis Schaeffer and Josh McDowell were really very, very popular among the circles that I hung out with.

Josh McDowell actually came to one of the college groups that I was a part of as part of a large church and he spoke to our college group. Josh McDowell, if you don't know much about him, he had written a book that was very popular called Evidence, The Demands of Verdict, which in that book, he basically describes how he came to faith in Christ by trying to prove that Christianity was false. And so he's very much an evidentialist, was his approach.

Francis Schaeffer was largely a presuppositional apologist, although later on he began to sort of modify his approach to apologetics to include elements of evidentialism into his apologetics. And an author I came across, Jay Budzizowski, a nice Polish name, I think I said it right, he himself has written many books on the topic of apologetics. He had this to say about Schaeffer's middle-of-the-road approach to apologetics. Jay wrote, Presupposationalists, Schaeffer held, are right to assert that the ultimate premise of Christian and anti-Christian systems of thought are utterly at odds in relation to their origin.

So we would just say, we're coming from a different world view than the non-believers. But on the other hand, evidentialists are right to assert that between Christian and anti-Christian systems of thought, there is always a point of contact in the shape of reality itself. I love that. You know, the debate is fun until you get down to reality. And all of a sudden you say, wait a minute. But it's in the shape of reality itself. The reason for this point of contact, he argued, is that non-believers cannot bring themselves to be completely consistent with their own presuppositions. And this inconsistency is a result of what many call common grace and is in fact the reality of God having made and spoken into a defined and unavoidable creation.

Thus illogically he wrote, men have in their accepted world views, and get this, men have in their accepted world views various amounts of that which is ours. But illogical though it may be, it is there and we can appeal to it. So all he's saying there again, if you follow him, is that the unbelievers' anti-God arguments ultimately break down and become logically incoherent. They end up appealing to universal truths that actually come from the Christian camp without even realizing that they're doing so. In essence, they argue that you can't prove the existence of a supreme authority, but then they end up appealing to universal ideas that are supposedly authoritative.

And I'm gonna have more to say about that later on in the message, that contradiction. Now before I get into the main points of my message tonight, I want to briefly comment on why apologetics, or specifically presuppositional apologetics, is so important. Dave actually gave us one of those reasons last time when he gave us his talk, and he said that all men are spiritually dead. This means that no one has the capacity to reason his way into the faith. Faith is a gift from God. It's not an offer to take it or leave it based on the data. And so many approaches to apologetics has that idea that if I just make the right pitch, if I use enough logic, if I use enough reason, then an intelligent person can sort through the information and arrive at a conclusion.

But we know that that's not true, given that men are spiritually dead. So this tells us that any apologetical approach that relies on appealing to man's discernment is fundamentally flawed. This is why apologetics based solely on reason or evidence are ineffectual. But however, to be fair and a nod to Schaeffer, we do see in Romans that all men have a God awareness within them. We are told that they are desperately trying to suppress that awareness. Therefore, there is something in the human heart that we can appeal to in our apologetics. But we must remember it's not the logic of our arguments, but rather the light of God's word that brings a person to faith in Christ.

We can make the most persuasive arguments we want, but bottom line, it's not gonna be our words. It's going to be the Holy Spirit turning on the light bulbs in that person. A second and related reason why our apologetical approach is important is because non-pre-suppositional approaches can easily lead us towards preaching another gospel. And according to Paul in Galatians, that's not a good thing. I think he said that was anathema. If I believe that I can reason a person to faith in Christ by shaping my message the right way, then there's a tendency for me to start to tweak the gospel to suit the consumer or the unbeliever.

This mindset has manifested itself in numerous ways in the modern church. There are churches who orient their liturgy and their sermons to make them quote unquote seeker friendly, assuming that there is such a thing as a seeker. Preaching the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel is another manifestation of this thinking. Replacing terms like sin with mistake, or I heard one mega church guy refer to sin. He didn't want to use the word sin He kept saying, it's not God's best, is his definition of sin. Eliminating disturbing symbols like crosses. There's one church that actually went so far as to take the cross off their stage and replace it with a giant teddy bear because it just helped people be more comfortable.

Trying to be more attractive to the unbeliever. One famous preacher who was criticized for his softball sermons said in defense, He said, I am just the circus barker whose job is to get the people to come into the tent. Hopefully others can introduce them to Jesus Christ.

Trying to be culturally relevant as if the gospel isn't is another. You'll often hear that said, we're just trying to be culturally relevant. What all these have in common is that they turn Jesus into your sensei who can make you into a better you rather than your savior who can save you from the penalty, the power and the presence of sin. Now some of these examples may seem trivial to you, but it's this sort of mindset that puts us on the edge of a slippery slope. I often think myself of the example of a key in a lock when I think of sharing my faith. The key is the gospel and the lock is a human heart. My job is to insert the key and turn.

If the lock pops open, fantastic. But if the lock doesn't open, it's not my job to take out a file and file away on the key until I can get the lock to open. And that's what often our different approaches to apologetics is exactly doing, is filing away on the gospel till it finally will get that heart to open up. And as a result, you get these false decisions for Christ because they didn't really hear the gospel. They just heard, try Jesus, he'll improve your flight through life. That is exactly then what most non-pre-suppositional approaches to witnessing do. they adjust the key to fit the lock. Many churches that started with faulty apologetics have now gone apostate and deny things like the deity of Christ.

Christ is the only way to salvation, the existence of the Trinity, the fallenness of man, while now affirming sins such as abortion and homosexuality. And I'm not talking about whacked out fringe churches. I'm talking about whole denominations that were once as orthodox as they come are now in this situation. Now, I'm not saying that non-pre-suppositional approaches to apologetics always leads to these outcomes, but it tends to put us in a bias in that direction. So in the time remaining, I want to apply then some apologetics. I'm going to actually give you some apologetics that deal with two so-called problems that will often be thrown at you when you're trying to share your faith.

The first problem that will be thrown in your face is the problem of faith. And by that, your critics will say, well, you Christians are operating on faith. I have reason. I have science. I have evidence. I have facts. And so they kind of put it in a, you're in the one corner of faith, but we have real data. But we're going to see that's a false premise. And then the second problem we're going to talk about is they'll throw the problem of evil at us as well. And to them, that's a slam dunk. Now, in this message, I'm going to be borrowing largely from, and basically summarizing two chapters from the book Always Ready by Greg Bonson.

Dave mentioned the book last time. As I go through these issues, so a lot of this material is coming from Greg. I've just reworded it into my words. And I do recommend that book to anybody who really wants to read up more on the topic of presuppositional apologetics. So first, let's deal then with the problem of faith. And in your kid's corner, I think there were two points. First one was the problem of faith. When you share the gospel with unbelievers, you will often hear them say that they can't accept what you're saying because it relies on faith. In their mind, it's faith versus reason, or faith versus observable facts.

Popular jabs at faith are that it's something that's contrary to evidence, or belief in something without evidence. That'll be the two things they say.

Either you are, by faith, you are accepting something that's contrary to what I can see with my own eyeballs or they're saying you guys are believing in things that you can't even back up there's no evidence whatsoever. The debate about the age of the earth is an example that will they'll use to show how faith is quote contrary to the evidence. They'll point to some scientific proof that the earth is millions of years old to counter the Bible's claim that it's only several thousand years old. They'll point to the miracles in the Bible and say there's no evidence whatsoever to show that those things ever happened. Sidebar here is kind of humorous as listening to somebody talk about, they were in some college class discussing. The professor was going on about the parting of the Red Sea and the guy was trying to explain that you don't understand that there was hot winds and they blew on the water and the water was really very shallow so it actually only had to move a few inches of water and it really

wasn't this great party to the sea and one of the students in the back just kept saying praise God praise God and the professor finally said what are you saying I've just explained it this is not a miracle he says praise God the entire Egyptian army drowned in two inches of water. Well these critics though they wrongly claim that in order to have faith you have to abandon in your intellect and suspend critical thinking skills. There's two common arguments made to support the claim that Christian faith is irrational. One, they say our dogmas defy logic. God became a man, really? The virgin birth, come on, miracles?

And two, they say it lacks empirical evidence for its claims. For example, the Bible talks about how the sun stood still for a day. They're saying, where's the proof? Christ rose from the dead. Where's the proof? It's a false assertion that Christians follow a blind faith and don't want to be confused with the facts, as our critics say. Nietzsche, the German philosopher who famously declared God as dead, said faith means not wanting to know what is true. That was his assessment of us who operate by faith. Faith means that you don't want to know what is true. But is that so? Do Christians really not want to know the truth?

Commons like these are really just ignorant ad hominem attacks. But they work. They put us on the defensive. Well, all of a sudden, we feel like we're on the ones that are fighting the uphill battle. In his book, What is Faith? Jay Gresham Machen wrote, we believe that Christianity flourishes not in the darkness, but in the light. And he went on to say, one of the means which the Spirit it will use to bring a revival of the Christian religion is an awakening of the intellect. He denied the false and disastrous opposition which has been set up between knowledge and faith. That's a false argument. Arguing that at no point is faith independent of the knowledge upon which it is logically based.

And then he also added, faith need not be too humble or too apologetic before the bar of reason. Christian faith is a thoroughly reasonable thing. Hebrews 11.1 tells us, now faith is the assurance of things hoped for for the conviction of things not seen. And that word conviction can actually be translated as proof or evidence. So our faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proof or the evidence of things not seen. The point Bonsen is driving home then is that Christian faith does not pit faith against reason. That's what our critics say. Faith in this corner, reason in this corner. The fact of the matter is that Christianity pits faith against faith.

And that's a key thought I want you to hang on to, is that what's going on today in all of the debates or the world views, it's faith versus faith. It's not faith versus anything else. 1 Corinthians 1, 18 through 25 says, "'For the word of the cross is folly "'to those who are perishing, "'but to us who are being saved, it's the power of God, for it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart. Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preached to save those who believe.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Pretty powerful apologetic statement there. There's no, Paul, there's no bashfulness. There's no timidity there. He's saying we have the truth and we're going to declare it and it's going to run up against the foolishness of this world. to think we're fools. Granted, but that's because they're spiritually blind.

But that does not mean that our faith is hocus pocus made up. Paul warned Timothy in 1 Timothy 6.20, oh, Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. For by professing it, some have swerved from the faith. The issue comes down to whose wisdom are you going to have faith in? It might be overly simplistic, but I think it's fair to say that the Enlightenment and other modernist movements were motivated more by anti-God sentiment than a sincere pursuit of the truth. That is so important to understand the Enlightenment, that these were people who started with a presupposition, there is no God.

Now, show, I'll go find data to support that presupposition. Their claim that they're just looking at the fact, they're just studying the rocks and the fossils and coming to that conclusion is bogus. They are not telling the truth. The allegation that Christianity is just another mythology is not new. Peter wrote, for we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. Now, that's a bold claim. All you can conclude is that if that's not true, Peter's either a liar or he's crazy. That's the only conclusion you can reach, right?

Do you realize how much our lives are driven today by science that has never been observed or proven? Very interesting book in our sidebar. A good book, How to be an Atheist. What was the author's name? I can't remember. It's Mitch Stokes. I actually got a copy for my atheist nephew. I said, here's a birthday gift. Because he's an atheist. I said, OK, if you're going to be an atheist, here's a book on how to be an atheist, written by a Christian. But he actually went through exploring science in there. And he really, it was very eye opening to show how much fact of science we believe in that actually we don't know.

We have done experiments that seem to confirm, corroborate what we think is going on under the hood. But truth be told, we really don't know. And he said it could be six months from now somebody will come up with a better explanation. Even the basic model of how an atom works that we all learned back in sixth grade. He says, we have no idea, that's actually how it works. That's just what we think is going on inside there. So all those pictures you see of the electrons and everything's orbiting around? We have no idea if that's actually what it looks like. And yet we take all of that as fact. The point being here is that we're on the one hand, we have a man like Peter saying, I saw it.

And then we're just, we just dismiss that. No, it's gotta be a lie. But then we have all this science today that again is based on things that are not observable, things that we can't reproduce, speculation. And we take that as fact. Consider the battle over climate change. We're told that the Earth is on a dangerous warming trend compared to tens of thousands of years ago. But the truth is we only have data, actual data, that somebody wrote down in the lab book that goes back about 150 years. So everything that goes back 10,000 years and beyond is absolute conjecture and guess. And it's built on a premise, a presupposition, that the Earth is very, very old.

What if the Earth isn't very, very old? All of the climate science goes right out the window. It's all they dig their ice cores. Oh, a million years ago, this is what was going on. Well, what if it ain't a million years old? You got a problem. But they just, they refuse to believe that there's a God, and so they come up with a story by faith, and then they sell it, and it becomes the gospel.

So again, you got this going on with science, but meanwhile, we have people like Peter who claim that they were eyewitnesses to Christ's death and resurrection, and unbelievers just wave their hands and summarily dismiss it as myth. There's no reason to reject Peter's claims other than they don't like the implications of what he's saying is true. Go back to Nietzsche's statement, faith means not wanting to know what is true. Juxtapose that statement against Romans 1.25 which says, they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. That is exactly what is going on.

The unbeliever just says, I choose to believe a lie, anything but believe in God. It isn't the believer who lacks intellectual honesty. There is no reason for a Christian to shy away from declaring what they have placed their faith in Christ. We've already seen in 1 Peter 3.15, which tells us to always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that's in you. This implies that there's a reasonableness to our faith. The unbeliever claims that Christianity is irrational. His claim that Christianity is irrational is itself irrational. Bonson writes, the Christian notion of faith, unlike most other religions, is not an arbitrary leap of emotion, a blind stab of commitment, a placing of the intellect on hold, for the Christian faith or belief is well-grounded Without the Christian worldview, reason itself becomes arbitrary or meaningless.

It becomes unintelligible. And he goes on in the book to explain how, once you throw something absolute, like the word of God out the window, you can't even begin, if there's no more absolutes, you can't even begin to reason. I mean, just logic falls apart. Think about it. Without an absolute source of truth, such as God, there can be no platform from which to reason, because there are no absolutes. And as a side note again, I mean look at what's going on in the definition of words. We can't even agree on what a boy and a girl is anymore. It's like, how do you, you know, would you go say hello to the boy? Well, I'm not sure who to go say hi to.

Because we don't know what a boy and a girl means anymore. So then, Christianity does not defy logic. It reveals the organizing principles of logic. Without Christianity, without the absolute truth claims, We don't have logic to build our arguments on. Now some argue Christianity cannot, some argue against Christianity because it cannot prove all of its claims, i.e. God exists, the earth was created in six days. René Descartes, who was a major philosopher in the age of reason, lived by the premise that one should doubt and criticize everything unless it can be shown or proven to be true. So his model was, I mean, he would have made great member of the city or the state of Missouri, doesn't have to show me state, you know?

Show me, I won't believe it unless you show me. And that was Descartes' way of thinking. He literally would eat an apple and wonder, sit there eating the apple wondering, am I really eating an apple? Or am I just dreaming that I'm eating an apple? And you thought the Matrix movie was kinda trippy, but Next time you have an apple, just sit there and enjoy your apple and say, am I really eating this apple or am I just dreaming that I'm eating this apple? This is actually pretty absurd if you think about it. To truly live out this philosophy, you would have to doubt your memories of past experiences, your present sensations, the meaning of words, etc.

How could you ever know with certainty what was real or not? What if you were dreaming that you were dreaming that you were dreaming that you were eating an apple? Everything and anything is possible in this world where it's all full of doubt. Quoting Bonson again, nobody can doubt everything, nobody. If a person were truly to doubt everything, his memory of past experiences, his present sensations, the connections between experiences, the meanings of his words, the principles by which he reasons he would not be thinking at all, much less doubting, and there would be no he to think or not to think. A fundamentally, logically basic set of beliefs, in essence, of faith is inescapable for anyone.

Everybody operates on some level of faith. Persons who say they will not believe anything without proof or demonstration are intellectual hypocrites. they violate their own standard for reasoning. It is impossible to live assumption free, again, think faith, when making truth claims. All truth claims are based on conclusions derived from earlier claims and so on. At some point in the process, you will be relying on your assumptions for what is true. If you keep drilling down on your thinking and your belief systems, if you can't finally hit the bedrock of this is absolutely true, everything comes a tumbling down.

And so ultimately, the unbeliever who's trying to make their own truth claims, they are relying on presuppositions. They have a set of givens that they take by faith are true. There are some critics who do accept the reality that everyone operates on some basic level of assumptions, but they have a different criticism. They object to the kind of evidence to which Christians appeal and the kind of presuppositions that we hold to, from which we reason. Specifically, they object to the idea of believing something on the basis of God's personal authority rather than on the basis of impersonal and universally accepted norms of observation, logic, utility, etc.

These people believe that you have to start from a position of neutrality. There's a whole other chapter in the book on that that I didn't dive into. They say, look, look, no, we're not going to assume there's a God or anything else out there. There's no truth source out there. We're going to start with this blank slate, this neutral position. And then with our reason and our intellect and our logic, we are going to arrive at the truth somehow. You have to reason your way to the truth.

reject anything like a god interjecting himself and saying, hey, here's the truth. Julian Huxley, he was an evolutionary biologist and eugenicist, more modern times, he wrote numerous books and articles and in one of those in the book called Religion Without Revelation, he wrote, I believe firmly that the scientific method, although slow and never claiming to lead to complete truth is the only method which in the long run will give satisfactory foundations for beliefs and we quite assuredly at present know nothing beyond this world and natural experience." I mean it sounds like a statement of faith, right? Notice the dig of true religion in his book title, Religion Without Revelation.

Huxley rejects the notion of revealed authority and embraces the authority of natural science. Now sad for a man who spent his entire life studying nature and writing books that he missed the fact that nature was declaring the glory of God, Huxley's approach amounts to faith. He admits that science will never fill in all the truth gaps. Because of his presupposition that there is no God, he is doomed to be among those mentioned in 2 Timothy 3.7 which says, those who are always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. These critics say you can't use a source like the Bible to argue what is true.

Another philosopher, an English philosopher named Anthony Flew, spent most of his life as an atheist. But then later on in life he actually became a deist and when I asked him why the switch he says, well I just followed the evidence. He actually, through his own search, he actually concluded there's gotta be intelligent design. But he never became a Christian. He still denied the authority of the Bible. He denied Christianity. But he wrote, "'An appeal to biblical authority cannot be allowed "'to be final in over-writing. "'For what is in question precisely is the status "'and authority of all religious authorities.'" And so that would mean God too.

We, God can't say I'm the authority because that's gonna be a self-affirming authority. Authority can't say I'm the authority. You have to arrive at that's the authority some other way. The authority can't say I'm the authority. According to him, we can't trust the authority of the Bible even though it contains claims within it to be the written word of God because that would be a self-validating authority. So this line of thinking, if it's true, would force you to conclude that either there is no way to ever arrive at an ultimate authority, or man himself is the final authority when it comes to deciding who and what is the final authority.

So if I get to decide what's the authority, guess who's the ultimate authority in that line of thinking. In his book, The Defense of the Faith, Van Til points out that the unbeliever necessarily views himself as the final authority. In the final analysis, unbelieving man is the final authority. He wrote, the natural man that assumes that he has the final criterion of truth within himself. Every form of authority that comes to him must justify itself by standards inherent in man and operative apart from the authority that speaks. Bonsen concludes his discussion of the problem of faith by saying, to criticize the Christian's irrational faith is itself nothing more than to express a different religious faith, a faith which in one way or another adopts the ultimate authority and self-sufficiency of the human mind and reasoning.

My conclusion is this, everybody lives by faith. Everybody lives by faith. Even Stephen Hawking, who has finally figured out that there is a God, even though he said absolutely there is no God in his last book just got released, he now knows there is. He lived by faith. Don't let unbelievers fool you into thinking they have reason and evidence on their side and that we don't. Much of what under guards their beliefs is sheer speculation masquerading as science and logic.

Okay, so that's the problem of faith. Let's talk now about the problem of evil. Perhaps the biggest problem Christian apologists face and the one that is presented to them most often is the problem of evil. The problem critics say is that if God exists and is as good and powerful as Christians say, why doesn't he stop all the evil in the world? Surely an all-powerful God could snap his fingers and all human suffering. Sounds reasonable, right? I admit it, we probably wonder that ourselves a few times. Somewhere in your life. To many, the existence of evil proves that God does not exist. Many Christians are at are lost to give a defense for this line of thinking.

One weak defense that's offered sometimes by some Christian apologists is to use kind of the scales system. And they say, well, all right, there's evil. Yeah, true. We can't really explain that. But there's way more good stuff. And God's good. And so all the good stuff we put to God's credit. And that tips the scale way over on the good side. So God's still a good God. And we really can't answer the evil part, but there's so much good that that's sort of irrelevant. That's a very bad apologetic, by the way. At the root of the problem of evil is the charge that the Christian worldview is logically incoherent. Any evil, our critics say, pokes holes in the Christian outlook of a good, powerful God.

The Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote this. He said, is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he's impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he's malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then why is there evil? According to Hume, there was these three propositional statements he made that he said that the Christian believes but are ill ought. You cannot hold all three at the same time. Those three statements were, God is all powerful. God is all good, and evil exists. He said, you can't believe all three things at the same time and be logically coherent in your faith. As it turns out, there's a problem, though, actually for the unbeliever, pointing out the problem of evil.

Only those who can declare definitively what is evil can even raise the problem of evil. You can't even fault somebody else for evil unless you yourself can actually define what evil is, right? That stands to reason. The unbeliever cannot logically do this since there is no objective standard by which to make such an assertion. So, Bonsen is saying, hey, Christians, we can say evil exists, but in fact, the unbeliever can't even say evil exists because they have no way to actually say what's evil. Is public approval the measure? Is that how you decide what's evil? If the majority says something is good or evil, Does that make it so?

If that's the standard, then past genocides, slavery, abortion, these all could have been deemed good, have been deemed good at different times in history, even though we now all, even the unbelievers today in our culture would say, well, except for abortion, they would say those are evil. And yet in times past, because groupthink said they were good, they were good. More absurd than groupthink is the notion that good is whatever evokes an individual's approval. If the definition of good comes down to a personal preference, then good becomes completely subjective. It would be impossible for anyone to declare anything as good or evil, except for how it pertains to them themselves.

That's all you can say is if it's a matter of what I think, I can, if I say it's good or evil, it's irrelevant to what you guys think. You have a different set of standards. Unbelievers will sometimes attempt define what is good or evil by its instrumental or consequential effects. Something as good if it achieves a certain result, such as the happiness of the greatest number of people. If you get into discussions of morality and right and wrong and good and evil with an atheist, they'll say, well, they'll argue that they can actually define a morality that's binding as well. And they'll use these instrumental arguments.

Well, if the most people think it's good, then it's probably good and the society should adopted. But by this standard, in order to implement a good thing, you would need to know how to rate happiness. If that was your definition of what it meant to be good, is that it brought the most happiness to the most people, you would have to be able to first define what do you mean by happiness. And you'd have to make sure you could calculate all the unexpected consequences that your good action that you implement to try to bring about happiness, how can you determine that that's going to be the most happiness for the most people.

You end up in a no-win situation. Good can only be taken as whatever produces happiness if one can assert that happiness is good. Who said happiness is good? You have to start with the definition of good before you can decide if a chosen end is a good one to pursue. I realize we're down at a very philosophical, logical level here in these arguments. But we throw these words out, and we We don't realize how much we are relying on our presuppositions of what good and evil is and how much we're relying on the Christian worldview that has informed that even for the unbelievers. And without that rock foundation, these are meaningless terms that become very, very subjective.

Philosophically, the problem of evil is a problem for the unbeliever. In order to use evil in his argument against God, he has to show that his views on what is evil are meaningful. Just because he says it's evil doesn't mean it's evil, because he's got nothing to back him up, other than his opinion. His unbelieving worldview makes this impossible for him to do so. There must be a presupposition behind the objection to evil. If he's going to say something that's evil authoritatively, he's got a presupposition somewhere driving that statement. Otherwise, his statement is irrelevant. I think Bonson makes an important point here.

Who gets to define good? In Luke 18, we read the story of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and addressed him as the good teacher. And Jesus looked back at him and he said, why do you call me good? Only God is good. The point I want to stress is that humans, as image bearers, can only reflect the goodness of God. It's an important thought. We can only reflect goodness as God is good. We cannot define good, we cannot originate good. It's not our concept. It comes from God and all we can do is reflect it. We are not the authors or the definers of what is good. We get into trouble when we make up our own definition of good and then throw it back into God's face.

And I think that's what goes on a lot, is we have our conceived notions of good that then we hold God to our definitions instead of looking to God for the understanding of what good is. I believe this is one of the fundamental mistakes that Christian Universalists make in their thinking. In case you don't know what a Christian Universalist is, they're a group who believe that every human being, every ever born, will eventually come to faith in Christ and be in heaven. Every soul, every born, they say, will eventually accept Jesus as their personal savior. Some of them will do it from hell in their thinking. They will have gone to hell having not accepted Christ in this life and somehow in hell they're gonna still hear the gospel and they're gonna accept Jesus at some point in time in Christian Universalists.

That's what they believe. I know it does sound a little strange. They maintain that there is no way that a quote, good and loving God could ever consign people to a never-ending punishment such as hell. And so arguing, they hold to their own presuppositional definition of what is good, and then they have to go back to the scriptures and try to look at the scriptures through that lens and then work their way around the eternality of judgment and all those other problem verses. And they have ways of explaining away from them. If you're actually interested in learning more about this particular view, you can read the book, The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbot.

I actually read two thirds of the book because I have some friends who have adopted this view. My take, though, is that the author starts with his own presupposition of what a loving God should be like as opposed to what the Bible reveals about God. Now, I'm sure if he was here, he'd probably take me to task and think I'm being too simplistic in my criticism. But I think it does boil down to that. He starts pretty much in his own testimony about he just had a problem with the idea that some people spend eternity in hell. And so he worked backwards from there and redefined what a good God would be like. So back to the problem of defining what is good and evil.

There are many things that believers and non-believers agree are intrinsically evil. Many things that both believers and non-believers agree. Child abuse, murder. Is that safe to say that probably everybody in our culture would agree those two things are not good? At least today. Neither would consider their abhorrence to these as merely personal opinions. They wouldn't say, well, I'm opposed to, personally, I'm opposed to child abuse, but if you think differently, peace, no. They would say, no, it's wrong for everybody. Throw them in jail. Same for murder. So we would all agree that there's this universal truth that these two things are evil.

But where does this sense that something is intrinsically evil come from? How can a non-believer declare something is wrong and not simply not to their liking? What philosophy of value or morality are they using to make their judgments? They are reduced to using personal choice and feelings to evaluate the evilness of something. But these cannot be the basis for declaring something as universally evil. Just because I think it's evil, I cannot speak like a god and say it's evil for everybody. When a non-believer shows indignation at evil, they reveal a presupposition that there is an absolute standard. And I believe that's their God consciousness at work in them.

Otherwise, their indignation merely arises out of their own personal feelings about something. When confronted, the unbeliever will say that evil is ultimately based on human reasoning and choice relative to individuals and cultures. But this is logically incoherent.

He shows on the one hand his belief that something like child abuse is inherently evil, but then he says the evil is subjective to the individual or the culture. If individuals or groups of individuals choose ethical values for themselves, they then cannot accuse others of doing evil if those others are holding to a different set of ethics. If there's a culture out there that thinks killing your neighbor is an honorable thing, this culture who abhors that cannot pronounce evil on them if in fact the standard for evil is based on culture based on popular opinion. The best you can do is call your own actions evil when you do not follow your own ethics. The unbeliever is trapped into condoning and permitting behavior that they wish to call evil. The truth is that every unbeliever secretly relies upon a Christian worldview in order to shape their own ideas of good and evil. They have to borrow from Christian categories in order to make absolute judgments.

Anti-theism presupposes theism to make its case. Now they don't admit that, they don't say that, but they have to. To be logically coherent, they have to be doing that. The problem of evil is a logical problem for the unbeliever, not for the believer. Believers can make sense out of their revulsion of child abuse because it violates God's laws. because God has said it is evil. And so we stand on an absolute standard that we can say with confidence, this is universally true, it's always evil.

But unbelievers, unbelievers to be justified in their moral outrage need to appeal to some divine or transcendent sense of ethics which they deny even exists. So if you're following all this, I am speaking with authority, they say to you, and this is true, and you're saying, who died and made you God? You know, you can't say that, because you're in your philosophy and your worldview, you're denying that there is any such authority, including yourself. At this point, the unbeliever could still point to the seeming logical incoherence within the Christian worldview as expressed by Hume. They'd say, well, all right, take us off the hot seat for a minute, but you still got a problem over here, Because you still believe that God is all good and God is all powerful and that evil exists.

So there, that's a problem. You're still in trouble. And the Bible does require believers to presume, in our presuppositions, we believe that God is all powerful and is all good. There are plenty of verses that support that statement. And the Bible does also make some very hard statements about evil. Isaiah 45, seven is probably one of the more famous ones stating this problem. And God says, I form light and create darkness. I make well-being and create calamity. I am the Lord who does all these things. And the word calamity there can be translated as evil. The fact that evil exists and is appointed slash allowed by God requires us to infer that God has a morally good reason for all the evil that exists.

God has planned evil events for reasons that are morally commendable and good. Hume's paradox is resolved by adding a fourth premise to the other three. God, in that fourth premise, is that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists. It's our faith that causes us to infer that evil always serves God's morally good purpose. More often than not, we won't be able to discern that purpose, but it's there. We see clear examples of it in the Bible. Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Job losing all that he had, Joseph being in prison. We know that Abraham's act of faith resulted in the greater good of God declaring him righteous and the resulting blessings that would come to all those who were his spiritual descendants.

We know that the injustice done to Joseph resulted in the greater good of the survival of many people. He told his brothers, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good to bring it about that many people should be kept alive as they are today. The problem of evil's existence in the presence of God's goodness and might is actually, and get this, is actually a psychological, not a logical problem. The only logical problem is how the unbeliever can account for making any objective moral statement about God or anything else. The presence of evil is a hard reality.

We simply aren't told how that evil always fits into God's plans in a morally justifiable way, but by faith we know it does. It is not logical incoherence that makes someone reject God. It is pride and self-righteousness. The unbeliever who demands that God give a defense of himself is demanding God to subordinate himself to their intellectual authority and moral evaluation. There's not enough I went over too fast or not, but remember Hume, God is all powerful, God is all good, evil exists, and there is, it does sound like a problem there, but add, and where evil exists, God has a morally good reason for that evil to exist, and you resolve this paradox, this contradiction, and by faith we infer this fourth one from the other things that we know to be true.

Once again we see the issue boils down to faith. You either have faith in the God of the Bible, or you have faith in your own competency to judge what is good and evil. Ironically, this is exactly the same way sin first entered into the world. Satan began his deception of Eve by asking her, has God said? Over here, God says. Over here, Satan whispered in her ear, has God said? That's exactly what's going on today in the debates between the believers and non-believers. All of them boil down to that simple equation. And Satan went on then to proceed to give her alternatives to to what God had said. The problem of evil is not a valid, logical argument against God.

It's a convenient excuse to not submit oneself to God. So, last few minutes, got a couple summary thoughts. At this year's Grace Agenda Conference, Doug Wilson gave a humorous analogy that describes many Christians' approaches to proclaiming the word of God. He asked us to imagine a mugger that approaches a victim, sticks a gun in their back and says, give me your money or I'll shoot. The victim turns around, sees the gun and says, oh, I'm sorry, I don't believe in guns. To which the mugger then apologizes all over themselves and then for bothering them and then walks away. In the analogy, the mugger is the Christian, the gun is the word of God, and the victim is the unbeliever.

The problem many Christians have with their apologetics is not the claims that they're making. The problem is that too often the unbeliever's faith in know God is stronger than the believer's faith in God in his word. When Peter wrote, always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for you for a reason for the hope that's in you, he was not implying that the truth needs to be defended in a way so as to make it more compelling than all the other conflicting worldviews. Pre-suppositional apologetics makes no apologies. It declares what God has said with boldness and confidence that his word will prevail over every vain and lofty thought raised up against it.

Hebrews 4.12 reminds us of this truth. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart, and no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him, to whom they must give an account.

But that's not because our arguments were not persuasive, that's simply because you've not called them at this time to yourself. And so help us to not be ashamed, to not be embarrassed, to not feel like we have to go home and practice up on our arguments to be more persuasive, but again, to realize that your word is powerful and that it will do what you sent it out, it will accomplish its purposes. And so again, just thank you for your word and for the revelation you've given us. As we go out this evening now, we just pray you keep us safe and that we'd have a great week. Come back again next week ready for more corporate worship. We pray in your Son in Jesus' name, Amen.

But that's not because our arguments were not persuasive, that's simply because you've not called them at this time to yourself. And so help us to not be ashamed, to not be embarrassed, to not feel like we have to go home and practice up on our arguments to be more persuasive, but again, to realize that your word is powerful and that it will do what you sent it out, it will accomplish its purposes. And so again, just thank you for your word and for the revelation you've given us. As we go out this evening now, we just pray you keep us safe and that we'd have a great week. Come back again next week ready for more corporate worship.

It's one thing to trip on a step, it's another thing to trip on a step two minutes after someone warned you to watch out for a step that lots of people trip on. It's one thing to order Diet Coke, it's another thing to order a Diet Coke with your fried stick of butter at the State Fair. It's one thing to come together, it's another thing to come together to humiliate one another; it would have been better just to stay home.

While some of the praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 may have happened when the church gathered, there's no doubt that the entire church has gathered as the church in verses 17-34. Five times in these verses, and three times in the first four sentences, Paul writes, "when you come together." In particular the second half of chapter 11 is about coming together (physically) to share the Lord's supper (verse 20), and Paul rebukes them for not actually coming together (figuratively) and so they were not actually eating the Lord's Supper (spiritually). One commentator called the scene “a theatre of discord” (Godet, quoted by Garland). It is possible that coming together can do more harm than good.

In the first half of the chapter Paul commended the Corinthians for their orderliness in recognizing appropriate distinctions. In the second half of the chapter Paul criticizes the Corinthians for their disorderliness in regarding inappropriate distinctions. The first half is about head coverings, the second half is about communion. The first half is about reflecting God-given structures of authority, the second half is about reflecting anti-gospel arrangements. The first half is about honoring one's head, the second half is about humiliating one's brother.

Verses 17-34 are all about communion, and especially about how the Corinthians were eating and drinking in an “unworthy manner” (verse 27, and the background of that claim is described in the first paragraph, verses 17-22). Most of the instruction I've heard about communion, and it has usually had much more to do with the nature of the elements more than the nature of the supper itself, has started in verse 23 and finished in verse 32. These are the only NT verses that repeat the Lord's instructions when He instituted the ordinance, so that's significant. These verses describe the consequence of unworthy partaking as sickness and death, which is also significant. And while acknowledging that "unworthy manner" could cover a variety of manners, the verses that bookend the instruction and exhortation, verses 17-22 and 33-34, are critical to defining what sort of manner is unworthy.

To be sure, the Corinthians needed correction. But as true as it is that those who administer the sacrament of communion should take this passage seriously, and so teach and warn partakers about the dangers involved, it is also true that not every believer and not every church that comes to eat and drink the Lord's supper has the Corinthians' sins. The Corinthians came together in a way that undermined the gospel, and there is more than one way to undermine the gospel. Many Christians served themselves first rather than their brothers and so failed to honor Christ who gave Himself for others. But many Christians today beat themselves up through miserable introspection when by Christ's wounds we are healed. Getting drunk at communion is not the gospel, and neither is dumpster diving to find sin to feel bad about.

In verses 17-22 we see the disorder and division when the church came together, and it did more harm, and good.

The previous paragraph stands out in the letter for its positivity and praise for the Corinthians' practice. The pat on the back now becomes a slap in the face.

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. He ends this paragraph in verse 22 by asking if he should commend them, and he can't even. When it involved head coverings, he gave them instructions so that they would know why what they were already doing was good. But the instructions he's about to give are so that they would know why what they were doing was wrong.

As I said earlier, the phrase when you come together refers to gathering as an assembly, a meeting of the church. The context is clearly Christians meeting for Acts 2:42 type of behavior; praying and teaching and fellowship and the breaking of bread. This is the church assembled for worship, and it's quite a thing to say that these meetings were for the worse. It's not preacher hyperbole either. In the following instruction Paul points out that the church of God was being despised (verse 22), the have-nots were being humiliated (verse 22), and some were being judged with weakness, illness, and even death (verse 30). That is worseful worship.

What could they possibly have been doing to make coming together worse?

For, in the first place (which he never gets around to saying "in the second place,” though we could probably see some additional points) when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. Report of divisions took up the first three chapters of the letter, and he already dealt with that, so there is something different about these “splits” (σχίσματα, schisms) as we'll see in verse 20. These divisions are not according to their favorite preacher but according to their perceived importance.

Paul says, I believe it in part. It may have been the same people who reported the previous problems (see 1:11), and the part Paul believed could be because he was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, or, his acknowledgment that sinners sin, even in the church.

Paul explains more in verse 19, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. There are two ways to take this comment. One way would be to take it as sarcasm, as if for the sake of argument Paul was using the same terminology as the privileged that they were the truly privileged, and that they had set up meal seating arrangements so that they could show off their preeminence. "Yes," Paul would be saying, "you all are quite recognizable, and wow, very impressive.”

The other way to take Paul's explanation, which I think is the better interpretation, is that Paul understands that, as it’s been said, "God draws straight lines with crooked sticks." In other words, some splits are unavoidable, “it is necessary” (δεῖ) according to God’s plan, and there is more harm, and good, that comes from these sorts of divisions.

Time is a great revealer of truth, so is community interaction. It's not always possible to know another man's character in a snapshot; in fact it's usually difficult to do so. But God has His ways of making things clear, of justifying His people, even through situations that He hates.

In His providence God tests the faithful and separates the faithful from the unfaithful. Of course that is not always how it looks on the surface to those who judge with partiality. You can imagine in a church setting, which is what Paul describes in this paragraph, that professing believers on both sides claim to be the ones being lied about, both sides claim to be in the #blessed position of persecution (see Matthew 5:11-12). Rarely will a selfish Christian say that he was the selfish Christian, that's part of the reason for the division in the first place. To admit it would be, possibly, to take steps toward reconciliation. Here Paul describes a division that does not lead to reconciliation so that God can show who is genuine, who is tested and “approved."

How do we recognize the genuine? Paul doesn’t give a list here, but there are some things to look for. Where is the growth in Christlikeness? Where is the humility? Where is the joy? Where is the worship? Keep watching and it will become obvious. Of course it is possible that sin is on both sides, not just one, but is anyone dealing with sin? Is anyone defending or denying it? Paul says that it is necessary in God's will and we can call it good even when it is difficult. Real divisions take place, real hurts happen, real loss occurs, and real good brought about by grace. Splits are hateful to God, and splits do not happen by chance but by the providence of God (Calvin).

Here is their particular problem. When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

This is inappropriate for members of one body, inconsistent with the nature of the gospel, unloving to brothers in the same family, and false to the symbolism of the Lord's Supper.

There's no doubt that Paul is referring to a meeting of the church, not just a private meal. But apparently there was often a meal involved prior to communion, and it likely occurred in a private home. The practice of the early church included the frequent breaking of bread together (Acts 2:42), and Jude referred to such meals and "love feasts" or "agape feasts" (Jude 12). It seems that these were not like our potlucks where the expectation is to contribute to one table where everyone can theoretically get a spoonful from every pot. These were BYOM = bring your own meal, and you eat what you brought but with the group.

The church is an assembly of different types of people, male and female, married and unmarried, young and old, masters and slaves, rich and poor, which is the division apparently accentuated here. Based on some archeological finds, not many houses had a large enough room to fit more than 10 or so guests at a time. There was often a main room with then overflow for the less esteemed. There may also have been a famine about this time (Suetonius mentions famines during the reign of Claudius, referenced by Thiselton), which would only have made the line between the "haves" and "have nots" more clear. But Paul puts no emphasis on the practical difficulties. He rebukes the flaunting, deliberate, selfish separation and indulgence. Some of the members, presumably even at one of their houses, were making no attempt to include others.

The extremes were, one goes hungry, another gets drunk. Perhaps some of the Corinthians were used to feasts to Dionysus (Greek) / Bacchus (Latin), the god of wine and festivity.

The Corinthians’ manners were so inconsistent that Paul says, ** it is not the Lord's supper that you eat**, regardless of what they thought they were doing. They had the symbol and no substance. The name, the Lord’s supper, is compared to “the Lord’s table” in 10:21.

It was tainted by the deadly combination of indulgence and indifference. This selfish devouring (προλαμβάνειν) of their own food contrasts with Jesus’ taking bread (λαμβάνειν, 11:23). Both “take.” The Corinthians “take” on their own behalf; Jesus “takes” on behalf of others. (Garland)

The questions are humiliating. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? I think it's important to point out that Paul's answer to the problem was not socialism. He didn't require a collection and then equal redistribution of food. He certainly would have encouraged those with more resources to help those with less, but the goal wasn't to make sure everyone had the same amount of food. Do you have more? Great! Then just eat your feast at home rather than doing it as dinner theater.

Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? It wasn't the possession or the consuming, it was a mocking of their fellow members, looking down on them and rubbing their noses on an empty plate. The word humiliate is the same word (a form of καταισχύνω) as “dishonor” in verses 4 and 5.

Unlike with their practice of head coverings Paul had no verbal hand-clapping for them. What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

Financial distinctions in the church are nothing new, and the rich can humiliate the poor, and the poor can resent the rich. Of all places, though, the division that comes from despising one another ought not be found around the communion table. This is the Lord's Supper. He is the Lord of who has what and how much. He is the Lord who died for our selfishness and our envy, who humbled Himself so that we could be humbled and saved.

There are, of course, other ways to humiliate and despise one another, that are no good. Don't just leave your irritation at the church door (or at home), leave your irritation at the cross. Don’t meditate and maneuver for sake of showing how different you are.

And as we look ahead to the remainder of the chapter, remember the context in which Paul admonishes the Corinthians to "examine" themselves so that they are not partaking in an unworthy manner. Paul's admonition has a wide application, but too many pastors have applied it in different ways that are inconsistent with the gospel. Don't despise other members of the body of Christ, and also don't despise that you are a member of the body in Christ.

And finally, be encouraged that God is revealing the tested and genuine. As we sing in “The Church’s One Foundation”:

though with a scornful wonder

It's time to finish working through this long paragraph, answer some remaining questions, and deal with a few implications for our relational worship.

I've said a couple times that this is a difficult passage. It is also an important and relevant passage, and it is a subject that Paul wanted us to understand. He commended the Corinthians for following the apostolic tradition he delivered to them, and in verse 3 he wrote, "I want you to understand...." It's true that some of what he goes on to say is more mysterious to us than it probably was to the Corinthians because they had his previous in-person teaching, but it's also true that these things were written for our understanding (and glory!) as well.

When we began to go through this section on head coverings I listed some sixteen questions that really needed answering. We've done some of that already in verses 2-10, but there are a few more crucial things in verses 11-16 and then some final thoughts on whether or not head coverings are for today.

Verses 11 and 12 qualify verses 9-10. Paul recounted both the historical fact that woman came after and from man and the divine intention that the woman was created for the man, not visa versa. These are creational realities that could have been different, but are true in fact because they are true by God's design.

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman. Stated positively, woman and man are mutually dependent. Both halves of the statement are true by logical equivalence. A woman, true of a wife but true of all women, needs a man for her to come into existence, and likewise a man needs a woman for him to come into existence. Neither comes to live without the other. This is true in the Lord, and so verses 8 and 9 can’t be used by (Christian) men to claim their superiority over women.

To make it clearer, for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. In the first case, God made Eve from Adam's side. After that, every man has been born with a mother. Even Eve’s name is related to her being “the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). As I said a moment ago, both a man and a woman are necessary to make more little men and little women.

And of course, All things are from God. The process originates with Him. It's all His idea, His arrangement, His doing. God is the head of Christ who is the head of man who is the head of woman. This truth reminds us of reasons both to be thankful for what comes from God and to be submissive to God who determines what comes. The diversity comes from Him, the equality comes from Him, the interdependence comes from Him, the boundaries and blending and blessings of it all come from Him.

These verses provide further evidence of the principle distinction in creation between men and women.

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? He asks the question, and even urges them to make the decision. But this is a rhetorical device and question. He just spent eleven verses making his case that of course she should pray (and prophesy, verse 5) in a way that shows submission to her head. Paul isn’t offering them liberty of interpretation here any more than when he said in in the previous chapter, "judge for yourselves" whether the communion cup is a participation in the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:15-16). The answer is unmistakable.

Another rhetorical question demonstrates how obvious the answer is. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

We are people who love the Bible. That is good; sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the ultimate authority. But note what the Bible says: nature teaches with authority so much so that disgrace or glory depends on submitting to nature's lessons. We know Psalm 19 that the heavens declare the glory of God so that all men should see His handiwork. We know Romans 1 that creation reveals the existence and power of God so that all men should honor God and thank Him. And here in 1 Corinthians 11 we read that nature makes it so that all men know how long to cut their hair.

We could call this natural law. It is the way that God made the world to work, not merely a scene of nature that we see, but a sense of what is fitting. All things are from God, including man and woman, including what grows out of their heads, and on their faces. Take one example. Epictetus, a Cynic-Stoic philosopher in Paul’s day, said “Woman is born smooth and dainty by nature (φύσις)…If [a man] removes his hair...he is a man who wishes to be a woman.” (quoted by Thiselton) Male and female, where hair grows and how long, is not a social construct. Of course not everyone pays attention to these creational laws; not every pays attention to biblical laws, but that does not make them less of a given by God. And of course there are exceptions, but exceptions argue for the norm not against it. Throughout history there are examples of some men with long hair (i.e., Samson), even some people groups with long hair, but how many of them claimed to be doing it for Jesus? Likewise there are examples of some women with short or even shaved hair. But nature teaches, through conscience and through observation, that long hair is glory for a woman. And ever since Paul wrote this letter there is also explicit Scripture, For her hair is given to her for a covering.

If her hair was the head covering, as some interpret the passage, we might have a little easier application. But not only would the previous arguments not make sense (as in verse 6, “If a wife will not [have long hair], then she should cut her hair short”?), Paul uses a different word in verse 15 for “covering” (περιβολαίου) rather than all the previous verses for “covering” (κατακαλύπτω). Plus, Paul only required the use of the symbol when praying and prophesying, not all the time. That would require a certain style when Paul is talking about a certain length.

Nature has not given us measurements in the metric or imperial systems. “Long” and “short” are vague words, meaning that their extent is unclear. Paul does not provide rulers or a rule; he doesn't have to, because we already know. Is it in the gut? I don't know where the sense of what fits with nature is located, but there are more masculine haircuts (lengths and styles) for men and also more feminine haircuts (lengths and styles) for women. The ideas we have in mind for men and women are not merely socially constructed (though they do have cultural details), let alone constructed by the patriarchy for sake of oppressing others. The disgrace and glory are built in by nature by God.

Though Paul commended the Corinthians for following what he had told them, that doesn't mean that everyone in Corinth agreed. Even after hearing this section they might want to argue. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. The key word, contentious is φιλόνεικος, “loving victory,” “i.e., striving to contend, or trying to force an argument for the sake of becoming ‘a winner’ rather than primarily to discover truth” (Thiselton).

This could mean that Paul doesn't want to fight about it and that churches shouldn't fight about it. It could be saying that head coverings is not something to argue over.

However, that would defeat his own purpose in the previous fourteen verses and do away with his commendation. For that matter, his arguments for at least the principle of the thing if not the actual symbol are based on Trinitarian, creational, and natural distinctions that can't be argued with. So instead, when he says that we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God, he means it as if he said that the practice of head coverings is something bigger than Corinth. If some in Corinth want to live in the margin, they won’t have his commendation.

Let's summarize and then deal with a couple things.

This paragraph teaches that husbands and wives, and by implication men and women, worship in relation to one another and should recognize their relations before God. Those relations are relations of glory in the order God made: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of his wife (and his daughters). This headship is an authority, though man’s authority is not absolute authority like God's (nor is every man the head of every woman, but only a husband head of his wife). The symbol of submission in worship between a (Christian) man and Christ is an uncovered head because men in Paul’s day typically covered their heads in worship to false gods. The symbol of submission in worship between a wife and her husband is a covered head, an external cloth over her hair. It is more than modesty, it is relational, and is to be worn when she is in a setting of public praying or prophesying, which based on 1 Corinthians 14 (and 1 Timothy 2), would be done with other women or children. This symbol for women was recognized in the Roman culture and Paul affirmed it in the church as apostolic tradition. It has no Old Testament precedence or pattern. Short hair on men relates to wearing no hood, and long hair on women relates to wearing a hood or other covering. Even nature teaches these sorts of distinctions between the genders, and those who want to argue about it have problems.

I have never been in a church that encouraged all the women to wear cloth head coverings in church or women's ministry activities. I read half a dozen commentaries on this passage, all considered conservative and most complementarian rather than egalitarian, and only John Calvin wrote that women should actually wear head coverings today (meaning his day, about 500 years ago). So I bought and read a book just about head coverings, titled Head Coverings: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times, written by a man who started the Head Covering Movement. This gives away his conclusion.

Surprising to me, I really enjoyed the book. I appreciated the exegesis he presented, the history he cited, the resources he referenced, and the tone he took. He made a very compelling case, and, if I were to change my position, I could see his point from the passage about it being right for women in every time and place to wear a cloth covering on their heads when involved in praying and prophesying.

In addition to what I had already been studying, his conclusion about verse 10 stood out to me the most.

That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11:10).

While he gave a few different possibilities for what "because of the angels" could mean, he also pointed out, it doesn't matter because the cultural symbol of authority, at least in this verse, isn't about cultural norms but about angelic observation. That doesn't depend on century or geography.

If you are interested, I do highly recommend the book, especially to read a current, Bible-based, passionate but not the wrong sort of pushy take on why head coverings are right. You may read it and be convinced, and I would understand.

But, I disagreed on a couple key points and on the final conclusion. What strikes me is that an uncovered head for men in worship is not a "people of God" thing first but a way to show the people of God in contrast to idol worshippers. It goes against Paul’s culture on purpose. And a covered head for women in worship goes with Paul’s culture on purpose. There is no biblical precedent or pattern for the symbol, the symbol is cultural.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 absolutely applies today in principle. The reality of headship is a creational reality, and it is pre-fall, meaning that relational authority is not a result of sin. A husband has authority over his wife, and though both are saved by faith, the husband still has responsibility for her in a way that is appropriately recognized in a corporate worship context, not just in the privacy of their home. The Trinity is not limited to a certain century, and nature is not limited to a certain location. These things do matter for us, and for all believers wherever they may worship.

But symbols change. What symbol(s) do we have for showing a woman's femininity and submission to her husband? Our culture has worked hard to try to do away with meaning in externals, and Christians are symbol gullible. We are also pride biased. Both, actually, are due to a failure to see ourselves in relation to others. A symbol doesn't have agreed upon meaning if I am over here defining it how I want to, which also means if I define it for me, you can't criticize (without offending me) my identification.

If a hood isn’t the symbol today, what is? A wedding ring isn’t the same because both men and women wear it; a ring doesn’t show gender distinction or submission. Neither do dresses versus pants. Hair length, while not Paul’s point, is a cultural battleground. These truths affect our worship, and we ought to be recognizing these relationships in our worship rather than simply wondering how we look.

There are still remaining application questions:

These verses are against competition, against self-advertisement, against glory as grabbed for. But this is not against glory for you, but glory for you as God gives it. Get glory the right way; glory reflected in our rightly ordered relationships. It is glory to give God glory, it is glory not to seek attention for oneself.

Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

Let's pray. Father, we come to this study in apologetics. Help me to be clear. Help me to proclaim what you have put in your word, not what men have created over the years about making a defense for the faith. Help us to understand it in a deeper way and help us to understand our place in the history of the church and the history of your redeeming grace to the world and civilization. So we thank you for those things. Help us to understand them in a different way tonight, possibly. Amen.

Ephesians 2, one through seven says this, and you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked. Following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ by grace, you have been saved, and raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages, he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace and kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Dead, we were all dead. Romans 1, Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, the good news to the people, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning his son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God and power, according to the spirit of holiness, by his resurrection from the dead. His resurrection from the dead. Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we ever seize graced and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. Your faith is proclaimed in all the world. For God is my witness whom I serve with my spirit and the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. For I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you. That is that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine. I want you to know brothers that I have often intended to come to you.

But thus far I've been prevented in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. I am under obligation to both Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you, also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. To the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in the righteousness of God is revealed from faith, for faith as it is written, the righteous shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and the unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

They suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. But his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. They are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchange the glory of the immortal God for the images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore, God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts to impurity to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever, amen. He then goes on to describe lots of things that they do. 1 Peter 3, 13 through 17. Now who is there to harm you? If you are zealous for what is good, but even if you should suffer for righteousness sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts, regard Christ the Lord as holy and always prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.

Make a defense to anyone who asks you for the reason for the hope that is in you. Yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good if that should be God's will, then for doing evil.

There are some passages of scripture that speak to the issue that we're gonna talk about, apologetics. The issue really is 1 Peter 3, in that verse of, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you. Over the past hundred years, Christianity has been affected by rank decisionism. By that I mean, you go to a Billy Graham crusade, We walk the aisle, they get all the people in the stadium to get the flow going. Everybody goes down. They're all on an emotional high. They commit their life to the Lord. They decide. They're in the club. Then people are designed to disciple them, and as they disciple them, they realize these people are spiritually dead.

They have been manipulated by human reasoning and all kinds of different manipulations to make that decision. The decision is made by God. We here at Trinity Evangel Church have over the years keep pounding God is the sovereign Lord of the universe. He is the one that determines what happens. He is the one that changes those hearts, allows those eyes to be opened to the truth. You cannot reason your way into It doesn't happen that way. God opens your eyes up to those truths. If you think you've reasoned your way into heaven, you'll fall down some of the traps that I'm going to talk about tonight. I'm just here to introduce the subject of apologetics.

It's a big subject, and it's an interesting one in that I would say over the past hundred years, it has really come to the forefront and being utilized in seminaries and so forth to get a degree in apologetics. It's not one of the queen of the sciences of theology. Theology has always been known as the queen of the sciences in world history, up until we become pagan idiots and dissolve the way our way from God. But in the study, even of theology, apologetics is just a subcategory. It's not one of the big ones. If you know God, you know that God is the one that changes people's hearts. Now, if they ask, like it says in 1 Peter 3, you need to have that reason for those people.

But to go down to a big event somewhere and start grabbing people and screaming at them that you have the truth of God, yeah, maybe you'll grab somebody that God has moved and they'll come to the Lord. But that isn't what the Bible tells you to do. You live like a Christian and people will ask you, why are you doing that? Or what about this? What about my friend that died in a car wreck? What do you think about that? At that point, you now have that opening and God is working on them. Because as we read in Romans, they have neglected that. They pushed aside that God's God and invented their own system. So people either know that there is a true God, or they don't.

There's no middle road where we're arguing this guy, he's on the teetering edge, and if I just give him one more piece of evidence, he'll come to the Lord. That's just stupid. If you think you are the person that's gonna make that happen, not gonna happen. Now, can we be used as instruments for God to study things and give reasons? But you know what happens? Most of those reasons are for Christians. I think John MacArthur summed it up well once in a question and answer session at the seminary because they had a professor there that I really liked, George Semic, and he got his doctorate in presuppositional apologetics.

So these guys kept asking MacArthur, what do you think, are you an evidentialist? Are you presuppositional? What do you think? MacArthur did not wanna wade into that fight because like he says many times, he's already got too many fights to deal with. He's like the guy in the Civil War that has gray pants and a blue top. Everybody's shooting at him. So he chooses his battles for the gospel and things like that. So he didn't wanna battle on this level of apologetics when he was in the middle of, is Jesus Lord and all of that kind of stuff. So he just looked at them and said, Well, in my experience, apologetics is most helpful to Christians.

What it does is give you more evidence for your faith. The people that study the Grand Canyon can show you, well, there's an explanation why those layers contain this and that, and there's an explanation for this, and there's an explanation for that. So you can just calm down and go, oh, there is an answer that I can give to people that say you're a stupid Bible-believing person that only believes in 6,000 year creation, what kind of idiot are you? you can give a defense for your faith. But what it does is it reinforces your faith. It's not going to convince that guy unless God has touched him. Now, I'm not throwing everybody that gives the creation seminars and all of that stuff and debates under the bus, but I am saying they are approaching it from the wrong way, totally wrong way.

And there are reasons for that, and I wanna hopefully get into that so that you understand where I'm coming from. So the idea of presupposition is something that you need to understand before we start discussing the categories of apologetics. So presupposition means a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of the line of argument or course of action. So when you're greeting somebody on these subjects, it happens to me a lot. I hang out with a bunch of no accounts that play pool or play golf and they're straight from the pit. And, you know, what do you do for a living, you know, and all that. And so then you start telling them what you do.

You, well, I have this business, but I'm also kind of a pastor at a church and I'm, what? And well, my friend got killed in a car wreck. What do you think about that? And so I asked them, well, did your friend know the Lord? The Lord? What are you talking about? So then I explained to them, well, if he didn't know the Lord, then your friend is going to be consigned to an everlasting hell, punishment, because he didn't recognize God for who God is. Well, that's not fair. And then I always look at them and say, especially out in the golf course, well, who made all this stuff? Who made that tree? Who made the world?

Who made all of that? What are you trying to say? Well, I'm trying to say there's something bigger than you that made that. Do you agree to that? Well, yeah, I could agree to that. But you know I'm an atheist. And I said, no you aren't, you're an agnostic. All you don't, you just don't know his name who made all this stuff. And I said, I happen to have a book that can tell you who made, oh, I see what you're doing, you're tricking me into reading the Bible. And I said, yep, that's what I'm doing. And I said, there's where God has revealed himself to you. But first off, you have to recognize there's something bigger than you that made this.

And you can't go, well I don't know, so I'm just gonna have it float out there. If he has revealed himself through this creation, you need to respond to that in the correct way. Oh, you're one of those hardcore guys. Yep, pretty much so. I said, I'm happy to answer your questions, but I'm not gonna sit here and preach to you because you know what? You're blind. What, what? I said, unless God reaches down into your heart and allows your eyes to see, you're not gonna see what I'm gonna tell you. Well, that's pretty harsh. And I said, that's right. You should live in the fear of the Lord, like we talked about this morning.

Fear him who can cast you into hell. Don't fear some other, you know, philosopher somewhere. So, we have presupposition, and we have presuppositionalism and evidential apologetics, okay? So in the big, this is like two big definitions, Pre-suppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes that Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought, that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is the divine revelation and attempts to expose the flaws and other world views. Period. So it presupposes the Bible is the divine revelation and attempts to expose the flaws in other worldviews.

And the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. Now does that mean that the pagan can't add two plus two and get four? No. This is the book we're gonna recommend, Always Ready. It's by a guy named Greg Bonson. He lived to be 46 years old. He was quite a smart guy.

He read Van Til and was able to distill it down so that the common mortal man could understand what Van Dyl was saying. And he boiled this book down into three page chapters that beat a dead horse for like 280 pages and will totally show you what presuppositional apologetics is all about. If you can read this book and be a Bible believing Christian and not see that it is truly the only way, I would say come and see me because I doubt your say.

Now, I say that because I've argued with people. It's been really fascinating the way that I've been. God saved me at 37 in 1984. We had a very rich guy in our church that was able to start an apologetics institute and down in LA and he had a very nice house with a pool house up in a mountain overlooking LA and everything, and he would invite the greatest minds in Christendom to come to our church for a week, and he would take them to lunch and dinner and have the people on the committee. He asked me to be on the committee to be with these people. So we would spend the week with him, and then on Saturday they would do a seminar at our church, and then they would preach on Sunday.

And we had R.C. Sproul, Walter Martin, John Warwick, Montgomery, you name it, we had him. I mean, this guy invited, he brought over, forget the guy's name, Smith, from Europe, that was one of the great creation guys back in that day. We had all the Creation Institutes, Ken Ham, all those people. Face to face for a week, lunch, dinner, I got to meet with him, talk with him, and it's stunning how many of them didn't get this. And as soon as I was exposed to this, I realized this was the only way, because I realized how I was. I was raised in a, quote, Christian Baptist home. I was baptized at nine. I knew the Christian stuff, but until God peeled the scales off my eyes, I could not see that truth.

And so when you would bring that up with him, oh, well, yeah, that's part of it, but we have to give this evidence and that kind of stuff. So you'll see how that goes along. So presuppositionalism, I gave that definition. Then you have evidential apologetics. Evidentialism is an approach to Christian apologetics that emphasizes the use of evidence to demonstrate that God exists. So you go back to Anselm and all of those kind of things and you do these arguments of there has to be a God because of this ontological argument, yada, yada, yada. And you fall into this trap of Greek thinking and a bunch of nonsense. And it's meaningless until God opens your eyes to the just blunt truth of, I've given you all of this, Romans 1, and you suppress it until I open your eyes.

So the approach to Christian apologics is emphasizing the use of evidence to demonstrate that God exists. The evidence is supposed to be evidence, supposed to be evidence both believer and non-believer share. That is to say, one need not presuppose God's existence. So they think through your intellect, you will understand, oh, there has to be a God, da, da, da, da, like that. No, no, no, no, no, no. That is not what the Bible teaches. And it's really fascinating when you read what the Bible says and then understand the centuries of all these arguments, where they come from. We're gonna get into that.

So there's another book that gives five views on apologetics by a man named Stephen Cohen and you can look it up on the internet that's where I got the boiled down versions of these five things. But I want you to listen and realize there are really only two divisions. You're either presuppositional or you're evidentialist. It's one of the two. You either presuppose God has giving you the information and he's the only one that can reveal it to you or you think through enough evidence if I just give the guy one more fact he'll come to the Lord. Now just thinking about it for you those those of you that are in our school you students and so forth that means when you come up with a an argument with me from geology all I have to do is go home and study geology and and give you that answer about that rock or that strata.

And then you're gonna go and you're gonna study another geology book from some godless idiot that can't analyze the evidence. And then you're gonna bring up that argument. Then I have to go back and I have to study another step in geology. So I endlessly am arguing these things from some scientific thing, some geological evidence, whatever, some philosophical evidence, Some psychiatry thing about this person is that kind of person, so I have to deal with him in that way. And if I just present the gospel in a way that's appealing to him, he'll come to it. What's appealing about you being dead? You are dead, period.

Dead people don't respond until they're made alive again through God's spirit. So just keep those big subjects in mind as you think about the history of apologetics. So the five views of apologetics in this book, and the problem is, here's part of the thing, and this is for you people at our school.

Over the history of the church, there's been major types of theology studies that are biblical, and this apologetics thing has come into use from Thomas Aquinas and thinkers that came with a whole bunch of Greek philosophy in their thinking. And then they developed ways to prove these issues about who God is and all these kind of things. Now the problem is that you can believe those systems and you buy into those arguments, but you still haven't been enlightened to what God has revealed of himself. So anyway, here's his major introduction. The goal of apologetics is to persuasively answer honest objections that keep people from faith in Jesus Christ. But of the several apologetic approaches which is most effective, five views on apologetics examines the how-to of apologetics, putting five prominent views under the microscope, classical, evidential, presuppositional, reformed epistemology, and cumulative case, offering a forum for presentation, critique, and defense.

This book allows for contributors for the different viewpoints to interact. These viewpoints are created by man. The verses that I read to you quickly separate the issue of you either pre-suppose the Bible is the issue, or you don't. Then you have to go to these evidences, and the evidences and the systems of thinking through these evidences were created by man. And godless man. Now, does godless man discover the truth? Of course he does. The broken watch is right twice a day. So certain of these systems come about and can prove God, like in the ontological arguments and that kind of thing. You can work your way through and get there.

But the problem is, okay, I believe there's a God. It's the same problem that I have with the guy on the golf course. Oh yeah, something bigger made it than me. Okay, well I've already won the ontological argument. He believes there's something bigger than him than made it. So he believes there's God. The problem is he needs to know who God is before he can get saved. He just can't say, well I believe in God, therefore he gets to go to heaven. No, he has to realize his fallen state and realize he needs a savior and the rest of it, the gospel. Those people don't wanna hear about the gospel. As soon as you start bringing that up, well I'm not bad, because I'm not Hitler, and all those arguments.

Now, the issue is, the way I deal with those people is, okay, you need to think on that and come back with another question. Because have an answer for those who ask. You are not gonna argue somebody into the kingdom. And if you do, you're gonna be disappointed because within 10 years, they're gonna desert the faith. Over and over and over, as you get to be my age, you see people that arrive full bore, excited, they're in the game, everything is happening, and something hits them broadside and they fall away. And these are people in the ministry. I've had people that have been on staff with John MacArthur for 10 years and they wake up one day and decide they're not in the faith.

You know, whoa, what happened there? Well, it was ranked decisionism. Like I thought he was doing that and he was operating, but he was not doing it with the supernatural power of God's spirit in you. Our whole religion is based on God allowing us to see this, not us. It's Christ who lives in us, not us.

That's like crazy cool and really exciting. Okay, so there's all these different approaches, preceptors, and the book allows for the contributors to several different viewpoints to interact. These five apologetic methodologies, methodologies do not constitute an exhaustive list of apologetic approaches. Every time there's another year in a major institution, somebody is going to write a paper because they need a new wrinkle to get their doctorate, so they're going to create another category and, oh boy, now I can write a book and everybody's going to read that book and then they'll really understand this. That's what they do in seminaries, okay?

Now, how much new information do you think you're gonna get out of the Bible? How many papers are you gonna write that's really gonna get something new? Not many, and if you do, you're probably into some heresy, okay? Now, talking about some tense of a verb that wasn't able to be analyzed until we had computers to analyze every word in the New Testament, or they discover some papyri that show the usage of that word in that day. Now there's something new we can do, but it doesn't really change the basic meaning. It just gives you a more colorful view of it. So there's really nothing new under the sun you're going to discover.

So the classical method, and this is really the old school classical method and evident and evidential are really basically the same. You'll see that as I explain this to you. The classical method is to approach that begins by employing natural theology, natural theology, what is exposed by God's creation, establish theism as the correct worldview. So out of this natural theology, God created it and therefore now you have a correct view, something bigger than you created it. After God's existence has thus been shown, the classical method moves to a presentation of the historical evidences for the deity of Christ and the trustworthiness of the Scripture.

Wow, immediately they have to get back to the Bible. Interesting. Etc to show that Christianity is the best version of theism as opposed to Judaism or Islam or you know, whatever Thing somebody comes up with this school is called a classical method because it assumed that This is the method used by the most prominent apologists of earlier years earlier centuries Now earlier centuries. What does that mean which centuries? Okay? Is this like first century or is this thousand? Is this 1200? Is this BC? What century are we talking about here? So it assumes that this method is used by the most prominent apologists of early centuries. William Lane Craig contributes this volume's defense of classical apologetics. Other contemporary apologists who may be classified as classical Apologists include R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, Stephen Davis, and Richard Swineberg.

It is usually argued that the order of the two phases in classical apologetics is essential. First you have to get them to recognize God, then you have to define God, who God is. And they do that through their clever arguments. I had been saved for two years when Sproul came to our church. And we sit around and talking. And I said, this is idiocy. God opening people's eyes, you can't convince them anything. And he would say, well, that's true, but the issue is we have to, through our studies, be able to present this case in a really good way. And I said, it doesn't matter how good you present it. I said, the truck driver down the street, if God has prepared that guy's heart to hear the gospel, he's going to present it to that guy and he'll get saved from him.

Well, yeah, but you don't understand. As we study this, we get better at it and we understand all these great historical figures, and we're in that great chain of events. And I said, what chain of events? And he said, the Reformation. And I said, okay, how did the Reformation do? Did they reform the Catholic Church? No. Well, what did they have to do? They split off and created a whole other segment, Protestantism. And the problem is that did they break away far enough? And I said, ah, you're gonna do one of those things. Now, at that time I was going to a covenant church that recognized infant baptism and believer's baptism.

So he knew he had me in a box if I was in this thing. And I said, that's right. I said, what happens is you don't break away far enough. The Catholic priests realized by faith alone is what got them saved, and they only got to that edge and then they stopped because by faith alone, and that's how we get saved. The rest of it, they didn't have time to do because as soon as they challenged the church to reform to that point of view, they were branded as heretics and a death sentence was put on their head. He agreed to all of that and he just smiled and said, oh, guys on your side like Kirsner and all those guys, or not Kirsner but other dispensational kind of guys like arguing, they can be fine.

He said, we're all in the same club, we're gonna be fine. And I said, oh, I believe we're gonna be in heaven together. But I said, you're falling down the trap that you're in this whole logical argument stuff and writing all these books with all these sentences most people can't understand when it's just plainly revealed by God himself. He laughed and he said, yeah, interesting, but you know, whatever. So that's the classical approach. Now that's very simply put and me boiling it down in a way that's not very respectful, but that's all right too. So then the evidential method is evidence is the thing that's going to bring them to the truth.

The evidential method has much in common with the classical method except solving the issues concerning the values of miracles as evidence. Evidentialism as an apologetic method may be characterized as a one-step approach. Miracles do not presuppose God existence as most contemporary classical apologists assert, but can serve as one sort of evidence for God. Now look what's happening here. We're getting all this mental gymnastics. If God is the creator of the universe and he wants to raise Jesus from the dead, is that a miracle? Well, of course it is. So why are we getting into this subcategory? I mean, if we don't believe Jesus was raised from the dead, we're dead in our trespasses.

If he wasn't raised from the dead, Paul's tells us to go out and party it up because it's over. Now just that little bare fact destroys these arguments about all the rest of this stuff. It is God's supernatural ability that we recognize and we can only recognize it when God's spirit works within us to make us realize that kind of stuff. So the evidentialism, apologetic maybe, characterizes the one-step approach. Miracles do not presuppose God existence as most contemporary classical apologists assert, but can only serve as one sort of evidence for God. The method is fairly eclectic. In other words, they run this argument lots of different ways.

It is use of various proposed evidences and the negative critiques utilizing both philosophical, philosophical philosophy straight from the pit, and historical arguments. Yet it tends to focus chiefly on the legitimacy of accumulating various historical and other inductive arguments for the truth of Christianity. Are you kidding me? So we're going to now get the guy to go get a bunch of history books, and get this stuff, and get all these categories, and put it on his graph paper, and I got this evidence on this side, and this evidence, oh, let's see, which one is better? Oh, I need to go to another creation seminar to understand that one, and oh, I need to go to another seminar about the ontological argument about God.

And he's endlessly lost in this argument. It's just, it's ridiculous. Because what did Romans tell us? You suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The godless guy just keeps pushing it down. He knows in his heart there's a God, but he can't have that because he wants what he wants. He doesn't want what God wants. Given this focus, evidentialists may and will argue both for theism and Christian theism. Notice that one. Let's just argue, is there a God? Well, so what? So the guy says there's a God. Does he believe the God with the turtle that's carrying the world around on his back? Or does he believe, which God does he believe in?

He needs to believe in the true God, the one and only God who only gives us the avenue to him through Jesus Christ. So the theistic argument, it's like I told the guy that brought that up on the golf course, when at that point, that's great, but the thing is you're just recognizing his superpower. You don't know who his name is. You don't know who he is. You need to understand who he is. And further revelation from his general revelation of creation is given to us through his word, which then brings us back to we presuppose truth cannot be had without God's revelation. All right, so elaborate natural theology. They might begin, for instance, by arguing for the historical faculty of Jesus' resurrection, and then argue that such an unusual event is explicable only if a being very much like the Christian God exists.

So this guy could only raise from the dead if he was kinda like God, and he kinda created everything, so then therefore he could get himself out of being dead. You know, on and on it goes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Besides Gary Habermas, one of the contributors of this book, advocates of invidentiality include John Warwick Montgomery, Clark Penick, Will Fark, Pannenberg, and Hannah Berenair's article on a host of others he classifies under this method. Now John Warwick Montgomery in the last hundred years, he was like a principal guy in the 60s. He debated the most noted aviess. He's written over 250 books. He started the Simon Greenleaf School.

He became an ordained minister in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. Total jerk, okay? He wrote these books. He came to our thing, stayed with us for a week. By the time two o'clock rolled around, he was usually drunk, and he just, he was incredibly smart. And what happened during this period, we didn't know it at the time, but he was actually a bigamist. He had a wife in Europe and a wife in Orange County during this time. And he is, everybody loves his books because he's such a flawless arguer and he has such a great intellect and all this kind of stuff. And it's just nonsense. He totally gave it up.

And he is the guy that started Simon Greenleaf to instruct Christian lawyers to go into the the governmental system to bring Christ to the legal system. Now that's a that's a good thing. I want more Christian influence in our government. I like that thing. But the problem is if you don't have the true gospel and you're not living the gospel and you're just doing it by arguments and your intellect and your whole thing is going to debate an atheist. Now where is it in the Bible to debate atheists. Everybody wants to say, what about Acts 17? What happens in Acts 17? Paul's on the aragapagus, and what do they do? They ask him, and he looks, who's the unknown God?

And he said, oh, I know who the unknown God is, and produces that. And they look at him and say, well, that's very interesting. Some believed and some didn't, some walked away. Now did he grab the guy there, some believing, and say, wait a minute, I got one more argument, I'm going to convince you. No, he didn't. He knew if he presented the truth, that was enough. So to me, that's just, that's the end of that. This book goes in the last like 30 pages as a whole commentary on Acts 17.

So then you have the cumulative case method. The third of the big four is the cumulative case method. This term, cumulative case, is used by apologists in different ways, and different than we are using it in this context. but Basil Mitchell in an early proponent of this view gave the method that name. So we will use it here. The careful reader will no doubt that this method belongs to the same broad family as other methods as does evidential and perhaps classical method. They just shuffle the deck and put classical and evidential together and do it. I could read you a long description of it. You can get on the internet and read about it.

It's just a mixing of that whole thing. It's just more blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, so people can write papers and get their doctoral degrees from X Seminary and write another book. Paul Feinberg, in his volumes, Cumulative Case Mythologist says that Christian theists are urging that Christianity makes better sense of all the evidence available than does other alternative worldview offer, whether that alternative and some other theistic view or atheism. So in other words, Feinberg is saying, the classic thing to do with the cumulative thing is to create this argument how the Christian worldview looks much better than these other worldviews of the Mormons or the JWs or the Hindus or the Islamists or whatever.

And look at how that's much more attractive. You cannot see that truth unless God opens your eyes to it. And the problem to it is it's really basic. Without Jesus, you can't see any of it until you realize you're a sinner. And most of the people that get involved in these arguments are highfalutin and, of course, I'm a good person because I'm not as bad as so-and-so, get into those arguments. And you even see it in the Evangelical Theological Society. You see people in the apologetic track get up and talk about these things. And I've watched people that are presuppositionalists just shred those people. They'll present a paper, and the guy will stand up in the room, and there's like 20 people standing around because nobody listens to these papers.

But they're all muckety mucks, and they all got all these letters after their names. And they just stand up and shred this poor guy that's 19 years old and wrote his paper at Dallas Seminary or something. And the guy just goes, oh, I don't know how to act. And they said, because it's supernatural that you were able to understand that. Oh, well, I gotta go back and study that. And so it's really amazing how these arguments just fall apart, okay? Now, beside Feinberg and Mitchell, the cumulative K school would likely include, likely include, and I'm gonna throw somebody under the bus and people are gonna get mad, C.S. Lewis, okay, and Steven Evans.

Now, most people that like C.S. Lewis, they can find ways that they like what he said and stuff like that, and he gives good analogies and that kind of thing, and I agree with that. But you realize C.S. Lewis never did come to grips with the true inerrancy of the Bible, and when he did, he didn't subscribe to it. So, that's a whole problem. I wouldn't read C.S. Lewis for the first 10 years I was saved because of that. He didn't recognize the Bible was that. So then you have another view, the Reformed, and this is a new wrinkle in the whole thing that's come about probably in the past, eh, 50 years we'll see, the Reformed Epistemological View.

Since the Enlightenment, Clark says, there's been a demand to expose all our beliefs to the searching criticism of reason. Alright, right there. All you people going to ECS. Since the Enlightenment, Clark says there's been a demand to expose all our beliefs to the searching criticism of reason. The people that embrace the Enlightenment are straight from the pit of hell. You don't need to defend against those people. They totally don't get it. They're inventing their own thing. That's what brought us the French Revolution. That's what brought us, you know, Hume and all these idiots that don't even recognize who God is.

So since that, we now have to come up with a different way to argue against them. Are you kidding me? For all the history of humankind, because the enlightenment comes along, we have to invent a whole other set of how to argue for the faith. It's ridiculous, because next week somebody's going to come up with some other system and then we're, oh my goodness, that's so brilliant, blah, blah, blah. Now we have to come up with the argument for that. It's just stupid. We are told if relief is unsupported by evidence of some kind, it is irrational to believe it. Reformed epistemology challenges evidentialist epistemological assumption.

Those who advocate this view hold that it is perfectly reasonable for a person to believe many things without evidence. Most strikingly, they argue that the belief of God does not require the support of evidence or argument in order to be rational. The reformed epistemology apologists will not necessarily as to making positive arguments in defense of Christianity, but will argue that such arguments are not necessary for rational faith. What? What did you say? If Calvin is right that human beings are born with an innate sense of divintitis, the sense of the divine, then people may rightly and rationally come to have a belief in God immediately without the aid of evidence.

That's the classic thing. Have you ever met an atheistic three-year-old or four-year-old? No. In their hearts, they know there's something bigger than them that made it. They don't know what their name is, though. They don't know enough to know that they need to then have a Savior die for their sins and all of that. But those little kids just know by their gut and what Romans 1 says. In their heart of hearts, they know there is a God. So yes, those people do that. But as they grow older and older, they suppress, they suppress, they become harder and harder till God comes along and gives them that thing. The list of Reformed epistemologists includes this volumes contributor, the guy that wrote the book, and Kelly, James Clark, and four other names that would head the list would be Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolchandsturff and some other clowns, I don't know, a bunch of them.

Again, let me say that these five apologetics methodologies do not constitute an exhaustive list of apologetic approaches. They do represent, however, the most well-known and popular argumentative strategies in the scholarly apologetics community. It is my hope as well that other contributors that this work promotes additional fruitful discussions of apologetic methodology and proves to be of service to the church and the universal of the church universal in our Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds wonderful. That is just blind to what the word says. The verses I read you, you are dead in your trans passage. You cannot recognize that.

Romans 1, you have the truth as an unbeliever, you suppress the truth. And then the only thing that makes you alive is God through his spirit allowing you to see that. Now here's where the broken watch argument comes into play. A guy goes to a creation seminar and he realizes, oh, there's an answer in the Grand Canyon for why these layers of theology and maybe evolution is wrong. That might be the trick that that guy goes, wow. So he hears that. But he isn't asking for it. He hears that evidence, and it goes into his hopper, and he programs it. So I'm not saying that everybody wants to get into that is wrong. But I am saying it's not biblical the way they're going about it.

I don't care how many apologetic seminars you bring your friend to, what happens is you'll answer that question and he's going to have another question. What about this? What about that? What about that? So what you have to do is keep studying. Now I have to study geology. Now I have to discuss mechanical engineering. Now I have to discuss this and I have to discuss that. When the real issue is the guy's heart, what is he doing with what he already sees? The presuppositional method, due to the noetic effects of sin, okay, from the fall, at the fall we're all sin. That atom caused us to get his sin. We're in trouble.

We hold, presuppositions usually hold, that there is not enough common ground between believers and unbelievers that would allow the followers of the prior three methods to accomplish their goals. I absolutely believe that. And I think that's kind of him to fudge that wording. Nobody can bring that person across the divide unless God's spirit is in him and causes him to realize it. And if you bring him across with your clever arguments or your debating skills, you haven't done it because you've done it with human power, not divine power. and salvation is all of God, not of us. That is one of the great truths of the Reformation.

And when you realize that, what we're doing, and because we've been grasped by God and showing that truth, that's why the Reformation has not stopped. And that's why in the motto of our church is we're reformed and still reforming. Because those guys only saw that faith was the way and they established lots of good things and they started breaking away, but they were only within a hundred year span of being Catholic priests when they'd written a lot of their stuff for maybe even 150 years, which in the big expanse of things isn't that great a deal. So we constantly have to keep going back to the book to examine what it says and conform our beliefs to that.

Now, are we going to see big things and cause issues of salvation and all of that to change? No, but we do see that you can't argue people into the kingdom, I believe. So the apologists must simply presuppose the truth of Christianity as the proper starting point in apologetics. Here the Christian revelation in the scriptures is the framework through which all experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Various evidences and arguments can be advanced for the truth of Christianity, but at least implicitly presuppose premises that can be true only if Christianity is true. Presuppositional attempt then to argue transcendentally.

That is, they argue that all meaning and thought, indeed every fact logically presupposes the God of the scriptures, okay? Now, a comment on that. That's why we have an Christian classical school model. classical schools, if you get on the internet, classical education is a thing that all kinds of godless people love. And they'll study their Latin and study the great, you know, Greek things and philosophers and all that stuff. And say yes, it's good to discipline your mind that way. But the Christian influence is you cannot really understand the truth without Christ. The godless guy makes the prep school and creates the little kid that can go to Harvard and pass through the gates, the truth will set you free and become the most godless little instrument in the realm of the devil that you can imagine coming out of those systems because they threw Christ aside, even though they were all started as seminaries to train up people to do that, Princeton, Harvard, those places.

So we want to retreat back to that without the Christian framework, the stuff is straight from the pit. So that all meaning and all thought, every deed, every fact, logically presupposes the God of the Scriptures. John Frame represents presuppositionalness in this volume and he puts the matter this way. We should present the biblical God not merely as a conclusion to the argument, but as the one who makes the argument possible. You cannot think properly until you're a Christian. This is a thing that was really hard for me to understand when we got introduced to the classical education model. I mean, I was hardcore, I was homeschooling when they were gonna throw me in jail for it back in California in 84, all that kind of stuff.

But when I came to realize the classical Christian school and understand the methodology that without looking at it from that thing, you couldn't even properly understand two plus two is four. Once you do that, it like shifts your whole world view and changes the way you see things. And that's what's so great about our school. And it's good in the movement of classical Christian education, but a little sidebar here. We went to a teacher's training day on Friday to Providence, and we had 11 schools there, Jonathan. Yeah, something like that. And Grant and I went to, in Morgan, went to a breakout for math and science for seventh grade and above, I think it was, or something like that.

And it was hopeless. We got in the class, and these people started giving us intelligent design recommendations for books and stuff like that, and started talking all these worldly systems and giving us all this evidence to the worldly system. Well, Morgan immediately raised her hand and said, well, wait a minute here. And she realized that it wasn't gonna go anywhere with this thing. So she decided instead of turning the whole room upside down because we had like 15 people in the room, she just banked back. As soon as she started to challenge it, another lady that had just moved from Chicago was involved in it, started saying, oh, the best book that you can use for your students is evidence that demands a verdict from Josh McDowell.

Now, he is a classic evidentialist brought to you by Campus Crusade, one of the great movers and shakers of rank decisionalism of the past hundred years, that all you got to do is get a person to decide for Christ and then you've got him in the club. And as we know, and as anybody that's been a Christian for a while, once you make that decision you realize, oh my goodness, I just walked off into this whole new world if you're truly saved. And you realize, oh my goodness, now I have to give this up and I have to give this up. And then you think, oh boy, I'm doing good now. I got rid of my girlfriend, I'm actually doing this and I'm doing that.

And then I get to this and I read my Bible and oh no, now I got to get rid of this? Oh, oh, what am I going to do? That's the Christian life. But you do that with joy as you progress through that. Most of the ranked decision people, they'll get to a certain point and they go, that's enough, I'm not doing it. My first year Greek teacher, who was a translator of the NASB and the NIV, ended up at 45 years old running off with his secretary. And I was discipling his son at that time out at Grace Community, who is now, he's actually a pastor in England now. And I went to him and he looked at me and he said, I don't care, that's fun and I wanna have fun.

That was it. And this guy was a great, I mean he was past president of the Evangelical Theological Society and everything. And at that point, I'd been saved like four years and I looked at him and I realized, oh my goodness, these people that I was idolizing because I thought he was the greatest guy ever. He introduced me to Calvinism and all kinds of stuff. And he just went, nope, this is it, I wanna have fun. And for that temporal thing, he's gonna throw everything under the bus. And so far, he has not repented, so it's sad. And his two sons are in the ministry and all kinds of things, they've gone after him. So anyway, so property started, pardon me, apologetics.

Here, the Christian revelation of the scriptures is the framework through which all experience is interpreted and all truth is known. Various evidences and arguments can be advanced for the truth of Christianity, but these at least implicitly presuppose premises that can be truly and only if Christianity is true. Presuppositionalists attempt then to argue transcendentally.

That is, they argue that all meaning and thought, indeed every fact, logically presupposes the God of the scriptures. That's huge, okay? So these presuppositions are Cornelius van Til he's the one that kind of brought this thing into a category But if you tried to read van Til I challenge you to try his book. I've tried it. I can't understand it, but Bonsen he boiled it down and I think this is vastly understandable He's one of the ones and then Francis Schaeffer is another one that is and Gordon Clark now Gordon Clark's an interesting guy He wrote a book that I love, What Every Presbyterian Should Believe. I've given it to many Presbyterians that were in liberal Presbyterian churches and rocked their world because they had no idea what Presbyterians should believe.

He's a real pokey kind of guy. He is one of the presuppositional kind of guys, but he is interesting. But this book is really good, okay? Now, I've already talked about decisionism. Then the history of thought, okay, I've got about five more minutes here. Just hang in there. So the history of thought is, as we do omnibus and we read the great Greek things and we read Aristotle and Plato and all this stuff and we start putting these things together, remember that these minds were dark. They did not know the true God of the Bible. But they had some common grace in being able to categorize things and use their minds.

And so as they did that, they came up with systems and built civilizations that were pretty wonderful. Then the Dark Ages come around and all the rest of that. Then they rediscover a lot of these writings. During this time, Christianity starts spreading. Two thousand, Christ dies. Then you got monks in England and all this kind of stuff. And Anselm in 1100, or 1000 AD, he starts with ontological arguments and that kind of thing. And then you have guys like St. Thomas Aquinas, who we've read and studied in Omnibus, Catholic theologian. He then starts to shuffle together Greek thought and philosophy to come up with Christian truths.

Now, you can tell what I think of that, You don't shuffle those things together, not good. Presuppositional means the Bible has the real truth. I don't need to shuffle Greek thinking in with the Bible. Not a good idea. You're going to end up with stuff straight from the pit. That's 1,200s. Then you run around, and the Catholic Church is fumbling around, and then Luther comes along, and Calvin comes along, calls them to repentance, to reform. And out of that, another 100 years goes by, and we have the Westminster Confession of Faith by the Divines where they try to categorize all this stuff. But remember, they're still in this process and they still have a lot of Catholic baggage in their baggage, in their little cart that they're dragging around.

One of the interesting things that I found in the apologetics institute that I was in, that that guy invited all the great minds to come. We had a guy that was a prosecutor for the County of Los Angeles. And he was a really smart guy, but he was total lawyer, total thinker in that way, the worldly way of thinking about things. He was a total evidentialist and classical kind of apologist guy. He ended up after two years of our meetings and we would meet once a week for breakfast for like a two hour knockdown drag out fight. And then when we had guys come and visit, he would always be there at the lunches and we would go on and on, we'd talk about all this stuff.

He ended up after two years deciding that he had to join the Catholic Church to be in the one true faith, okay? So at that point, you realize what happens when you get wasted into these arguments, you have to then buy into the logic of these people. Now, yes, they're, they strayed from things, But they were the one true church all this time as it's going along. Now I don't think he was paying attention to his history and we had several things and I brought him several papers and stuff. But he dismissed them because he'd bought the argument that the Catholic Church was the one true church. We've had several Presbyterian people that have attended here and families that have attended where their pastor, after being Orthodox Presbyterian for 10 years, have decided they need to get back to the mother church.

The Lutheran Church has decided to reunite with the Catholic Church and signed off on that kind of stuff. That is straight from the pit, okay? They're not understanding. The basic thing is the Bible, you know? That's the whole thing. That's why it got translated. That's why we have it so we can read it. And we can read it and understand it with the Spirit of God in us. And in our Christian education, we need to constantly remind ourselves that the basis of this is the Bible and that we are reformed, we're reforming those errors, but we're still reforming them, we're still learning about them. And we need to apply that to everything we look at.

Mark Callender has given the elders a book on Sabbatarian living by... by, give me the guy's name, I can't remember. Yeah, Walter Chantry, who wrote a great book on the gospel. Chantry has written this thing about the Sabbath. What do we think about that? What kind of challenge is that? What does the Bible say about it? Well, in our modern day world, we've kind of thrown this away and just keep trucking and doing what we're doing. I think it's a great challenge for us to think, what do we do on the Sabbath? Is the Sabbath a day of rest? Is it something we should assign to God? And this is one of the things where, you know, that stick in the side, we need to start thinking about those things.

And that's part of the apologetic methodology. If that apologetic methodology is based in the scriptures, we should be able to give a good reason why I can go out shopping on Sunday and or go to the restaurant and cause that business to be there so that they can make me food and I don't have to go home, but then there's Christian people that work there, and then there's a lot of interesting things in that. And I think it's good, fruitful discussion for us to have, and at some point, you have to kind of make a decision what you do with that. Now, is that a thing that's gonna send you to hell? No, but is that a thing, if we are reformed and still reforming, we should be thinking about it.

I think it should be. I think all the parts of our lives should be that. So all of that to say, that's my introduction for apologetics. The other guys, I think they're going to choose certain chapters. There's a chapter on what do you do with the problem of evil, how to defend the faith, what do you do if you're a presuppositionalist, do you get in and have a debate with people, do you go down to the local college and start arguing in the quad, you know, with everybody about all this kind of stuff. Now, those are good intellectual exercises. We have students in our school that can probably do really good jobs in those debates and that kind of thing.

If you get on the internet and watch the debates in England and the politics of it in the House of Commons and that kind of thing, or you watch them debated at Oxford where they have great debaters and talking about that kind of stuff, those things are interesting. But are those, is that the way that you get somebody to understand the truth of God's word? I don't believe it is. Okay. Now, can you be a better debater if you're a Christian? I believe you can be. But there's a certain thing that you're debating about that you have to leave it off at Christen. It's like debating should I vote for Kavanaugh or not, or should I devote for Obamacare?

care, you know, you can have these arguments, but does is that going to affect your eternal well-being? So when you get into the things of eternity, you need to have the eternal truth, you know, to back up your whole theology. So anyway, that's an introduction to apologetics. Every elder is going to do a different subject. And then after we do this, we're going to have a question and answer with all of us to shoot us down or say, you know, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard or whatever. And I think it's a fascinating subject. I think that, especially in the past 100 years, through navigators, campus crusade and stuff, a lot of this has been damaged from the biblical approach.

That they have, in the ranked decisionism, they brought the people along. And they kept the people from incorporating in their local churches. They did their navigators material, findel and their blank verses and that kind of stuff. I would also include DE for those of you from our previous church that did that, discipleship and evangelism. That was a rank copy of the evangelism explosion that was done by D. James Kennedy in the early, would have been the 70s. That was just a copy of that made by Jim George and Grace Community. Grace Community threw that out in about 1997 because MacArthur realized that he didn't want that gospel approach of ranked decisionism to be put out by Grace Community.

And in our previous church, a guy wanted to buy the material, and he called me up because I was on the committee that got rid of it. He wanted to buy the material, and I said, it's not for sale, we're killing it. He says, you don't understand, it's so good. And I said, no, you don't understand, it's not good. And here's the reason why. And he listened and went, oh, I see the argument, but still the material's good. Because he had this process where he was just grinding these people through to learn these rote ways of presenting the gospel. And what they would do is go out to the local laundromat and just, you know, some guy's in there putting his clothes in the dryer.

Hey, you know, have you ever thought about how you get to heaven and that kind of stuff. Now where is that in the Bible? Doesn't say anything about that in the Bible. You have a reason to everybody who asks. Now if you walk in the laundromat and that guy asks you, hey, how do I get to heaven? Or what do you think about the Bible? Or something along those lines. Or I saw you in front of that church. Do you go to church? There's an opening. Now take advantage of it. But just walking up to some guy and grabbing him, what's that all about? It's not biblical. Doesn't say that in the verse, all right? So anyway, that's the story, so let's pray, and I'm sure this can cause you to think about all kinds of stuff.

I don't have the answers, so don't ask me. So. But God has the answers, okay. Father, we thank you for this time together. I thank you for the 70 or so people that do show up for the evening services. It's another cut above from our morning worship, And it's another cut that for our omnibus tenebras that people in our congregation want to know what we're trying to understand. And I just ask that you would bless us even through our ignorance and how really ignorant we are. We're not stupid, but we are ignorant. And help us to understand more and more of what you offered in a good way throughout the centuries that your gospel has changed our Western world.

So help us to be those good stewards of all of that stuff given to us. So we thank you for that. We thank you of course for your son and his spirit who really enlighten our lives. So we thank you for all of these things. Amen.

Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

This morning, though we get to gather in Christ's name, we respond to all those different commands in the New Testament to encourage one another and to assemble and not neglect that for his name's sake. And so we do that then in obedience and joy, remembering that our help is in the name of the Lord. Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and let the unrighteous man, his thoughts. Let him return to the Lord that he may have compassion on him and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain and snow come down from heaven and do not return there, but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, give me seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth. It shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. Father, we trust that even this word that we've just read will accomplish its purpose among us today. We acknowledge this morning that your ways are not our ways.

They are much higher. We come to worship you this morning As the sovereign and good creator of the universe, we do ask that you would grant that we would behold you rightly and be better conformed to the image of your son as he is, not as we would have him to be. Thank you for the privilege of worshiping you here together and for giving us the means and the interest in doing so. And we pray this all in Christ's name, amen. Shawn has mentioned that in Omnibus Ten of Ross, we are currently reading the Iliad and we'll be discussing the second half of it, this Thursday night, God willing. But there are some parts about physical battle and spiritual battle that have very clear application for us even as we examine Ephesians five and six this morning.

In book three, there's a duel between Menelaus and Paris that is not exactly fair. If it were fair, then Menelaus the better man would have crushed Paris, but he was conveniently whisked away by Aphrodite rescued from the heat of battle and off to the bed chambers of Helen. In the next book, in book 4, Athena, who is on the side of the, which is the self-problem, but is on the side of the Greeks, persuades a Trojan archer named Pandaros to take a shot at Menelaus, but with no intention of of mortally wounding him. So, Pandros shoots the arrow, but Athena makes sure that it only grazes him, and the black blood is spilled on the ground, and Agamemnon thinks that his brother is dying, but in sort of a comical scene, it's just a little bit of blood.

If it were less strictly up to men, he was a good enough archer to slay Menelaus, but Athena was going to make sure that that did not happen.

And the amount of armor or weaponry the Menelaus brought to the battle would not have made any difference. He was going to get hit no matter what. It is folly for us to suppose that had he been better equipped, Menelaus could have been protected from that arrow, or had he been better trained, he could have been victorious over Paris. But such was not the case because the gods were against him. And as our study this morning, we're going to be looking, at least in part, at Ephesians 6 and the popular passage on the armor of God. And sometimes lost in these studies is the silliness of or even the foolishness of some of the weapons that we choose to bring to spiritual battle in our war against sin. Paul reminds his readers in this passage that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

So that you'd be saying, yes and amen. And then we respond to that by taking up the weapons of willpower and personal discipline. Of course, there's nothing wrong with personal discipline. The Bible commends this highly. But too often, we bring a proverbial knife to a gunfight, as it were. And our physical weapons do as much injury to our spiritual enemy as a bullet injures a cloud. Our independent and our stubborn insistence to fight spiritual battles in the flesh is not only silly, it's also sinful and it requires our repentance. So if you have been independently battling sin, or if this brings to mind other sins that you do need to repent of, this is time carved out of our service for you to do just that.

As is our custom, if you would like to, you are welcome to kneel in humble confession. And in a moment, I will pray for us corporately. So let's pray together. Father, as a culture, we tell our children that they can do and become anything that they put their minds to. But try as we might, no matter how hard our minds are set on it, we cannot attain holiness apart from your spirit. We fight spiritual battles with fleshly means, supposing that you'll honor our efforts. And what you really want from us is our dependence and our surrender. Please forgive us for our failure to depend upon you. Forgive us for our independence.

Grow our faith that we would practice what we know and help us to view our independence as the glory-robbing sin that it is. We are grateful for the sacrifice of Christ and that we can stand before you, blameless in Him. We pray now in Christ's name. Amen. You may stand. Our promise of forgiveness this morning comes from Ephesians chapter four verse 32. And in an almost off-handed way, Paul assumes our forgiven status in Christ and we can happily cling to this charge and this promise ourselves. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another as God in Christ forgave you. Being forgiven in Christ ought to energize not only our kind and patient treatment of one another, but it also ought to energize our worship. So let's sing even now as forgiven people.

Today's scripture reading is Ephesians 5.22 through 6.24. 5.22 through 6.24. Wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church. His body and is himself its savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of the water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle of any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body. Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Children, obey your parents and the Lord, For this is right. Honor your father and mother.

This is the first commandment with a promise, that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart as you would Christ. Not by the way of eye service as people pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering the service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

Masters, do the same to them and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their master and yours is in heaven and that there is no partiality with him. Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might, put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and against the authorities and against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand the end the evil day and having done all to stand firm.

Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth and having put on the breastplate of righteousness. And as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace, in all circumstances take up the shield of faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one. and take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth broadly, boldly, to proclaim the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador and change that I may declare it boldly as I ought to speak, so that you also may know that I am what I, that know how I am and what I'm doing.

Ticacus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts. Peace be to the brothers and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible.

Let's pray. Father, quite a passage we have this morning. Help us to digest it in a big way and in the small, intricate ways as it pierces our own hearts through your spirit, as Jonathan instructs us. We think of our government today And we thank you that we have a new Supreme Court Justice and all the hassle that went on help us honor you and help him honor you in the decisions that he makes in the court. We think of all the craziness that we live in right now. And I ask that you would give wisdom to those that know you in the government to act properly and to be that witness to those people that are alongside of them.

We think of our men in our congregation in the Navy. We think of Ben Hackbarth and Dan Wibbermeyer as they're serving now. We think of the men in our congregation, the fathers of the families and that family unit and how they are to lead that unit. We ask for special dispensation on our elders and deacons, leaders of our church. We think of Sean as he's away teaching another church about marriage and the one another's and their body, help him to convey words that are a joy to them, and help Jonathan and I hold down the fort and be able to say the right things for today's worship of you. So we think of these personal supplications today.

It is sad that Terry Hurd's dad died at 3.30 last night, and that the family, we want to give them a special strength through this, helped them be a good witness to all the people that they'll come in contact with and all the arrangements. And in a strange way it was a blessing as Terry's dad had just become almost unrecognizable to them as he had gone down the road of Alzheimer's or whatever variation of that disease that he had. So we thank you for that. We think of Lila Massey as as her sister-in-law did go to be with the Lord this week, and the prayers for the difficult time for that family also, and that the family, Lila, would like to adjust to the new normal without her.

We also pray for wisdom for the Marlatt family and the doctors that are examining Autumn's MRI that she had this week at Children's, so that the doctors and the Marlatt's would be clear on the right way to proceed with Autumn's problems with Crohn's. And we all want to see that happen so she can be fully engaged. We also think of Jen Vanderbrecken's brother with his brain cancer, and that he was able to travel and camp out and be with some people over this last week, and that we would pray that he and his wife would really draw near to you through this trial, and that you would use that in that way. And we thank you that Russ Hanley is strengthening from his visit and that he might be with us today.

I didn't notice, but if he is, welcome back Russ. But if not, we pray that you would get stronger and be able to be with us. So we think of the outreach of our school and the Good Shepherd's Home and the adoption people. All of those ministries are great and to change our environment here in Northwest Washington. Help us to be that salt and light in our community. And we thank you for the local churches like Reclamation, Damascus Road, Cornerstone, that are preaching the gospel. Help them to do that in a strong way today. And we thank you for just being here with us and being inside of those of us that believe in you.

So we thank you for all of these things and it's in your son, Jesus Christ's name. We pray, amen. Father, it is of great comfort to us to know that you encircle us with your protection even when we cannot see it. We know that you have called us to do counterintuitive things, like to prefer one another our head ourselves as an act of strength. And we thank you for the promises of your word. We thank you for giving it to us. We pray that as we study it this morning, and you would help us to submit and to learn, to be instructed, and may it fall on the ears of fertile soil, and we pray for your spirit to help us apply it.

We ask in Christ's name, amen. I would encourage you this morning to open your Bibles to Ephesians chapter five. We're going to be studying the passage that Dave read moments ago. 522 through chapter six. All Christians are former slaves to the devil. There's a nice little encouraging start to the message. Perhaps the most important part, there is former, having been bound to the will of the devil and bought with a high price of the death of God's son. Living then a new and a liberated life in Christ, our walk should look different from before. We must cast off our old identity and its behaviors, embracing the new man and walking in the light.

We know all of this. The second half of Ephesians instructs us on how to do so. In chapter four verse 17 through chapter five verse 21, Paul helps his readers to see what they have been rescued from and what they ought to now embrace in Christ. And when he reaches chapter five verse 22, where we're going to be beginning this morning, he starts to instruct about the counter-cultural relationships that ought to characterize faithful Christians. Like our culture, first century Roman culture viewed submission as a demonstration of weakness. The Bible, however, treats submission as a demonstration of strength. It takes spiritual power to place the preferences and needs of others ahead of ourselves.

It takes spiritual power to behave as though real glory is actually tied up in honoring Christ and not ourselves. It takes spiritual power to, at least in any consistent fashion, lay aside our rights for the sake and the interest of others. And as we study this passage this morning, I would have you to consider them as fighting words. They don't look like fighting words, but think about them in that way. If Christians could fight like this, the world would most certainly be different. And we can fight with Christ as our spiritual head using the weapon of submission. This will then manifest itself in how we submit to and treat one another.

Of course, the enemy would love to cultivate among us if he could selfishness in our lives, But instead, we can behave with the right sort of submission to one another in the fear of Christ. And when we do that, we win. In this passage, Paul begins to explain what mutual submission looks like by explaining several relationships in light of chapter 5, verse 21. And as you'll recall, 521 says, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. And he continues with that thought with some specifics. in 522 through 6.9, he explains, God's having placed some in authority over others in the kingdom. And this not based on inherent worth or merit, it is by his design.

Paul is showing us that mutual submission, this submission is mutual, requires us to prefer one another ahead of ourselves. It means we must deny ourselves and what we want for the sake of our neighbors. For a child, for instance, means that he should not throw a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. That would also apply to adults, by the way. Instead, he should joyfully submit to his parents because his parents have actually been placed in his life by God himself and to chafe against that authority structure, to chafe against what God has designed. For a father, it means putting off, kicking up his feet, and reading his newspaper when he gets home, perhaps, for sake of spending much needed time with the kids and the list and the application goes on and on.

So as we examine this passage, we're going to hang our thoughts on three separate headings. And they deal with the offensive arsenal in 522 through 6.9, the defensive arsenal in chapter 6, verse 10 through 20, and then the sign off from the battle, which is at the very end, verses 21 to 24 of chapter 6. So we'll get right to it. And look first at the offensive arsenal. And here we have the breakdown of children and parents, husbands and wives and the rest. So we're going to begin with wives in chapter five, verses 22 through 24. The submission of wives. Wives submit to your husband, says Paul, as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, his body and is himself its savior.

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also should wives submit in everything to their husbands. I'm actually not gonna spend a whole bunch of time on this because it's pretty familiar to us and it's not complicated. But we would note that Paul is not instructing women to submit to men. He is not saying that wives are to be subject to men in general, but rather to their husbands. That's by design, obviously. Women are not inferior to men. However, there is a God-designed structure in marriage that the family is to emulate, and it has no more than two partners. There's a very clear role for each participant with the wife subjecting herself to her husband, at least in this charge.

This is not dependent upon the wife's agreement with her husband. Many would argue that where there is agreement, submission is not possible. Submission actually happens where there is disagreement. Neither does it allow her to wait until her husband deserves her submission for her to submit. To illustrate the point, Paul says, The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is also the head of the church. In verse 23, obviously, simple illustrations are in order here. A body does not function without a head. It is the head that makes the decisions and ultimately controls the rest of the body. The body never does what the head does not want.

The same things can be said about Christ and his body, the church, and likewise, it should characterize the marital relationship. So this is not complicated. It's not hard to understand. It's very difficult to apply, and especially in the flesh. And I think it's safe to now back up the bus over the husbands. Let's go to verse 25 and following. This is the submission of husbands. Versus, start with verses 25 to 27. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word. so that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing that she might be holy and without blemish.

A husband's proper submission will have him putting the needs of his wife ahead of his own. This is the subjection to one another that Paul is talking about. And in the same way he submits to Christ and he defers to his wife. In brief, all that men are called to do here is to love their wives as Christ loved the church. That's it, right? How hard could it possibly be?

Well, humanly, it's actually not possible. Ha. Husbands are called to love their wives sacrificially as Christ did to his church, and Christ did not seek his own good, but rather the good of his bride. And of course, we recognize that ultimately it benefits Christ. We'll get to that moments from now. He modeled love in a perfect way, not seeking his own interests. In verse, well, yeah. We see this also in this passage that there is an important motive for Christ giving Himself up to the forsake of the church, and that is that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

This is actually one of my favorite concepts in all of the New Testament, that Christ is personally invested in the sanctification of the church. And the church comprises many members. And you are numbered among them, which means, by extension, that Christ has a personal investment in your personal holiness, in your sanctification, in your purity. And he's going to make sure it happens. Christ wants to present to himself a pure and an undefiled bride in the church. Ultimately then, Christ loves the church for sake of his own good, pleasure, and glory. and that is right and it is good. He desired to present the church to himself in splendor, so the more glorified and perfect she is, the greater will be his pleasure in taking her as his bride.

And he's gonna make sure that it is all the way perfect in the end. So then Jesus invests himself personally in the purity of his bride. And you can find tremendous encouragement in that this morning. In the same manner, husbands should be personally invested in the purity of their wives. Husbands should earnestly long to see their wives purified and holy. They should approach them with all the tender love and affection that Christ has demonstrated in the pursuit of His church and her sanctification. Like the church, men should view their wives as less than perfect, but as having been entrusted to them for the purposes of her sanctification.

Men's greatest desires for a bride can be fulfilled only by following Christ's model. are satisfied with far too little in their wives that they're happy to have someone, a servant perhaps at home who will cook and clean for them, feed the little one, send them off to school. Rather he is to follow Christ's example, longing to see her purified. And this is what I mean when I talk about the submission of husbands. This is the subjection I'm talking about. We got hung up on the term submission because like I said, our culture thinks about submission as a demonstration of weakness. And it is actually a a death to self forsake of someone else. That is the mutual subjection that Paul is aiming at here or else he wouldn't follow verse 21 with all of these duties and responsibilities that these relationships have toward one another.

He would only speak to children, he would only speak to wives, he would only speak to slaves, he would not speak to parents, to husbands, to fathers, to slave Masters. Verse 29, so let's go verse 28, in the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself for no one ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it just as Christ does the church because we are members of his body. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So husbands are to love their own wives as their own bodies. For For instance, a husband feeds his body, exercises, bathes, and does other essential and deliberate acts to keep his body in running order.

Men who neglect their bodies tend to die prematurely. It's not too complicated of an illustration. The body depends on the conscious decisions of the mind in terms of subsistence and even love. Likewise, husbands are to nurture their wives in the same way. Paul even goes so far as to say, he who loves his own wife loves himself.

That's a very interesting word order, Paul is arguing that love for himself apparently depends on or is manifested in a husband's love for his wife. A husband's love for his wife is a demonstration of his love for himself because it is in his interests to care for her as she is his body he is her head. A husband is called to provide for his wife not only in terms of temporal sustenance, putting meat on the table, but also spiritual nourishment for the Christian husband meeting his wife's temporal needs without nurturing her spiritually as failure as a husband. Conversely, discipling his wife and caring and carefully and gently helping her to grow without caring for her immediate temporal needs is also a great failure as a husband. Verses 31 to 32 say, therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each of you love his wife as himself and let the wife see that she respects her husband. And I believe the

part that Paul is talking about being so mysterious because Christ didn't have a mother to leave. I think the one flesh-ness is what he is talking about here. The two shall become one flesh, verse 31, Christ who has exalted with the Father even now, the preeminent one, a la Colossians 1, would willfully and deliberately take on fellowship with us. That's crazy. It's not as though he needed that or as though we were particularly lovely, yet Christ has desired and worked to join us to Himself and the church shall be joined to Christ. However, says Paul, let each one of you love his wife as himself and let the wife see that she respects her husband. In verse 33, yeah, Paul tags this on here as if to say at the end of this paragraph, in any case, if you don't learn anything today, learn this, in a nutshell, each individual among you is also to love his own wife as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband."

Literally entire books, like I'm reading one right now with my wife, have been written about the substance of Paul's charges here to the weaknesses of the sexes. Women who love their husbands might struggle to respect them, and men who have a respect for their wives might struggle to love them, and love and respect encapsule very well what he is going after in the preceding verses. We move on in chapter 6, verse 1 to the submission of children, the submission of children in verses 1 through 3. Children, obey your parents and the Lord for this is right. Honor your father and mother, this is the first commandment with a promise, that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.

Paul's exhortation to his Ephesian readers here is that they pay careful attention to family relationships as these relationships have been designed, orchestrated, ordained by God. It's kind of like your circumstances in general. If you affirm the sovereignty of God and His goodness, then you're calling not good, what He has called good. And your circumstances, which are by design from Him, may be giving gifts from Christ to help sanctify you, because he cares about that. When you hate them, who are you really upset with? When a child hates his parents, there's a reason why it's abominable in the Old Testament. It is because he is spitting in the face of God's designed order.

Paul's command in verses one through three here is not for children to simply obey their parents, but to do so in the Lord. This helps orient the children, helps them to recognize that God has appointed their parents over them by design. And in fact, God has given children as a gift to parents, not the other way around, although he does control it all. And to submit to parents is a child's demonstration of, well, it is. To submit to parents is a way that a child can submit to God, and that is his design for all of his children. Honor your father and mother is a quotation from Exodus chapter 20 verse 12, and although he is appealing to Gentile Ephesians, he still opts to make a reference to the Old Testament, and in further detailing the Old Testament command, perhaps even the Gentiles will see that this is something that God took seriously enough to attach a promise to it.

so that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth. Obedience without submission, then, is not honor rendered to parents. It is common for a child to be obedient on the exterior while being rebellious internally, maybe standing up on the inside but sitting down on the outside or reverse. This is not what Paul means when he says, honor your father or mother. There's an understatement. Rather, obedience accompanied by subjection is reflected in a child's humble delight in his parents and his recognition of God's having placed them in authority over him. So when children are submissive and obedient to their parents, and notice what I mean by that is that it comes from the heart, they honor their parents.

This means they treat their parents as though they have real value. Likewise, those things that we honor are those things which we value. In a child's life, however, we recognize that his parents are his primary God-given authority and their source of training. Much of the responsibility then falls to parents, as no child is born knowing how to submit to his parents. Much of the responsibility, as I said, falls on the parents to teach the child how he ought to conduct himself. have to be trained to obey and honor their parents and who is going to teach them, if not the parents themselves. It would be silly to expect any child to honor or obey or to generally conduct himself in a righteous manner without having them first taught to do so.

The little urchins are born in sin. And so are you. Obedience is the child's duty and obedience of the child is the parent's responsibility. Further, this obedience yields great blessing. And this is, of course, a biblical principle from cover to cover that obedience to God's commands results in tremendous blessing from Him. And He says as much here, so that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth. Of course, it's not suggesting that it's a guarantee that you're going to live to old age if you obey your parents. But He's not saying you'll be exempt from premature death in every way. Of course not.

does testify to the biblical pattern of obedience leading to blessing. But what about the submission of parents in verse 4? Let's look at that. The submission of parents, verse 4. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. How on earth is this submission?

We must remember that these commands fall under this umbrella of chapter 5, verse 21, and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ, or submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, depending on your translation. For parents then to commit to honoring even their children, parents honoring their children, it is their own call to submission which is just as submissive as it is for children to obey their parents. It's just different and I'll get to that in a second. Or for wives to submit to their husbands or for husbands to love their wives. The identity of the person who is submitting does not change the fact that all are called to submit. Every Christian is supposed to submit. Identity has no bearing on whether or not submission is actual or legitimate. So our identity has no bearing on whether or not the submission is actual or legitimate. It's simply different. These parties, as well as slaves and masters, are all to subject themselves to one another. But the way that they do so differs

for each group. So far, at least every human falls into the category of child. So there's nobody who is exempt from this, all these different categories or these litany of responsibilities.

And many of us fall into more than one category. But it is at least an all-inclusive list, though it is not exhaustive. So, looking at verse 4, we observe that the subject of this command is fathers and we can gather by language and context that applies to both parents. The subjects then are parents and the objects, the recipients of the action are children and immediately followed following a command by children to honor and obey their parents is a command for parents to give them another reason to obey and honor beyond the scriptural command. The responsibility in this passage belongs to parents. It is their duty not to provoke their children to anger. I actually have Ephesians 6-4 scratched on our spanker. So who's being oriented there? Who's being reminded? Not children, though, about your parents, but when you take up this rod, Dad, your job is to inflesh the gospel, not to exasperate your children. It would seem important for us to know what this entails. The anger spoken of here

includes a resentment that most of us understand firsthand related to this anger piece. It's far below the exterior and it often doesn't come up until later in life, but if parents bring their children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, the children will have no cause to be provoked to wrath, at least not from them. Of course, this anger can also refer to the immediate rage that a children experiences as a result of a of a parent's failure to act righteously in any of the above situations. So, and sometimes kids are just mad that happens, so are we. But in a very strange and orienting reality, this, the context of these words, fathers were receiving this instruction under first century Roman law, Potiphamilius.

And that is they had basically carte blanche to do whatever they wanted to or with their children. If a son were rebellious and disobedient and a father determined to execute him, there would be no legal repercussions for that. And how counter-cultural would it be? How counter-cultural would it be for a father to actually look to honor his son by bringing him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the discipline and instruction of the Lord, for him to live as Christ before his son? It would look different. It would look different than it would even in our culture. And yet that was the context in which this was being presented.

There was no legal limit by how a father could punish a child's disobedience or his rebellion. Of course, there were undoubtedly loving fathers, even among the pagans. But this command is radically different from the normal experience that they would have been familiar with, He calls them to bring their children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. And this training then was not to come from fathers on the basis of their own worldly wisdom or knowledge or understanding, but rather on the basis of the Lord's instruction, His word. We turn to the submission of slaves in verse 5, the submission of slaves in verses 5 through 8.

Slaves obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart as you would Christ not by way of eye service as people pleasers but as servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man knowing that whatever good anyone does this he will receive back from the Lord whether he is a slave or free. First we look at verses four to six being content in our circumstances and resting in God's sovereignty means that we meet being obedient to those who are in authority over us as having been appointed by God. This takes a variety of forms and for example by extension and principle honoring one's employer is honoring God.

I guess a brief timeout is in order. The type of slavery that existed under first century Roman culture was closer, let's put it this way, the type of slavery slavery we saw in the United States 200 years ago is closer, 150 years ago or so, is closer to first century Rome than it is to Old Testament Israel. So even as Americans, we at least have some sort of idea how perverse and wicked the notion of being able to own somebody's soul, if they had a soul, might actually be. And in this context, Paul is arguing for slaves to submit and for masters to love their slaves. So if they can apply that, then how easy should our circumstances as employees be by extension or comparison?

If we recognize that God is in control of our circumstances, then that necessarily means that he has placed us in the station of life where he has, and the our station of employment for his purposes. It's ultimately then disobedient to God to disobey our employers or to fail to honor them as we ought. And of course, all the qualifiers are in place if the employer is asking you to sin. Your responsibility before God is to disobey. But if they're asking you to be, if what they're asking is reasonable, or even if it's hard and lawful and they have the prerogative to do that, then you have an opportunity to honor Christ in how you submit to your employer.

God places individuals in our lives as spiritual authorities as well. Just as we submit to employers, masters, so we ought to submit to God via our spiritual authorities. So physical authorities, spiritual authorities, if God has orchestrated it, if God has ordained those and put them in place, then we can show our love for Christ by how we submit to one another. Note Paul's references to the source of his submission with a sincere heart, doing the will of God from the heart. He keeps going back to the heart in these consecutive verses because it's paramount that the readers understand the importance of not simply trying to do good works to please God or doing them simply externally with no substance behind them.

The point in view in verses five through nine is that as Paul states three times, we should never endeavor to work to please men when it is God that has ordained our circumstances. If we aim to please men, we will receive our reward in this world and it will be limited to this world. Men's favor is fleeting and fickle. Beyond this, it is inappropriate for you to be seeking to honor men, and it's unloving to them. So when a wife does the dishes in order to earn the praise of her husband, that's wrong on a couple of levels, in order to earn the praise of her husband, because what if he doesn't notice? Well, is God honored in that?

Hmm, not exactly. And the husband's a dirtbag sleeping on the couch for what he didn't notice. Whereas if she is working to, if she is doing the dishes to serve the Lord and do the right thing and be, and joyfully serving her family, taking great delight in that and her, and from the heart with a sincere heart, the Lord is pleased. Her husband may notice, it doesn't, and if he may not notice, it doesn't matter, she's happy. But when he does notice, hey awesome. So if our aim is to please the Lord, at least we have a static goal we're shooting for. Because we know his will and he is unchanging. He wants our faithfulness.

If we're aiming to please men, that is a moving target and a constantly fluctuating standard. It might overlap, so the Lord's is steady, man's is vacillating. There are some intersecting points to be sure, but the way to really please men is by aiming to please the Lord. And more than life, you're going to please the right kind of men along the way. So that has application for our relationship as those who are in submission.

Our honoring of men presents an opportunity for us to honor God, whether it's doing dishes or showing up five minutes early for work or being a self-starter. Note the last part of verse five, as to Christ, and again in verse seven, render service as to the Lord, not to men. We are literally to act as though in serving those in authority of us, we are serving Jesus. And doesn't that make it easier? It does in my mind. And the same thing actually applies for those under our authority as well. If by the Spirit's empowering, we delight in our circumstances as God-ordained opportunities for us to grow and become like Jesus?

Well, then in our righteousness, we may not only grow in him, but we can be pleasing to him. For this reason, our mindset must not be eternal, it must be eternal and not temporal, otherwise. We would not believe Paul when he says, whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. He says that a slave or a free man. And verse eight, man will disappoint. It's folly to seek honor from them. We must find our satisfaction in serving the Lord. The submission of masters in verse nine is shorter. Verse nine says, masters do the same thing to them. Stop your threatening knowing that he who is both their master and yours is in heaven and there is no partiality with him.

So if by God's grace we are put in a position of authority according to the flesh anyway, as an employer, perhaps, we're not to boast our position but rather recognize that we too are all slaves and masters alike, servants commonly of the same master in heaven. We dare not act arrogantly then, our leadership in righteousness and righteous deeds, we will receive back from the Lord whether slave or free. Our service is to the Lord not to men. So we should not seek the favor praise of men rather. The glory of God in our conduct. And really if you weren't clear enough here in this exhortation to The father is in verse four.

He is exhorting slave masters not to be domineering and threatening as there is no partiality with God. From the perspective of the father, the slave is no different from the master in terms of value. And the father is capital F there. So from the perspective of our heavenly father, the slave is no different from the master in terms of inherent value. Both are image bearers of God. Likewise, a child is no less important than his father. They're both bearers of God's image. They're all commanded to submit to one another, and this portion of Paul's letter teaches us that this looks different for each person, but it remains submission nevertheless.

It's perhaps fitting then that this would be a part of this larger discussion of mutual submission. And while it's an immediate context that this principle applies to slave-master relationships, it's appropriate for both spouses and families in general, we must not approach our relationships as anything other than God-ordained circumstances. We must not approach our relationships as anything other than God-ordained circumstances. A father must not glory in his lordship over his children. A husband must not glory in his headship over his wife, at least not inappropriately. When we are going to glory in that, we're going to glory in the same way that Christ is going to glory in being the head over the church.

For a child to seek the sole favor of a father rather than that of his heavenly father, he is inevitably setting himself up for disappointment. Likewise, where a husband will fail in leadership and authority, God is constant and unchanging. It's wise then to seek God's favor by our mutual submission rather than the favor of men. We must trust that in accordance with God's desire and with God's design, harmony in our relationships will necessarily follow when we submit to Him. And in the case of husbands and wives, love and romance likely follow when we learn to submit to the Lord. So we talked here about the offensive arsenal by our offensive weapons, by our submission to Christ. We fight against the broken ideologies of this world, but the enemy attacks us as well. How can we stand strong before him? We move on to verses 10 through 20 and then the defensive arsenal, the defensive arsenal. After this series of exhortations that we just work through regarding how Christians are to treat one another in these specific situations.

And after having taught them how to be subject to one another in the fear of Christ, Paul urges them to be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. It's not merely a tagged on paragraph here at the end, but rather a dramatic climax to the letter where Paul brings again to the attention of his readers a number of points that he's been laboring throughout his letter. Specifically, he refers back to the power of God, like the power that was at work in Christ in the resurrection. He refers that way back in chapter 1. The empowering work of the Holy Spirit are being in Christ. In addition to bringing to a head the instructional material from chapter 4 verse 1 through this passage, Paul is speaking of the power source required to carry out these commands.

A special source of spiritual power and protection is required for the spiritual battle in which we are engaged. Where the word of God goes forth and ministry is effective or fruitful, there the schemes of Satan are also most evident. An effective ministry often is marked by conflict and persecution. Satan needs not waste his time or the battle is not being fought. The Christian that applies all of the doctrine and direction from Ephesians chapter one, verse one through six, verse nine, should expect to be engaged heavily and spiritual warfare. Such a believer must then be adequately prepared for the battle and such preparation is the nature of Paul's instruction here.

The apostle is not exhorting his readers to rely on any strength of their own, but rather be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. The strength of course, he supplies. He also supplies the armor. His might is great and it is then not our own strength on which we rely. We are engaged in battle if we employ these teachings, and we certainly won't win on our own. For those who are made alive by the Spirit, having been spiritually dead and slaves of unrighteousness, in chapter two, verses one through five, only by the Spirit's empowering can we walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which we have been called, chapter four, verse one.

So it naturally follows that the Spirit would assist us in our walk in the Spirit, chapter five, verse 15 through 21, as well as our self-subjection or submission one to another, the passages we just studied. And of course, now, our spiritual warfare. Paul wishes for his readers to understand that it is impossible for those who were born spiritually dead to engage in any spiritual living. Not to mention spiritual warfare. The power of the flesh, especially against an enemy that we cannot see, is impotent. It's folly. We must in all these things be strong in the Lord. The apostles command is to put on the full armor of God.

He says to do that here. This is a powerful word picture, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps inspired by his being chained to a Roman guard from a Roman jail while he is penning this. This is one of the prison epistles. Perhaps he looked on the soldier's armor and noticed some interesting similarities between the protection that that soldier's armor offered him and the protection that God offers us. This is armor which God supplies, of course, and a failure to properly wear the armor is hazardous. For we do not wrestle, says Paul, against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places, and against Athena, who is directing that little arrow so it pricks Mennelaus.

Only armor that God, that was added by the way, that the Athena part's not actually in the original. Only armor that God supplies will be sufficient to protect us from spiritual attack. We can wear all of the chain mail we wish. That's fine, but it won't protect us from unholy thoughts. Context and Paul's words themselves tell the readers that the rulers, the world forces of darkness, this present darkness, the spiritual force of wickedness, they're not physical powers. They're rather spiritual forces require a set of spiritual weapons. If we would fight them, that is. Logic and rules of warfare, they're fantastic.

They demand that a soldier adorn himself appropriately. The armor in view here is spiritual to protect us from spiritual attack. Now I'm gonna break down this armor just a little bit. I'm not gonna geek out too much, hopefully. I also don't wanna take Paul's illustration too far. It's an illustration, of course, it breaks down at some point. But I think that looking at it at least a little bit will help us to better understand Paul. So bear with me. Stand there for, he says in verse 14, having fastened on the belt of truth and having girded your loins is what he says here in verse 14.

That's the belt of truth, yeah. For a Roman soldier, the belt actually was significant because the loins are an area of great vulnerability. There's a lot of soft tissue and little protection So it was necessary that one engaged in battle protect his loins, Roman soldiers, like most people at the time, they wore an undergarment of light fabric that was like a long pillow case. And it could be encumbering, kind of like if you were to go off to battle in a miniskirt, it actually wouldn't be incredibly convenient. So they had to cinch it up and tucked it into the belt. So it would encumber them less. So when preparing for a rigorous activity, like dressing for combat, it was necessary that the soldiers render this garment less cumbersome by tucking the tail of it into a heavy leather belt that girded his loins.

So the belt that he says here, for purposes of girding your loins, is referred to as the belt of truth. All the encumbrances, and this is again, running with the illustration, all the encumbrances that would impede the movement of the believer are to be bound up in the truth. The soldier may then operate and move uninhibited by temporal or spiritual distractions. Rather, the truth will, in fact, bind all of the unnecessary distractions. It is essential to draw from the truth, I'm sorry, it's essential for us to draw from the source of all truth, that is God's word. Clearly, the Bible teaches much with respect to what needs, what truths we need to dwell on and to engage successfully in spiritual battle.

Like that is our source of wisdom. You hear it said sometimes that any time a person sins, he is in that moment believing the lies of the devil more than he is God. Failure to trust God, for instance, suggests that he is unable to save you or that he has forgotten his promises. So we know that we are to rehearse the truth. And second half of verse 14, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness. The breastplate is a piece of armor, body armor, that protects the torso, not just the chest. The chest is the largest target of the soldier's body, so it's the easiest target for missiles, like arrows and crossbow bolts, that sort of thing.

So this would necessarily be the largest pieces of armor that a soldier put on. Kids, if I'm losing you here, think just, you know, Batman. Okay, like what's the biggest piece of his body suit? Okay, the breastplate would provide general protection of the most susceptible part of his body. Likewise, the general covering of righteousness the best defense of a Christian engaged in spiritual battle. For a Roman soldier, the breastplate was a sleeveless garment covering, or a piece, covering the entire torso. It was made of leather or heavy linen, which, by the way, can actually stop an arrow. Isn't that crazy? I did geek out one time and watched a medieval weapons test, and they're shooting an English longbow, which the Romans, the Gauls didn't have English longbows.

I get that. but they did have some pretty powerful weapons. And they were shooting at this body covering that was just multiple layers of linen, and this longbow with a draw weight of about 120 pounds could not pierce, the arrow could not pierce the linen. Now it could break ribs, no doubt. It would provide some punch and take you out of the battle. It could actually stop an arrow. It's remarkable. We can run with the illustration there. Righteousness is potent. Sown to the covering would be maybe overlapped pieces of hammered metal or animal hooves or bone, horn even. And that would conform better to the shape and contours of the soldier's body than solid pieces of metal, like the medieval knights in their shining armor.

And its function was, of course, to protect the vital organs. It covered more than just the soldier's breast, but also as highly vulnerable back and sides. So the righteousness that Paul is speaking about here is not self-righteousness. That'd be silly. It's not imputed righteousness, which we have, whether we put it on or not. Christ has given that to us. It's rather a practical or a behavioral righteousness that comes from living in conformity to God's word. To enter the battle without a breastplate would be stupid. Similarly, to endeavor to engage in spiritual warfare without having a life marked by personal righteousness is to invite swift destruction, walking in sin.

We are useless to God. More than that, we're dangerous. The church gets in trouble when the unrighteous are trying to set straight the people of God. Unrighteousness doesn't help anyone, and although he is able, of course, to even use unrighteous people for his purposes. We know that. Paul says, having girded your loins with the truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, these two parts are prerequisite. And only having put them on should a soldier dare to put on the rest. The shield of faith.

I gotta move along here. The shield, there were two types of shields that Roman soldiers used. One was like a round one that was about two feet across. You could use in close combat. That's awesome. That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the big rectangular one that was solid wood overlaid with heavily oiled leather or even metal that would line up in the famous Roman phalanx. They could interlock these shields and create an impenetrable wall of protection. That is the shield, the type of shield that he is talking about. Fascinating that just as a soldier's first offense is his shield, so a Christian's first defense is his shield of faith.

It is with a shield of faith that a believer is able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. I wish I could talk about the flaming arrows, and how they did them in pitch, and how they splattered upon impact when they were lit, and all that. But faith will extinguish flaming arrows of the wicked one. And potentially, some have argued, those arrows of the enemy are temptations. And our faith can extinguish those temptations that the enemy would lob at us. Verse 17 reads, take the helmet of salvation. And of course, perhaps one of the areas that is most vulnerable and likely to suffer lasting harm if impacted is the head.

Therefore, a Roman soldier would wear a rather extensive helmet, wrapping most of his head. It was often made of pieces of thick, hard, and dry leather with perhaps some metal flaps covering the cheeks, if not being entirely of metal. And it was designed to turn sword jabs into glancing blows. Our protection is salvation. Salvation guarantees eternal joy and bliss in heaven.

For the Christian, the worst that can happen is physical death, which simply ushers us into God's presence more quickly and in one respect then we welcome death with our salvation as our guard and our guarantee. So no matter what, our salvation is our protection, that is our helmet. The fact that the head and salvation are linked together in this passage tells us a lot about how the enemy attacks us as well. A soldier's helmet protects his head and ultimately his mind. It is the mind that the enemy attacks using such tactics as discouragement and doubt causing the believer to rely not on the promises of scripture but instead on his own logic. So that reminds us of our own need for familiarity with our weapons. And the last sort of defensive weapon that Paul gets to is prayer. He says in verses 18 through 20, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication to that end keep alert with all perseverance making supplication for all the saints. And also for me, the Now words may be given to me in the opening of my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery

of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly as I ought to speak." In the closing exhortations here, Paul is instructing his readers in terms of how to pray specifically. He tells them to pray at all times, in the spirit, with alertness from perseverance and petition for all the saints, and on Paul's behalf. The sense behind Paul's speech is that this prayer is urgent and necessary, and it's essential, that is, prayer is essential to the Christian's defensive arsenal as well. In prayer, we call on God ultimately to protect us. It's fitting, then, that this would come right after he's just talking about these weapons of warfare and the armor of God.

Prayer is what renders us capable of even using our armor. Inquiring of God as to how to use the weapons he supplies is essential. Paul includes himself in this assessment, pleading with them to pray on his behalf. He asks for them to pray for him to have the right words, for him to have the boldness to preach the mystery of the gospel. It's worth noting that Paul, a remarkably gifted and bold declarer of the truth, would not do so in his own strength, wouldn't dare to do so, but only with what God supplies. He asked the Ephesian Christians to partner with him in this. It's remarkable too, that despite his what we might call less than favorable circumstances, the apostle does not request prayer for his physical strength.

He does not request prayer for sustenance or for the guards to set him free or anything that would be of mere personal benefit for him. Rather, he prays for boldness that in proclaiming the gospel, I may speak boldly, he says, as I ought to speak. Many of us would do well to ask God for this kind of boldness. And then last, we have the sign off from the battle, which is verses 21 through 24. Paul says, so that you may know how I am doing, and what I am doing, Ticacchus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage your hearts.

Paul, possibly wanting for them to know better how to pray for him, sends Ticacchus to deliver this letter, and to give additional information on Paul's welfare. Now, Tychicus had accompanied Paul and others to Jerusalem in Acts chapter 20, verses four through six, and he was with Paul during his first imprisonment. He was frequently sent by Paul on missions. You can see in 2 Timothy 4.12, Titus 3.12.

And as Paul called him the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, he would be a good candidate to deliver not only the letter, Paul's greetings to the church regarding his welfare as well. And then he finishes by saying, and we're going to stop here as well, peace be to the brothers and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible. And along with Paul, we conclude the letter of Ephesians, a book that's loaded with mysterious glories and happy promises if we would cling to them. May God grant us the faith to fight our spiritual battle with the proper weapons and the proper defenses. Let's pray.

Father, we are grateful for your promises and for your faithfulness. We're grateful that you have instructed us how we are to do battle in this world and it is with unlikely weapons. It takes faith for us to wield them, but only by faith will we ever wield them in the first place. And that faith too comes from you. Grant us to do what we know and to do it with faithfulness. We thank you that you have given us a formula for human flourishing and that when we do these things we have even in our own lives seen fruit that comes from that kind of obedience. And by your grace may May this church excel still more. We love you and we thank you and we pray this in Christ's name.

Amen. So now we come to the time in our service for communion. In our communion is an open communion. We don't restrict it to only members of our church. We want people that love the Lord and know him as their Savior to participate in the communion. So we open it up in that way. And so we see it as those who have been baptized into one body by faith, as those who have repented of sin and put their faith in Christ were able to partake of his body and blood. Now to the issue that Jonathan was talking about in Ephesians, that it's a supernatural thing now we're going to do. We are going to have this little piece of bread and this wine and have it represent what God did for us at the cross, and that only God is the one that could have saved us.

Only his sacrifice would allow us to even come together in the communion of our worship together, in our church, in our coming every week to him to thank him for the things that he's done and to praise him for who he is. And that, as Jonathan already did, and it's gonna be in the charge that I'm gonna give you after we do communion, but this verse, I took it out of a New King James Bible. Giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of God. Newer translations put reverence.

I always get bugged about that. The word is fear, and the issue is, we should fear the person that can cast you into hell forever. That's an awesome thing that God can do. And yet he offers us a way out through his son. And that's what we're celebrating in communion. So the idea that all these armaments for these supernatural battles that are going on in front of us in our lives, we have the equipment to do it, we have the fellowship to do it, and the one another's allow us to help each other in those things. So let's remember that as we partake together to have communion that we are part of the body of Christ and the mystery of the gospel as it says in Ephesians.

And we hope that that honors the board. We feel that it does. And I know that it's changed my view of communion and worship that we do do it weekly like this. And I think it is a unique thing that happens to us every week with the communing together to give him thanks for what he's done for us. And today's commission is right out of Jonathan's last teachings. Ephesians 5, 15 through 21. So here's our charge. Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time because the days are evil. Therefore, do not be foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is and do not get drunk with wine for that is debauchery but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always, and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence, fear for the Lord Christ. Amen and go and do likewise.

And we hope that that honors the board. We feel that it does. And I know that it's changed my view of communion and worship that we do do it weekly like this. And I think it is a unique thing that happens to us every week with the communing together to give him thanks for what he's done for us. And today's commission is right out of Jonathan's last teachings. Ephesians 5, 15 through 21. So here's our charge. Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time because the days are evil. Therefore, do not be foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is and do not get drunk with wine for that is debauchery but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always, and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence, fear for the Lord Christ.

Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

I would invite you to turn in your Bibles to Ephesians chapter 5. That's where we're going to be hanging out tonight. This is my fifth message in Ephesians. Taking one chapter at a time has been our aim. And as Sean said earlier, I have two more messages. I will confess at the start that I'm cheating tonight. And for reasons that will become obvious later on, the way that this chapter breaks down the last two paragraphs fit very, very nicely with chapter six. So my aim tonight is to talk through verse 21, and then we will begin next Lord's Day, next Sunday morning, our time in Ephesians, we'll begin with verse 22 of chapter five through the end of chapter six, which itself will be some work.

But Paul's letter to the Ephesians has long been a favorite of mine. As I've worked to understand how Christians ought to behave in the world, how we ought to engage the culture around us, it feels as though the Christians at Ephesus faced a lot of the same adversity that we do as contemporary Americans. For one thing, of course, the human condition has not changed, we're still fallen, but for another, the decadent culture in which the Ephesian Christians were situated was a lot like ours. So it offers, needless to say, plenty of help direction to us. Paul, as you'll recall, was personally invested in the church at Ephesus.

He had invested in them personally some years prior to this letter being penned. He was very concerned that they would apply their teaching, that they would practice what they know, that they would live in light of their new identity in Christ, that they would love their status as sons of God, that they would glory in their comprising, they're being part of the bride of Christ. They're getting to be part of God's expression of his manifold wisdom before the angels, before all the cosmos in the Church. And in chapter 4 he told them that unbelievers, and such you were, as the Ephesian Christians once were, have a darkened understanding. They cannot discern spiritual things. And we can relate when we try to cling to that as well. We fail to cast that off. Paul pleads with his readers not to do that, but instead to live in community with one another in wisdom.

So this evening as we look at chapter 5, I've entitled this message, From Darkness to Light, Walking with Wisdom, the Transformed Life. If nothing else, it's a lofty title. The chapter is one about the Christian's walk and the final two paragraphs usher in the theme that we'll carry on through chapter 6 and we'll examine that as I mentioned next week. Without further ado, I'm going to begin tonight by reading Ephesians chapter 5 verses 1 through 21. I would encourage you to follow along with me, even if it's just listening. I'll be reading from the ESV. Therefore, be imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and a sacrifice to God.

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor foolish talk, nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous, that is an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things, the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them, for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.

as children of light, for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true. And try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord, take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret, but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible. For anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, Awake O sleeper and arise from the dead and Christ will shine on you. Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore, do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is, and do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody into the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Christians are to walk the walk, right? So

let's take a look at exactly what sort of walk Paul was commending to his Christian readers. What kind of walk he wanted them to walk. I'm going to suggest that it is a loving walk and an enlightened walk and a wise walk. And those are the three hooks we're going to hang our thoughts on tonight. A loving walk, an enlightened walk, and a wise walk with different degrees of time devoted to each one of them. First, let's look at the first two verses. Maybe you noticed, maybe you didn't notice when I was reading that, that there's an interesting side-by-side old man, new man, darkness, light, juxtaposition. As we go through it, he says, don't do this, do this, don't do this, do this, this, and this.

Don't do this, do this, don't do this, this, and this, do this. So some are weightier than others, Some are more numerous than others, but it's a very clear contrast. And he says, therefore in verse one, be imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and a sacrifice to God. Though therefore there is pointing immediately back to verse 32 of the chapter before, or even the last paragraph, 25 to 32. And you may remember that he was giving some pretty beefy instruction about how these Christians were to interact with one another, interact in the church, and in the midst of their culture.

So, as he transitions to verse chapter five, he's not really introducing any profound new information. He's reiterating and restating much of the same stuff, much of the same information. The imitators of God as beloved children. That is the third exhortation as to how we are to live in the second half of the book. There's one in chapter four verse one, 4.17, 5.1. And God had already modeled for us how we are to be kind, tender-hearted, and forgiving, as we must imitate Christ in this way if we were to honor Him with our lives and relationships. He says in verse two, "'Walk in love as Christ loved us "'and gave Himself up for us.'" Sean mentioned this morning that we have, we have the completed paintbrush before us, right?

We know what the factor is aiming to crank out. When we behold Christ, we want to behold Him rightly because we're being conformed to that. We know what awaits us. Christians are to live in a manner worthy of the calling with which we have been called. We are to sacrificially edify and serve one another. This is again, more information revisited from chapter four. This is walking in love as Paul is stating it here. It's also imitating God as all these are modeled perfectly in him. Just as Christ also loved you, He loved us and gave Himself up for us a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. Not only was Christ effectively redeeming his beloved, but he was also demonstrating for them the sort of behavior that we were to emulate, that we were to model, that we were to follow.

Continuing with this language, it's reminiscent, the sacrifice to God, the fragrant aroma. This Old Testament sacrificial system, of course, Paul was very well versed in it. He was trained under Gamaliel. And he's reminding his readers that Christ's sacrifice was a sacrifice to God himself, and a pleasing one at that. It was complete, it was sufficient, and it was intended to accomplish exactly what it did accomplish. That is the full propitiation of the Father's wrath. So as we imitate Christ, and then as we look back to the previous chapter, we can know for certain that our walk is to be one of love. It is to be one of love toward one another.

It is to be one of love as we follow the example of Jesus. Next we look at verses three through 14 and how our walk is to be an enlightened walk, an enlightened walk. Let me start by revisiting verses three to five. Three to five, sexual immorality and it's very interesting, he starts right there. He jumps right in with sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking which are out of place but instead that there be thanksgiving for you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure or who is covetous, that is an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

It sure seems like any list of things to cast off or things to avoid would not be complete if it were not for a command to avoid sexual immorality. But regardless, he goes right there and aims for the jugular for, and that was also a characteristic of the Ephesian culture and what was morally acceptable to them. And part of why I have long thought that it's so applicable for us today. We, that's sexual sins are particularly potent, they're particularly wicked, they're particularly enslaving and destructive and describe well what we've been freed from. Whoever is habitually impure and leads a mark, a life marked by impurity, sexual or otherwise, is bound for hell, plain and simply.

So these verses do capture very well what it is from which we were rescued. So now as Satan counterfeits whatever God establishes, so the world often believes that love centers on sex and temporal gratification. That is of course not the case. From a biblical standpoint, this is actually hatred as love seeks the purity of others and is itself unselfish. Sexual sin, says Paul, should not even be named among us, as is proper among saints. And how sad that the church would be indistinguishable from the world, God forbid, that we would be indistinguishable from the world in the area of sexual purity or immorality. There should be no hint of immorality, impurity, or greed present in Christ's church.

If Paul's concern in this passage pertains to right Christian relationships, and as we have light. We ought to walk in light. If this pertains to relationships, then it is safe to say that it's essential that our relationships be distinguishable from the rest of the world. And in verses 3-5 he moves that direction, giving a more pointed instruction later on in verses 6-14. His point here is that anybody who takes notice of the church to see Christ reflected especially in the relationships among the Christians, he said this, by this they will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another. Those relationships that Christians enjoy with one another and the individuals involved in them should be free from immorality, filthiness, and greed.

He says in verse four, there must be no filthiness or silly talk or coarse jesting which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. This has echoes of chapter four verse 29, just moments earlier, at least in the letter, they would have read that. Paul is encouraging his readers to be serious, putting away the coarse jesting and inappropriate speech that so commonly characterizes the world for the sake of a good laugh, perhaps, right? The same apostle who expects those born of God to be joyful expects them not to be crude, crass, or needlessly silly. Now is this to say that there's no place for humor, or there's no place for even, if there were no place for even crass language for sake of an effect or calling sin what it is, then Paul himself would be a hypocrite because elsewhere in his letters he does imply some pretty salty language.

That's not my point. My point is, well I think it actually goes without saying that we understand pretty well as a culture what sort of vile profane humor characterizes the world. Filthiness and silly talk seem to be good translations and they seem to capture the essence of Paul's point pretty well. He moves in verse four to specific sins of the speech. You know, of course Paul is not James, but James said, well, that the tongue is like a rudder. Our James taught us that, some months ago now, that with it, we can control the whole body.

Paul does this because this is perhaps the quickest indicator of somebody's spirituality. So he first identifies sexual sins and then talks about sins of speech. If you wanna be able to identify quickly if somebody loves Christ or not, just listen to him talk. What sorts of things does he say? What sorts of things does he want to hear? There are clearly distinguishable characteristics that ought to characterize a Christian's speech. And they set them apart from the world. And Paul keys in on one of them here, giving thanks. Giving of thanks. Again, what an interesting juxtaposition. Look at this. So, let no one deceive you with empty words for because, let's see if I get there.

You know what, I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm so excited here. We'll get there. We'll talk about thanks, I promise. But it is interesting How that is one hallmark of the wise walking new man, he's characterized by thankfulness. So again, we'll talk about that in just a moment. But how different would our lives be if we actually focused our attention and our speech on giving thanks to God rather than on ourselves or trying to get a laugh out of our neighbors. As we give thanks, we praise the source of our blessings and our attention is diverted from ourselves to God. Also, if we rightly understand who we are and what we deserve, thanksgiving will pour forth from us endlessly.

Paul uses the same list as in verse three, immorality, lust, covetousness, greed, to say that specifically those who are in these categories are guaranteed nothing but punishment. In apposition to this, he says that the covetous man is an idolater. So in a sense, the one who is spending his days lusting after what doesn't belong to him is not spending his days ascribing to God glory to the Father ascribing to God glory, and that is then, that which is coveted becomes itself an idol. And nobody whose life is then marked by the attributes of verses three and four here has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Which, that's tragic, but it's also glorious, the contrast of that. Because if we do take that and flip it on its head, we can say that who receives an inheritance except the one who is a son of the one offering the inheritance. So conversely, if we aren't characterized by these things but rather are characterized by thanksgiving and spiritual walking and enlightened walk, then we have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. In Christ, we share in his inheritance by his merit alone. It is given to us as adopted sons. In his kingdom there awaits a good inheritance for those who follow him and for those who love him.

For the immoral, for the impure, for the covetous, there awaits nothing but destruction. That's strong language. It's a clear distinction between those to whom an inheritance is guaranteed and those to whom it is denied. Verse six, he says, let no one deceive you with empty words for because of these things, the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. It's not with words that the sons of disobedience are openly defiant or contrary to words that men are led astray. It's with empty words, empty words. These are words without substance. The men who hear are left to fill the emptiness with a substance of their own.

These empty words are by themselves deceptive enough, but from the pulpit, for instance, somebody who says a lot of words can actually lead many astray by simply speaking words that are hollow, that are empty, that are void of the truth, if in fact there's no true gospel or Christ's lordship taught the hearers incur God's wrath, for their failure to recognize him as Lord and embrace him as Savior. Those empty words can be destructive. As this comes into discussion though of Christian relationships and talking about the enlightened walk and they're being distinguished from the rest of the world, then it's at least a safe application that we need to be careful who we walk with, our associations.

Paul is exhorting his readers to spend time with the right people. We're never to be led astray by someone who openly rejects Christ, as we are not to associate with those who have no desire to let a no unwholesome word proceed from their mouths. Like verse 29 says of chapter four. In short, if somebody has no desire to ever speak about spiritual things, that person needs to be evangelized, not associated with.

So we need to be careful about who we associate with or spend a lot of time with, lest we be led astray and become like them. And verse seven, he says, do not be partakers with them. That's a call to discernment. We're partaking of a certain kind of language. It is also a command to seek out sound teaching, to pursue then the right kind of language input for us, for ourselves. Paul exhorts his hearers not to be partakers with those who are passively deceived with empty words. How can we avoid such misleading will, have no appetite for teaching without biblical substance. Don't be too easily satisfied when it comes to your study of the word or from the biblical influence and teaching you get, whether on the church level or on the personal individual level.

In verse eight he says, for a one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord, walk as children of light. Four points us back to the preceding verse and general filthiness, but it's interesting here, he doesn't say they were in the dark, he says they were darkness. They were formerly darkness. The unbelieving world is itself darkness having no light within it. The world rejects Christ and the people in the world make up the darkness. What is there in the world to be cautious of apart from the non-believing people that comprise it? the inanimate creation is not called darkness, rather those people, and their pre-converted states are called darkness.

It's interesting that, and that would include then in this context the pre-conversion Christians, where darkness says Paul. It's interesting that this is the positive reason for believers not to be involved with the disobedient in their immoral conduct. So that is the positive reason for them not to be involved with the disobedient in their immoral conduct. And that makes sense because bearing the fruit of righteousness should itself be an easy motivator for someone who delights in truth to be still more righteous. So if they love Christ and if they've been enlightened, then they can see that fruit being born out in their lives and they can be excited about that as being spiritual and have no interest in association with the darkness.

So even as we prayed moments ago, that God would give us a delight to sing his praises is a grace gift. It is itself a testament to God's gracious work work among us because the unbelievers do not love Him. In verse 10, Paul says, "'Try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord, "'try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.'" And that whole clause, if we were to chop it together, or chop it and put it together from verse, the second half of verse eight in verse 10, would read something like, walk as children of the light, trying to learn what's pleasing to the Lord. Walk as children of the light, trying to learn what's pleasing to the Lord.

Children of the light walk in a way, so as to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. That's what marks the life of a believer, sorry. Yeah, he strives and he searches to know what is pleasing to his Redeemer, to the one who is worthy of all of our sacrifice and honor and so on. That's the person who's discerning. Interesting how connected discernment and desires are. According to Paul, the discerning man has the right kinds of wants. When faced with two alternatives, the discerning man will make his decision based on what would be more honoring to Christ, what is more pleasing to the Lord. With the Spirit's help, He'll be able to discern these things.

And those who have not learned Christ in this way, Allah chapter four verse 21, those who know God have, in fact, learned Christ that way, and it's this knowledge of Him within them that should govern their decision making and their conduct. Continuing in verse 11 now, verses 11 and 12, take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead exposed them for it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. Now, in Ephesus, there was no shortage of unfruitful works and in Marysville in 21st century, our 21st century context, we're even Western Washington, this decadent culture, there's no shortage of fruitless works or unfruitful works.

And of course, a textbook example would be when men are given in passion to one another. There's no fruit of that unholy union. We often become concerned with pleasing men rather than God. That is also fruitless. That becomes evident when we opt for the easy road of human comfort rather than relational discord or discomfort. As one continues to learn what's pleasing to the Lord, he'll no doubt be more sensitive to the spirits working within him and he'll develop more of a loathing for sin. The natural response to this growth is to long for sin and all righteousness and be brought to light that it may be exposed.

When we love righteousness as God does, we'll want to expose wickedness. We must hate evil and the old man while loving righteousness. So we have unfruitful works. We're to not be characterized by those, but if we love the light, then we'll actually want to shed light on even the unfruitful deeds of the darkness. As we grow in righteousness, the fruit that we bear is more good, more righteous, more God-honoring. And we'll want all fruit, good or bad, to be exposed. So when that light is shining, if the fruit is good, I mean, that's good. That's evident. If the fruit is bad, that's also made manifest. That's why it's always a good thing when a hypocrite is exposed.

although he may not be immediately one to Christ, the truth comes out, and to those who love the truth, that's good. Here in verse 13, the object of the exposure though, it's worth noting is the sin, not the sinner. Not necessarily trying to expose individuals for sake of exposing individuals, that's not the point. We're trying to expose sin that it may be dealt with. Exposing one will necessarily, of course, yield the other, but in this discussion of Christians conduct, because that is the context here. Paul's talking about how Christians are supposed to act. Paul's point is that there's a unique contrast between the works of the pagan and the works of the believer.

While fruitless deeds of darkness need to be exposed, it's the righteous, spirit-driven conduct of the godly that will serve as that light. It will reveal men's hearts in exposing their deeds. He says it's shameful even to speak of those things which they do in secret. It's a rather powerful language to suggest the conduct that they're exposed to is utterly shameful. and it's so utterly shameful to speak of it. I mean, we don't need to spend a whole lot of time speaking of it. Plus, I think it's pretty evident anyway. They're exhorted to expose them because these deeds anyway, because it's shameful to speak of them.

How much more shameful is it to participate in them? And the sins that Paul speaks of are secret sexual sins that he decries in verse 13 in particular. Look at verse 13. Verse three, I mean, verse three. We mentioned verse three earlier. Verse 13 now, but all things become visible when they're exposed to the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. Well, why would it be a good thing for sin to be exposed to the light? Of course, when sin is exposed in the life of the individual, the state of the person's heart is revealed. That is good. For a hypocritical person professing Christ, and then he commits a grievous sin in secret and in an ongoing fashion, it's a good thing that that person's sin be exposed to the light so that it may become visible, visible that he probably isn't a believer at all, or if it becomes visible, then it may be apparent that he needs to be confronted and brought to repentance, or at least brought to account, and hopefully the spirit would bring him to repentance.

And so that gives us direction then how we can help him and pray for him. Paul is teaching here that the righteous conduct of true believers at Ephesus will expose all sorts of sin in a congregation, and in a society that's mixed with false and true. When this operates as God designed, the purity of the church is preserved and the false are weeded out. That's again, by God's design. So we've looked at a loving walk, we've looked at an enlightened walk. Let's look at a wise walk in verses 15 through 21, a wise walk. And this paragraph, as we come here, we see that Paul has just exhorted his readers to be careful of their conduct, So keep that in mind, we just talked about that.

Now this passage is talking about the wisdom that every believer must pursue, even when it comes to being filled with the Holy Spirit, because as Paul makes clear, only the foolish don't understand God's will for us to be Spirit-filled. So let's examine them one by one. We're going to examine this aspect of the fruit that Paul wants to characterize, this wisdom that Paul wants to characterize, readers. First, I would suggest that it is a practical wisdom. Look carefully then how you walk. Not as unwise men, but as wise making the best use of the time because the days are evil. Years ago when I first studied this, I studied the New American Standard, so I got the ESV right here in front of me and I'm totally inserting NAS words. It's pretty fun. I think I've been doing it all evening. As we walk, as children of the light our righteous conduct will serve to bring other's sin to the light that it may be exposed."

So again, it's not complicated and it is, it's not new or novel, but as we walk as children of the light, our righteous conduct will serve to bring other's sin to the light that it may be exposed. It's by God's design and it's what Paul was saying will happen in this culture. It naturally follows then that Paul would say, well be careful how you walk, because there is an end to that walk. The contrast of node, however, is in the distinction between wise and unwise.

Paul doesn't really leave any room for middle ground here. It's not like, I mean it is, but this is pretty black and white language. Wisdom is a spectrum, I suspect. Some people are wiser than others. But pretty plainly, Paul is categorizing our walking as either wise or foolish. Wise or unwise. When we walk as wise men, we will carry out the commands of verses eight through fourteen. If a walk is unwise, then our conduct will not be righteous and we will bring no men to the light by virtue of our own walking in the light. Proverbs actually teach us a lot that a wise man, well it teaches us a lot about a wise man and it'll teach us that a wise man will not only have the necessary intellectual understanding into God's will, but this will necessarily be worked out in his life. Maybe in a moment And we'll actually quickly look at a couple proverbs.

He says, making the most of your time because the days are evil. The days in which we live and in which Paul's readers lived have in common their evilness. They have in common a number of things. They're the last days, but they have in common their evilness. In this age, Satan is having his way in the world and we are progressing toward worldwide evil and destruction. Don't miss that. The presence of Christians and Christian influence on the gospel notwithstanding, The prince of the power of the air that Paul refers to in chapter 2 is still powerful. Undoubtedly it looked the same way to the Ephesian Christians among their self-gratifying neighbors.

Everything within our natural flesh and everything outside of us is screaming for us to reject God and to defame Him. And by default, if we're not actively countering this urge and this temptation, we will ourselves walk as unwise men. Not in the light, not honoring to God and our conduct. Our culture is a river and you've been given supernatural muscles and webbed footing to swim upriver, but if you just tread water, the current is going to take you. So we are to be proactive then in our walk. It is to be practical. It is to be practical. Verse 17, it's also supposed to be doctrinal. We're supposed to have doctrinal wisdom as well.

And that's understanding what the will of the Lord is. Look at verse 17, therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. Once again, that contrast. You have darkness, light, foolishness, wisdom. Don't be foolish. Understand what the will of the Lord is. We could just say that one verse and then pray and go home. Here's your sermon for tonight. Don't be foolish. Understand what the will of the Lord is. Be warmed and filled. fall into one of two categories here according to Paul. Fools, who are the foolish? See what I did there. And the wise, who understand what the will of the Lord is. By the Bible's definition, a fool is someone who lives apart from God. There are many passages in the Psalms and Proverbs that outline what a fool is and what he's like. I'll rattle off a few of them briefly. You don't need to turn there. You can just listen if you want. I mean, don't take my word for it. Turn there if if you want to, but in the interest of time, I'm not gonna wait for you.

Psalm 14.1 says, the fool has said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds, there is no one who does good. A fool, according to David, lives as if God did not exist. Proverbs 12.15 says, the way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man is he who listens to counsel. young people. I mean it applies to old people as well, but this is pretty cut and dry. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man is he who listens to counsel. The fool does not listen to those who are wiser than he is, but rather he resists instruction. You're living like a fool and you're acting like it if you suppose that you know more than your parents do about how you ought to have been raised, more than likely.

there's a very small chance that you're right. So, well I guess we'll make allowance for that. Proverbs 15 too says, "'The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, "'but the mouth of fools spouts folly.'" Of course you all know that a rotten tree produces rotten fruit, a bitter fountain produces bitter water, fools produce foolishness. When the fruit of your life is idiocy, don't claim to be a genius. When the fruit of your life is foolishness, don't claim to be wise. If you're acting like a fool and you just can't keep your mouth shut, you're gonna sound like a fool as well. Proverbs 16, 22 says, understanding is a fountain of life to him who has it.

Ha ha ha. But the discipline of fools is folly. Foolishness is contagious. It spreads. The discipline of fools is folly. The advice of fools is foolish because it doesn't align with scriptures. If you hang out with fools, Don't be surprised if you start acting like one. We could go on, of course. You all have read Proverbs. You've seen that walking in wisdom and walking in foolishness are common motifs in Solomon's writing. Biblical wisdom, though, we know this, requires submission to God's word. The fear of the Lord, says Solomon, is the beginning of knowledge, fools despise wisdom and instruction. That's Proverbs 1.7.

So that is our starting point, is not just acknowledging the Lord's existence or knowing his word, but fear of the Lord. Nobody can fully understand the will of God without being saved, because God gives us understanding at the point of salvation, he gives us a spiritual understanding. And that is not to say that in common grace, unbelievers have not done great things or known a lot of impressive things, or unbelievers can't have ever had any knowledge or any accurate knowledge or can't have actually done pretty impressive academic works. Of course not. But, biblically speaking, those men who trust in something other than the true God and Christ sacrifice for what happens after this life are what the Bible considers to be fools.

The cure for foolishness then is salvation. God makes men wise to appoint a type of wisdom at conversion. Consider with me 1 Corinthians 1.30, but by His doing you are in Christ Jesus who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. If Christ is all of these things and we receive Him, we receive wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. While we positionally have these things, we must still pursue them as we continue to grow in wisdom, sanctification, righteousness, and so on. Titus 2 verses 11 and 12 say, For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires, and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in the present age.

God's grace itself instructs us, and if you're saved, His grace has appeared to you. itself instructs us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly. All acts of wisdom according to this Ephesians 5 and Psalms and Proverbs further. We must seek the Spirit's help as we search the Scriptures for God's will. So we seek the Spirit's, we seek the Scriptures and we call on the Spirit's help to understand it rightly. Second Timothy 3, 14 and 15 are helpful here. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you've learned them, that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.

God's will is revealed in His word and that is able to give us the wisdom that leads to salvation through Christ. And normally I don't, I've taken a cue from Sean here, I think that it is most helpful when looking at the epistles to try to understand, to try to read them and try to help, to consider them imaginatively as the first readers would have. And they wouldn't have had at their availability a whole host of New Testament cross references, though they might have had the Old Testament. So I like to stay here, but in the broad context of discussing wisdom and foolishness, it turns out that the Bible talks a lot about this.

We're not going to do a word study on it. We're not going to systematize it, but I did want to spend just a little bit of time helping to orient us and to round out our understanding. So the wisdom that leads to salvation is God's wisdom, not the wisdom of the world, and He only gives that to His redeemed. All right, we continue. So spiritual wisdom is the third aspect, the third descriptor of the wisdom that Paul wants for his readers to have, is spiritual as well. We see this in verses 18 through 21. And this is as far as we're going to get tonight. But do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit addressing one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, and giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting out of reverence, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

You're submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. I often pray for my children at bedtime that they would treat one another as though they love God, that they would love God passionately and they live like it in their conduct toward one another. And that's a good prayer for all of us. Our relationships with one another and with even people outside of the church ought to be reflective of our reverence for Christ. So according to this passage, being spirit-filled, loving Christ, has a variety of attributes that come along with it. Paul details for us what will mark the life of the man who is wisely spirit-filled.

So, it's key to make a couple of grammatical notes. I'm not going to camp on it too long because I don't think I need to. Paul's command for the Ephesians to be filled with the Spirit, it's not like a faucet that they can turn on. The command is in the passive voice and it has a connotation of continuation as it is in the present tense. It does not say you've been filled, perhaps a less readable but more accurate translation would be, be being filled with the Holy Spirit. When a Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit, He walks according to the spirit. He does not act foolishly. Things change in his life and he's marked by a new set of attributes.

Here they are listed in verses 19 through 21. He's marked by spirit-filled communication, spirit-filled communication addressing one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Psalms are from the Old Testament Psalter. We sing Psalms in church. You get Psalms stuck in your head by God's grace. We sang Psalm 92 this morning, and I don't know if you've ever used Psalm 92 to Colossians 3, 16 somebody, or to Ephesians 5, 19 somebody. But if you don't sing Psalms, you're not going to sing things typically like, Though sinners grow like weeds, ill-doers blossom may. They're doomed to be destroyed. You, Lord, exalted, stay.

Lord, your foes fall. See how your foes, vain, evil men, are scattered all. That is, this is actually put to a singable meter, so it's not a direct translation of Psalm 92, but it's pretty close. Though you've raised like ox my horn, poured fresh oil on my head, You made me see the spies and hear what plotters said, like thriving palm, the righteous grows like cedars tall on Lebanon. One more verse. Those planted by the Lord shall in God's courts be seen, when old they'll still bear fruit and flourish, fresh and green, and loud proclaim how upright is the Lord, my rock, no wrong in him. Those are sweet words to speak to one another and to get stuck in your head.

And that has been a delight to me to get some of those words stuck in my head. I'll do a hymn here in a second, for fun. Why not? Okay, it's six verses, I'm not gonna do them all. But we sang it this morning, and the church is one foundation. The more you love Christ, the more you love the church. The church is the body of Christ. It comprises people who love Him, and in whom the Spirit dwells, and we enjoy the Spirit commonly. and there are lots of promises in scripture for the church. This of course is a hymn, so it is theological and it's substantive, but it's not scripture itself. The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ, her Lord.

She is his new creation by water and the word. From heaven, he came and sought her to be his holy bride. That's this passage, maybe for next week. With his own blood he bought her and for her life he died. Verse 3, the church shall never perish, her dear Lord to defend, to guide, sustain, and cherish, is with her to the end. Though there be those who hate her, and fall sons in her pale, against her foward traitor, she ever shall prevail. Though with a scornful wonder men see her sore oppressed, by schisms rent asunder, by yet saints there watch our keeping, their cry goes up howl long, and soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.

Mid toil and tribulation and tumult of her war, she awaits the consummation of peace forevermore, till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blessed, and the great church victorious shall be the church at rest, and I could go on, and nothing's stopping you from doing that too. spiritual songs may have been so designated because just to differentiate themselves from secular songs like first century Roman pop songs or they may have represented some spontaneous singing in the spirit which doesn't not happen in the same way today. Nevertheless, it's important to note that these were modes of worship. So even the way you communicate with one another should be itself a manner of worship in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

These things you use to sing praise to God. Worship is an outflow of your joy and your adoration of the Father. And they had lyrics that could edify the hearers to illustrate like verse 14, maybe song lyrics. Awake, O sleeper, arise from the dead and Christ will shine on you. And sometimes I send out a weekly email to the music ministry people and friends. And occasionally I'll include song lyrics like, hey, take a moment and reconsider the words that you've memorized because you've sung them so many times and look at them again for the first time. And I will often pray while I'm doing it that those people will get those lyrics stuck in their heads.

And that's pretty fantastic when it does. Our speech, it's safe to say, is to be edifying. It is to be building one another up. We are to speak love to one another. This requires our involvement. If we're going to speak to other believers and it requires our involvement with them and in fellowship with them, we would not likely speak to the spiritual dead in spiritual songs. You could recite these lyrics to somebody who's spiritually dead. not going to have the same significance to him unless God uses that to bring him to life which may be the case but in which case he's not spiritually dead so there you go. Our conversation should be spiritual in nature as we long to see the Spirit's presence and others too and we are in a constant state of worship whether we like it or not as we speak to one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody in our hearts of the Lord. If we are in a constant state of worship the edification of the body will be a natural byproduct of our own righteous pursuits.

One commentator said, the fact that believers address one another in these Psalms and songs shows that Paul has intelligible communication in view, not meditation, unknown speech, or anything else. So, we are to rehearse God's attributes and characteristics in our daily conversation, so these song lyrics are great for that. We are to speak about him to one another, recalling his goodness, faithfulness, righteousness, and splendor. We are also to be characterized by spirit-filled adoration, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord, to the Lord with your heart, verse 19, second half of it. So if a person were marked by spirit-filled communication, as we just learned, singing God's praises even to those who are around him in normal conversation, well, do you think he'd be able to contain himself when it came to actual worship and song?

So a person who can't keep the song lyrics in when he's just chatting, what's What's he going to do when 10 a.m. on Sunday morning arrives? Or 6 p.m. on Sunday evening? And it's not all external though. As Paul urges his readers to be singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord. So this is not just an inward disposition, but heart here signifies the entirety of who we are. So the prerequisite to worship is not that one have a pleasant singing voice. is he simply to worship merely in silent meditation. Rather, he is to employ all of his faculties and his whole person as he worships. So then, walking wisely, especially with respect to Christian fellowship in an unbelieving world, involves being in a constant state of worship in our hearts and allowing that to be worked out on the outside.

This is walking with an eternal mindset, and the results are that we'll be walking wisely and building up Christ's body as we go, while the days are evil. Of course it does stem from what's going on in the heart. The believer will also be characterized by spirit-filled thanksgiving, spirit-filled thanksgiving. I promised I would get here. Giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just a spirit-filled communication and adoration mark, the spirit-filled Christian, so he will do so with spirit-filled appreciation. Gratefulness is a humble hallmark of the Spirit-filled believer, as he is conscious of what he deserves.

I've heard it said before, and you could probably make a case, that all sin has at root a lack of gratefulness. Others have said pride. You can again make a case for both of them. When we sin, we look to ourselves for our own gratification rather than to God. So when we sin, we do it on purpose, and it is believing lies that there is greater pleasure to be had in what we're doing than the pleasure to be gained by obedience or gratification deferred. We're brazen to view ourselves as higher than we are, rather than seeing our appropriate smallness compared with an eternal and a sovereign God. When we are genuinely thankful for what God has done, what he's given us.

When our perspectives align with his, so do our wills and our motives. This naturally is reflected then in righteous and edifying speech as well as humble and deferent subjection to one another in the fear of Christ. And last, and this sort of lays the groundwork for next week, Spirit-filled deference. Spirit, or you could say Spirit-filled submission. It is the right kind of submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. So we're not just talking about a matter of politeness, but of actual deference. Deep down, do you really consider yourself to be as important or less important than others? The example of Christ is pretty clear.

Paul even called his Philippians readers to it explicitly in chapter two. But even just considering ourselves equal with others is still not good enough. We actually need to prefer others ahead of ourselves. Spirit filled Christian will not only act like others were more important than he is, but he will for the sake of his love for Christ, consider others to be more important. He will concern himself more with the needs of others than he will with his own. And so from chapter 5 verse 22 through chapter 6 verse 9, Paul gives specific examples of what that looks like. The flow here is you're in the world, in the church, engaged in the church.

some specific instructions about relationships, what new relationships, walking, the transformed life in light ought to look like. And he gives specific examples of what this mutual subjection looks like. In three pretty typical relationships, wife and husband, child and parent, slave and master, which has very clear application for employees and employers. There are six rules represented here and as such six specific means of honoring Christ. and you all fall into at least one of them. So we will examine those, God willing, next week, but don't miss that it is pervasive, and none of us escape this. So the groundwork is laid for him to finish the book and strongly with the armor of God.

Before we get to that, we'll consider those relationships and we'll do that next week. So let's pray together. Father, you have wed our appetites you have laid us bare. Paul has thrown us all under the bus to some degree or other with this juxtaposition of the old man and the new man. And we are guilty. We're guilty of wanting sin and carrying it out. We're guilty of clinging to who we once were and our behaviors and our loves, rather than being expressed by gratefulness. Our talk is inappropriate from time to time, and we love it and forgive us, we pray. And by your grace, may you continue to conform us to the image of your son.

I know it's next week, we'll study this, but it is very exciting and it is incredibly encouraging to know that Christ is personally invested in presenting to Himself a pure and spotless bride, and we are numbered among those that He came from heaven to seek. And for that we thank you. We thank you for your word. We pray that you would increase our appetites for it and give us not just understanding of it, but a desire to obey as well. For now, keep us safe. Give us a good week. Help us to represent you well in the world. We pray this in Christ's name, Amen.

We're back to answer more of the questions I raised last Lord's Day about worship, gender, head coverings, and glory. There is no more difficult passage to understand previous in 1 Corinthians, and yet this may be one of the most important and relevant sections for us today.

Paul praised the Corinthian believers for maintaining the traditions he had delivered to them (1 Corinthians 11:2). But which traditions? They had not been following his instructions/traditions regarding meat offered to idols (chapter 8), or about self-control (chapter 9), or about how to deal with obvious sin by a professing believer (chapter 5). Even in verses 17 through the rest of chapter 11 they weren't doing what he had told them regarding the Lord’s Table. So his praise must be specific to this section about head coverings, and he follows up his commendation with some instruction so that they would know the reasons behind their behavior.

The reasons start with the nature of relationships in the world, including the Godhead. The head of every man is Christ. The head of every wife is her husband. The head of Christ is God, and this last relationship shows that willing submission is not a sign of inferior value. Though there is disagreement about what "head" means, I said I think it means authority, so that every man answers to Christ, every wife answers to her husband, and even Christ answers to His Father. Everyone has a head.

But what is the connection between the metaphorical heads in verse 3 and the physical heads in verses 4 and following? How does not having one's physical head covered appropriately reflect one's metaphorical head in one case, but having one's physical head covered does reflect one's metaphorical head in another case? Why is it dishonoring if a man does not uncover his head for sake of Christ, but a wife is dishonored if she does not cover her head for sake of her husband?

These and other questions are on the table for this section in verses 2-16. For this message we'll see a focus on dishonor in verses 4-6 and on honor in verses 7-10.

The same scenario is described but one with a man and one with a woman/wife, and there is a clear way for both to do it dishonorably.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

What does prays or prophesies mean exactly? Where is it taking place, what context? What is the head covering? And what does it symbolize?

Praying we know about, though combined with prophesying it refers here to public praying. And chapters 12-14 have a good amount to say about prophesying. Prophesy is a spiritual gift, a gift that is more to be desired than speaking in tongues (14:4-5), and also not a gift for everyone (12:10). Prayer is not ever called a spiritual gift; prayer is the privilege and need for every Christian, even though it typically happens more in private than public.

The gift of prophesy could be understood as the same thing as teaching/exhortation, or it could be more narrowly understood as a speaking of new revelation during a time when God's Word in the New Testament was not complete. Chapters 12-14 sound as if prophesying was a regular thing. Regardless, not all the members have the same gift, so every man who prays or prophesies could be any man but in particular a man who was speaking before others.

Were women also doing this? Paul says, every wife who prays or prophecies, and Paul does not give any indication that he switches contexts. It's interesting that there were some women prophesying in Acts 21:9 (Philip’s four unmarried daughters), and it's interesting that Joel 2:28-29 indicates that kind of thing would happen to sons and daughters. It’s also interesting that Paul explicitly forbids women from prophesying “in the churches,” in front of men, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, and also in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Perhaps in 1 Corinthians 11 he has in mind women leading other women (Titus 2:2-5), since it’s not clear in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 that everyone in the church is all together, as verse 17 describes. So there is a place to do it, and a proper way to do it.

Those who lead in speaking set an example, and in that way set an example for everyone to follow whether or not the followers speak in public. The men are to do so with heads uncovered and the women with their heads covered. There is to be a visible distinction.

Again, what is this covering, and where did the symbolism get its authority?

The covering is connected to hair, but I don't believe that it is hair. I think it is a hood or a cowl or wrap of some kind rather than a haircut or hairdo. Here's why.

From what I can tell in reading about Roman culture in the first century, a married woman went out in public with her head covered. Not with her full face covered like Muslim women we might see today, and a veil over her face, covering her mouth, would not be ideal for praying and prophesying, but a hood on her head identified her with a husband/head. A hood for a woman distinguished her respectability and her fidelity.

On the other side, men were seen wearing hoods in sacrifices to false gods. For example, there was a statue in Corinth of Augustus “with his togo pulled over his head in preparation to offer a libation…a propaganda piece intended to present the emperor as a pious Roman” (Garland). There is not evidence in “the OT, nor the LXX, nor Qumran, nor the Gospels, nor Philo, nor Josephus, nor even the Mishnah [commentary on the Law] that offers any evidence” that Jews covered their heads for liturgical reasons (Thiselton). There were times that Jewish men covered their heads, but it was not for prayer and prophecy.

So, the "tradition" that Paul delivered to the churches he planted was that men should not wear hoods because that would identify them with false gods rather than with Christ. A man should worship with uncovered head to distinguish his worship, otherwise he brings shame on his head, Christ. A woman/wife, on the other head, should cover her head because the cultural sign of submission was appropriate. Paul simultaneously contradicts one cultural symbol and affirms another in the church. Men dishonor Christ when they look like pagan worshippers, and women dishonor their husbands when they look like unattached/un-submissive women.

For a wife who did not wear the covering, it is the same as if her head were shaven. This is because her hair is a covering, as will be repeated in verse 15. But the natural covering that is her hair is analogous to a material covering that is on her head. The comparison doesn't make sense if both sides of the comparison are about hair, as if Paul said, "If your hair isn't long, it's the same as if your hair isn't long."

Verse 6 explains more. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. Again, if her hair was already short, and that meant her head was uncovered, then how could she "uncover" her hair again? But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. The analogy still requires two separate, though obviously related, things. He isn't saying, "Since she should have long hair, let her have long hair." Instead he's saying, “A head covering is appropriate just as long hair is appropriate.” He wants the Corinthians to see an uncovered head as shameful as a shaved head toward their husband.

It seems that some women were cutting their hair very short to make a point, giving up their submissive identity. Some commentators suggest that it was prostitutes who cut or shaved their hair, but it's hard to imagine prostitutes working to make themselves less attractive. They had other ways to identify themselves, for example, by not wearing hoods. Those women who shaved their heads communicated “sexlessness” (Thiselton), a rejection of femininity.

The head covering was a cultural symbol of being under the authority of a head, as we'll see again in verse 10. It was not primarily an issue of covering up beauty, as some interpret the passage. They claim that a woman with long hair who was praying or prophesying could cause some man other than her husband to think less worshipful thoughts. That's always something that could happen, sure. But, there's nothing in the paragraph about a third person's lust, it's about shame and glory of one's head (Christ or husband). The head uncovered or covered was a way to reflect the head, not a way to make oneself less attractive.

A shaven head for a woman is shameful, as is praying or prophesying with her head uncovered. A hooded head for a man is shameful, as is long hair (which comes in verse 14).

How about for us? We are not living in the Roman Empire. In our culture men don't wear hoods to offer sacrifices to pagan gods, so a preacher isn't making a counter-cultural statement by not wearing a hood. And likewise, in our culture, a wife doesn't wear a symbol of submission to her husband on her head. There isn't anything in our 21st century Western culture to contradict or affirm related to our headgear in worship.

And also, a man today might not wear a hat to church, but that doesn’t mean that he understands the honor due to his head, Christ. So a woman/wife could wear a hood, or hat, but do it in a vain way, a self-righteous way, a judgmental way, and so be dishonoring her head/husband and also dishonoring the head of the Church, Christ.

What should we do? I don't think this passage requires women in the church to wear head coverings, but I do think it requires all of us to think about our appearance as a reflection on submission to our head. As a footnote, if her head/husband wants her wife to dress like one of the skanky women, the head is out of his mind.

Verses 7-10 continue to give explanation, but the focus shifts to the positive, from shame to glory.

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. This references Genesis 1 and 2, and man being made in the image and glory of God is not debated among us. But what does that image-bearing nature have to do with a hat?

Someone could argue that a man ought not to have long hair, because long hair would make him look like a woman, and God didn't make man to be a woman. This is not far-fetched, because Paul will say it is a disgrace for man to have long hair in verse 14. But there he bases hair length on what "nature" teaches, not on a peculiar glory. And also, wouldn't it have been easier for Paul just to say, "For a man ought not to have long hair"? (Though that still might make us ask how hair is related to the glory of God.)

In the hierarchy in verse 3, we see it played out: woman is the glory of man. This moves from the more particular husband/wife to the man/woman, but that corroborates the roles of husband and wife.

Woman is the glory of man, and there are two reasons in two verses. First, For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. This is an origin story. God made man from the dust, and, while God could have made a woman the same way, He chose instead to take part of the man to make the woman. "She is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." She reflects what she’s made of.

Second, Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. This is more than chronological, though it is that. It is according to God's design. It was not good for the man to be alone, so God made Adam a help, meet or "suitable" for him. She was to be his partner (not his slave) in the dominion taking mandate.

And Paul brings it back to head coverings and gives his conclusion on the creational order of things. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. She shows by the covering on her physical head, a symbol, that she is under authority of her figurative head. So the creational reality is reflected in the cultural custom, and that can be affirmed in the church. That’s also why we aren’t urging women to wear a hood, though they must not reject their head.

The final part of verse 10 is…special. She wears a head covering because of the angels. Paul clearly thinks that he didn’t need to say anything else for the Corinthians to know his meaning. It could be that angels are "messengers," as in Revelation (2:1, 8, and so forth), so visiting prophets or overseers. But that is odd. It could be that angels are fallen angels and potentially attracted to long-haired women, similar to Genesis 6:2. But Paul never uses angelos for demons, especially not with a definite article (Garland). And why are they only watching when a woman prays or prophesies? Demons are foiled by hoods? It could be, and I'm happy with it, that angels are worshippers of God and know their place in the creation hierarchy. Women are likewise to demonstrate that they know their place.

There is more about the interdependency of men and women in the following verses, just as God and Christ are equal yet different. There is more about head coverings, about hairdos and hair length, and about what nature teaches as well in the rest of the paragraph.

But we have plenty to think about. Whether you agree (or incline toward contentiousness, ha!) about hair or hoods, there is a necessary reflection that takes place when we worship, and we should consider the reflection we give to our head. There are ways for a man to dishonor Christ, even with his head uncovered. There are ways for a woman to show her independence, and superiority, even with a hat on her head.

We live in a day when we almost only ask, “How does this make me look?” What is your identity? What is your identity, your glory, tied to? How you present yourself does show where you think your glory comes from.

Here is the most agonizing yet applicable passage yet in 1 Corinthians. There are formidable challenges trying to figure out what Paul said and what that means before getting to what we're supposed to do. No paragraph so far in the letter provokes so many questions that affect so many consequences.

Reasonable people may disagree on how to interpret issues in these verses. The bigger problem is that we don't seem to be living in reasonable times. Confusion, under the costume of sophistication, reigns both outside and inside the church. Confusion affects what we know about God, which affects what we know about ourselves, which affects how we worship and how we relate to one another. It affects how we relate to one another in worship, and that affects our witness in the world.

Until this past week I have never really tried to understand the first half of 1 Corinthians 11. Having begun that process, I then began to wonder if/how it would be relevant for us. Head coverings are a big part of the passage, so will I need to exhort the ladies to start wearing bonnets or doilies? If that’s what God wants, are we ready for it? And then there is the part about long hair and short hair; do you remember how enjoyable the discussions were the last time I talked about hair cuts?

And yet doesn't every thumb's width matter? Doesn't our hair matter, and what we wear to worship God together matter, including our "church clothes"? Isn't it important to submit to God in all things, and doesn't that include the relationships He's called us to? The answer to all of those questions is Yes.

How we present ourselves says something about who we're with and about who we worship. We live in a day when we almost only ask, How does this make me look? Even if we give the benefit of the doubt and assume that that question is for sake of modesty (rather than for vanity), it is often only a question asked by the individual about the individual. We ought to be asking, How does this (hairstyle, outfit, etc.) reflect on my authority? And by "authority" I don't mean how does it reflect on your personal persona, but how does it reflect on the person you answer to? Can you imagine how commercials could even sell that mindset?

We're accustomed to personal choices (which the last three chapters in 1 Corinthians have also addressed); right and wrong is important for me. And it is, but it's more than that. We're accustomed, even in corporate worship, to think about how what we're doing reflects on ourselves rather than to think about how what we're doing reflects on our head.

Now I’m (meddling and) past the point where I should acknowledge the (multiple) problems in trying to understand the point of this passage. Obviously we don’t know what Paul doesn’t write down; we don’t share knowledge with the Corinthians about what Paul previously taught them or what it was like living in Corinth in the first century. Here are some of the major questions, not just as tools for meditating, but to show that there are serious issues and to help us know what we're looking for:

This long paragraph is about shame and glory, about gender and relationships, about creation, culture, worship, hoods, and hairdos. It’s about appearance and identity. Yeah, there's stuff in here that really matters. I'll be trying to answer the questions as we go.

Paul definitely transitions to a new topic in verse 2. The previous three chapters relate to loving others by being willing to give up our lawful preferences, in particular, that nothing we eat would keep others from Christ. Paul was an example of one who used this decision making grid, a pattern he learned from Christ, and so it functioned as a model for the Corinthians (11:1). They did not always do as he did.

That said, sometimes they did, and Paul praised them for it. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. The discussion will turn to shame/disgrace and honor/glory in a couple verses. At least in this area the Corinthians are to be credited for keeping Paul in mind. Nothing indicates that the Corinthian men or women were “defying this custom” (Garland).

For whatever competition there was about their favorite preacher (think chapters 1-2), overall they remembered the one who planted and laid the foundation for the church (see 3:6, 10) and maintained or kept the traditions...as...delivered. What sorts of traditions? I didn't even include this in the list of questions. We're conditioned as Protestants to be suspicious of traditions at best, and probably to oppose traditions out of the box. As Bible people, we're like, if there isn't a Bible verse, we have no obligation. And that is kinda true. But it’s also true that not everything without a Bible verse is merely a matter of personal preference.

Traditions might be less obnoxious to us if we either 1) had more appreciation for generations or authority in general, or 2) just used a different word such as "core practices." The traditions Paul refers to here, that he commends them for keeping, relate to public and distinctive-by-gender head treatments.

As it happens with this new subject, which the Corinthians were actually already doing (mostly) right, Paul still wanted to make sure that they knew the reasons. But I want you to understand. Even how he said this is different then how he's brought up knowing before. Multiple times Paul asked, "Do you not know?” (3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 9, 15; 9:13) which meant they should have known but weren't acting on it. Here, after acknowledging that they were acting on his pattern, he wants to make sure they understand why they are doing it.

It's not just going through the motions and following the dress code. It isn't just abiding the standard, it is embodying the standard for the purpose of glory. To help them understand, Paul leads with a three-headed doctrine: the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

This verse has been used as an argument for why people are Angry and Arians, or angry Arians I suppose. Some women get mad that they are not the "head," whatever they think that means, or equal to the head. And some theologians have become heretics believing that Paul teaches that Jesus isn't equal to God.

So what does it mean to be the head? As I’ve been studying, here are the three main options.

Those who argue that "head" means "source" have at least three problems in my view. First, there aren't any Greek dictionaries that include "source" as a possible metaphorical definition for kephale, nor are there any examples in the LXX where translating ”source" makes sense. Second, in the context of the paragraph itself, the argument for covering one's head or not covering one's head is about distinction, and the distinction is based on hierarchy (of some kind) rather than equality. There is equality in terms of existence and even interdependence between men and women (see verses 11-12). But the obligations related to head coverings in verses 4-10 aren't based on origin as much as on office. Third, those who argue for "source" are almost always the same egalitarians who argue against submission.

Those who argue for "foremost" are odd to me, and have trouble with the Trinitarian part of the headship. Since a person's head sits on the top of his body, it is the most predominant and visible part of him, so the "foremost" group say that men are more obvious than women but do not have authority over women. I don’t understand how saying that someone is preeminent over another makes someone feel better, or, in reference to the Trinity, how God as head is more obvious than Christ.

Nor does it fit with what we think about the Head of State, the Head of the Department, or a Headmaster. These are not merely representative figureheads, they are responsible decision makers. At least as far back as Homer’s Illiad there are examples of κεφαλή as meaning “chief over.” (Thiselton). So “head” means authority, though there are qualifications.

The argument against "head" as "authority" is based on a false deduction about the Trinity. Arius used this verse to argue that Jesus was not a second Person in the Godhead, equal to the Father. Arius assumed that head meant authority, and that if God was the head/authority over Christ that Christ was subordinate, and so inferior in value.

But to make submission itself a sign of inferiority is a category error. Equality of worth does not require equality of function, let alone equality of everything. A hammer and a saw are not equal in what they are made for, but they could be equal in craftsmanship and materials, as well as equal in being valuable for particular contexts.

As the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ willingly and lovingly obeyed His Father. In His essence, Christ is fully God. In His function, Christ fully did His Father's will. The Father's headship/authority was not a statement about Christ's inferiority but about Christ's particular role of glory.

The other two headships correspond but they do not exactly overlap. The head of every man is Christ means that all men, in all places and at all times, whether they realize it or not, are not free to do whatever they please. They are not autonomous, they are subject to the authority of Christ.

The head of a wife is her husband cannot be exactly the same as the previous two headships because no man can claim absolute authority, because absolute authority is God's. Man is not absolute, nor is he inerrant. Nevertheless, Paul's point here is still one of authority and responsibility over someone else.

The ESV interprets, with a footnote, rather than translates. The verse more basically states, "the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is the man." In Greek, woman and wife is the same word (gune), it depends on context. The same is true for man and husband (aner).

I believe it is referring to husband and wife, and extends by application to fathers and daughters. All men are responsible to Christ because of creation; a woman is only responsible to a man in the covenant of marriage, or perhaps a family connection. It does not mean women and men, as if all women are under the authority of all men; we do not believe that any given woman must submit to any given man in the pattern of Christ submitting to God. The verse spells out that “every man" does have Christ as head, but "a woman" has "the man" instead, a typical way of referring to her man, usually her husband.

What does this verse establish? That we are necessarily and inescapably related to one another, and that does not change in Christ, even though our station does not keep us from Christ. Salvation enables us to live in our relationships rightly, it does not eliminate or flatten our functions or the order of reflections. These roles also work in love, and are not a reflection of superiority of value.

It also establishes that there are not an almost unlimited number of steps between us and God. The Roman culture in Corinth believed that authority came through the chain of greater to lesser gods down to and through the Emperor to the important to the less important to the lowest classes (Ciampa & Rosner). If you were at the bottom, you wouldn’t expect your glory to come from God.

Everyone has a head. It is not just wives (and daughters). What men do is a reflection of Christ. What women do is a reflection of their man, again, husband but also father.

Arguments against headship are arguments against the image of God which are arguments against God Himself. We have gender confusion ad nauseum in our culture, and in our evangelical culture, even in our corporate worship settings. This is a relevant passage of God’s Word for our day.

What should be on your head? It is a reflection on your head. It is an indication of your understanding of, and standards for, identity.

There is much more to come.

This is the shortest, the warmest, and the last chapter in Paul's letter to the Galatians. It's almost a surprising finale in light of the anathema he pronounced at the beginning of the epistle. Paul loved the gospel of Christ and God’s saving work of grace, and he also loved the believers in Galatia, even those who shouldn't have been listening to the circumcision circus leaders.

In chapter 5 he reminded them that their freedom in Christ didn't fit with submission to old laws; returning to righteousness by works is submitting to a yoke of slavery. Neither does freedom in Christ fit with slander of brothers in the church; serving one’s neighbor through love is the opportunity of freedom. In Christ we are free from law and free to love. We are free by faith to walk in the Spirit not in the flesh.

In chapter 6 he gives more specifics on how to treat one another.

There are four imperatives connected to each other in this paragraph.

First, Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. This single verse could provide its own series of sermons. We are talking about transgression, any violation of moral standards. This is crossing a line that was drawn. It could be anyone in the body who committed any offense. Paul assumes that such sin actually occurred, that the brother wasn't out of it yet, he was caught. The sinning is known to more than just the sinner, hence why it's a discussion at all.

What happens when you see someone stuck in sin? A whole bunch of things usually happen. Usually the sin is seen by others, and then often the see-ers act surprised, and then they act irritated and want to distance themselves from the sinner.

Most men seize on the faults of brethren as an occasion of insulting them, and of using reproachful and cruel language. Were the pleasure they take in upbraiding [fault-finding] equalled by their desire to produce amendment, they would act in a different manner. (Calvin)

How put out we show ourselves to be by sinning brothers. It’s as if we see ourselves in the judge’s seat and are too tired for yet another case to be brought before us. In fact, we are not wearing the judge’s robe but the doctor’s coat.

The imperative requires us to get involved, while also describing both what our approach and our goal should be. The ones who must get involved are you who are spiritual. This is the qualification to offer correction. We know what it means to be spiritual because of verses 22-23 in the previous chapter. You cannot confront and correct the caught one because you are annoyed, or angry, or upset. You are equipped to correct when you are full of love, joy, peace, patience, and so on. Of course, when you are full of peace and patience, you may not be as provoked by the other person's transgression. To be qualified you must be motivated by love for the other person not venting your (fleshly) irritation against him.

The approach should also be in a spirit of gentleness. Gentleness is listed as part of the fruit of the Spirit in 5:23 anyway, but this explicit reminder emphasizes that our attitude needs to be one of "not being over impressed by a sense of [our own] self-importance" (BAGD). Your mom might have simply said, Be nice.

Which fits with the goal: you who are spiritual should restore him. What we're aiming for is reconciliation and restoration, not punishment and retribution. We want the sinner to come back not just feel bad, which is why harsh accusations aren’t just unspiritual, but counterproductive. “The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).

Being “caught in any transgression” is not like unsettling brothers by requiring circumcision for salvation. Paul wished those sinners to “emasculate themselves” (Galatians 5:12). To anyone who preached a contrary gospel Paul said, “let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8, 9). You don’t break up concrete with a toothpick, and God’s Word is a sword and a hammer. But we who know God’s Word so well (as evidenced by our recognition of the brother’s transgression) have the more accountability to build up those in trouble.

The second imperative accompanies the first: Keep watch on yourself lest you too be tempted. We are never more than one decision away from becoming what we think is the worst. It's been said, give a man an inch and he'll take a mile. We might also say, give a man a correction stick and he'll never stop whacking. Sometimes the truth-lovers get over-aggressive in hunting transgressors. It is a necessary and perilous place to be, telling others that they are transgressing. Remember that the only reason it isn't you who is caught is by the grace of God.

The third imperative is: Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Because of the context, and because of how similar verse 3 is to the second half of verse 1, these burdens may include not just suffering and heavy labors, but suffering brought on by one's own sin. The law of Christ is to love your neighbor, and while there are a lot of applications for this love, isn't loving them out of disobedience the most like Christ? Burdens include whatever is weighing a brother down; come alongside, grab a handle, and lift.

Why don't Christians do it? Isn't it mostly because we think we're better? Yet Paul explains why we should help others in verse 3. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. There is more hope for a fool than for a man who is wise in his own eyes (Proverbs 26:12).

The fourth imperative relates to the previous three: But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone, and not in his neighbor. For each will have to bear his own load. At first read it seems as if this contradicts verse 2. Do we bear one another's burdens, and expect that others will help us, or do we bear our own burdens and expect that it's up to us? Load is a different Greek word than burden in verse 2, but I don't think the answer is in the vocabulary.

In verses 1-3, when we see a brother caught and struggling under the burden of sin, we are supposed to be spiritual and not superior. When we act by the Spirit we come to the sinner and seek to restore him and help him off with the burden. But when we act superior, we only come alongside the sinner to make ourselves feel better. We judge that we are better than him, and we boast by comparison. But if our own work was truly good, we bear our own load and not by belittling our neighbor.

Christians are to do good to those caught in sin and to those who are carrying heavy burdens. Christians are also to do good to those who teach God's Word. One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. Why is this instruction here?

The Galatians had been accepting false teachers and had been questioning, if not criticizing, true teachers. Some had come into the church after Paul began preaching the law and circumcision, and perhaps those (few?) who kept teaching the gospel were unappreciated. Instead of giving attention and support to the false, give all good things to the truth teachers.

Verses 7-8 are an inescapable principle. They first apply to any who would make excuses about obeying verse 6, but they have greater extension than just how to treat Bible teachers. Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. Because God made the world one way and not another, growing things takes time. He made seed small. He made seed to be buried and unseen for weeks at a time. And He made the unseen-to-us processes happening to the buried seed to require waiting. During the months between sowing and reaping, we might forget that the two go together.

For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit receive eternal life. There are two seeds and two fruits, and you don't get the fruit of love when you sow selfishness, and you don't get the fruit of death when you sow love. You might have to wait to see the fruit of love when you sow love, but don't stop sowing love. When you sow self, you will harvest ruin, even if it comes slowly. Take warning. And take heart, you who sow your sacrifices in the power of the Spirit, you will see eternal life.

Don't give up because it's March. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. This doing good is every lawful activity you can do in the Spirit that blesses others. Teaching a class, grading essays, making lunches for your kids or making a meal for someone who is hurting, texting an encouraging word, weeding gardens, lending a vehicle, praying for/with a friend, these are all good things.

You will be tempted to grow weary, to "lose your motivation in continuing a desirable pattern of conduct" (BAGD), to "lose enthusiasm, to be discouraged." In 2 Corinthians 4:1 and 16 the ESV translates the Greek word for weary as "Do not lose heart." Endure. Persevere. Being tired and exhausted is not the same as believing that it is worthless. Those who wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength, they shall run and not be weary. You are in a season, but it may not yet be the due season. Beloved, autumn will come.

So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. The word opportunity is basically "time," in context a time that is fit, a time that there is need. You can't buy a calendar or a to-do app that comes pre-installed with time for you to do good, you are to look for the open windows and do good. That is an investment that always reaps profit because it's an investment in God's ways. The good isn't limited to church people, but the household of faith is a great place to start.

Paul usually dictated his letters to an amanuensis to write down. To the Galatians he took things into his own hands. See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. This was extra personal to him because the gospel was of first importance to him.

It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. In order not to be cut off from the "in" crowd, certain teachers required others to cut off things. To avoid the pain of being persecuted they wanted others to endure the pain not only of circumcision, but the pain of submitting again to the whole law. Men do things for show in order to avoid the "shame" of being connected with the cross of Christ.

For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh, which is sort of a sick boast. John Calvin compared these teachers to those in the Catholic Church.

They pay no more regard to any decisions of the Roman see than to the braying of an ass, but they take care to avoid personal risk.

Paul's approach was the opposite. But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no salvation without the cross. We glory in the cross. We boast in the cross, which is as unworldly and anti-fleshly as could be. And in Christ, our relationship to the world has been undone; by [the cross] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. We died with Christ, so the world has no hold on us and we have no hold on the world. The relationship has been severed so that the relationship could be saved. Now that the world is not our god, we can receive it from God and use it for Him.

That happens by faith, which is the only way we can be in Christ, for neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. No one creates himself, and no one recreates himself. Creations are made by God, and a new creation is God's gracious work. The external marks don't matter for that; nothing man can do can change that. The problem with circumcision isn't that it's religious; circumcision was commanded by God Himself. The problem is when men think that they can manipulate salvation.

Instead of the law of Moses, it is the law of Christ. Instead of the rule of ritual, it is the rule of new creations. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. Here is a blessing, with the final benediction to come in verse 18.

Who is the Israel of God? This phrase is one of the reasons I chose last summer to study and preach Galatians.

Those who have studied Greek know that kai means "and" and that it sometimes means "even." They might translate verse 16, "all who walk by this rule…even the Israel of God," and therefore defining these rule-walkers as Israel. In other words, Christians (those who are new creations) could be called “Israelites,” the Church could be called collectively (the new or spiritual) “Israel.” If this is the correct understanding, Paul means to give two descriptions to only one group and emphasizes the continuity between them.

Or, there are two descriptions because there are two groups. There is some overlap, but not complete overlap (some discontinuity). There are those "who walk by this rule…and the Israel of God," some of whom are walking by this rule. If this is the correct understanding, Paul means to say that there are new creations from among the uncircumcised and from among the circumcised (the Jews), so there are those who are physical and spiritual Israel unlike the false teachers who claimed to be the true descendants of Abraham.

For all his demoting of the law and the customs, Paul held good hope of the ultimate blessing of Israel. They were not all keeping in line with ‘this rule’ yet, but the fact that some Israelites were doing so was in his eyes a pledge that this remnant would increase until, with the ingathering of the full tale (πλήρωμα) of Gentiles, ‘all Israel will be saved’. (F.F. Bruce)

So we sing (and mean it the whole eschatological way, not just in a redefined “spiritual way”),

Blessed is everyone who fears the LORD,

The LORD bless you from Zion!

In Galatians 6:16 Paul echoes the blessing upon Israel in the last verse of Psalm 128 (and the last verse in Psalm 125). His hope is not merely in applying a symbolic name to a mixed group, but that at the proper time elect Israel will be grafted back into Christ by faith and know His mercy and peace.

For this good news in Jesus Christ Paul had already been paying the price. From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. The marks of Jesus are the wounds Paul suffered in Jesus' name. Those stripes, though, are seeds that will reap eternal life.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen. The benediction is not surprising, but grace is life-giving.

If 1 Corinthians is about wordliness in the church, Galatians is about legalism in the church. To the Galatians Paul writes that self-righteousness is the opposite of freedom, it is the enemy of grace, and it is the antithesis of the gospel. Men love it, God damns it. The law never has done, and cannot do, what God’s Spirit inside of us does. And what the Spirit does is cause us to serve others through love.

Let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

There is little need for love and wisdom to make decisions when all is law, when "decisions" are made for you already. Likewise there is little need for maturity and sacrifice to make decisions when there isn't much of anything to decide. It's when we're free and when there is an abundance that we really run into a need for self-control.

In the Old Testament God told His people what they were allowed to eat. Other things were not just out of season, they were unclean, and so prohibited by God’s law. In the New Testament, those dietary laws were done away with; believers were and are free to eat as long as they do it with thanks. That freedom, however, caused new (potential) problems. As just one example, what about meat that had (possibly) been offered in worship to an idol?

This also would not have been an issue if there simply was no meat to buy and/or eat. No one could choose wrongly if there was no choice, and no one could be offended that someone chose wrongly because, again, no choices were on the table.

But God didn't bless the Corinthians with limitations and scarcity. He blessed them with liberty and plenty, which also meant that He blessed them with the possibility of messing it up and also with the possibility of showing theological maturity and affection for others. He provided them with all kinds of ways to fail, which actually were all kinds of ways to love on the body and to glorify Him. He gave them ways to imitate Christ.

We come to finish Paul's section about eating meat offered to idols, the subject of 1 Corinthians since the beginning of chapter 8. Next time we'll switch to the apostle’s thoughts on head coverings and hair length, which ought to be fun. For now we get counsel on how to receive all the good things.

The apostle quoted this true but easily misused motto already in 6:12. Some of the Corinthians used it to declare their liberty and to justify their sins in the body with other persons. Now they may be using it to justify their sins with what they put into their body regardless of other persons. "All things are lawful," and here it’s in the context of what is lawful to eat, but not all things are helpful. The NASB translates, "not all things are profitable," and we might ask, Helpful or profitable for what? The second half of verse 23 clarifies, but even the word helpful could be translated as "bringing together." It might not disobey a specific verse for you to do something, but freedom to do something doesn't automatically make that something good.

"All things are lawful," but not all things build up. This is more edification talk, and the context is the building up of the body not the building up of one's own spiritual life. So, Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. What is the priority? The priority is proactively and freely choosing not to argue for your own way.

The right question is not just is it lawful, but is it beneficial for building up?

In the previous paragraph Paul laid down the law that "you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (10:21). It's not right to eat meat as worship to an idol. But that's not the only place of possible contamination. In verses 25-30 Paul gives counsel for a couple other situations.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. The alternative would be if you raised your own cattle, but those living and worshipping in the city of Corinth probably weren't ranching for themselves. So they got their beef the old fashioned way: they bought it from the butcher.

Paul says there is nothing wrong with that, and, you don't even need to scrutinize the history of the meat. You don't need to know the cow's name, or how it was treated, or if it may be left over from a temple party. There weren't stickers on the shrink wrap informing the consumer that the shoulder had been offered to Shamash or the tenderloin sacrificed to Aphrodite. Paul assumes that some of the meat had been connected in some way with idols and that some hadn't, and that the Christian didn't need to worry about it. You are not required by Christ to watch all the documentaries before you purchase.

The food-fussing anxiety-killer is Kuyperian-thankfulness. For "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof,” quoting Psalm 24:1. It's a revealed truth, a legal truth, and a complete truth. Buy and be thankful for whatever you find at the store. There is no demon's meat. Demons don't possess meat; meat can’t catch demon cooties. The Father owns the cattle on all the thousands of hills, and the bull of heaven. He has the meats.

The right question is not what was this meat doing last Tuesday, but Who made this meat?

What about when you didn't buy it but you're being served by someone else, even if that someone else is a possible or probably idol worshipper? Should Christians share a meal with non-Christians?

If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, there is an invitation and inclination. If you want to go, go, and eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. Again the default is, don't bother about the beef's biography. The right question is not has this steak come directly from alter to table?

That said, if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you. Knowing the nature of man, I can imagine a variety party-poopers. We don't know if the someone is a Christian, perhaps the kind of Christian who just can't eat without investigation, who now feels it her duty to alert everyone to stay away from this tainted meat. Or perhaps it is a non-Christian, maybe even the dinner host, who knows the Christian position on idol food better than many Christians, and wants to see if he can put the Christian on the hot seat and get the Christian to compromise. Maybe there is a non-Christian who really is concerned for the Christian. If that happens, use your liberty not to eat.

It is for the other person's benefit, and for the sake of conscience--I do not mean your conscience, but for his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If it's a believer sounding the alarm, their conscience is weak and, "through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled" (1 Corinthians 8:7). If it's a non-believer, their conscience is ruined in one of two ways. Either they think that their idol worship is okay since the Christian is knowingly associating with it too, or he thinks that Christians are hypocrites who do what is convenient rather than consecrated to the “one God, the Father.”

So in that situation, Christian, don't eat. “The food’s history matters only when it matters to someone else who considers it sacred” (Garland). Make a point by not eating, which is not that you fear contamination but that you can’t support their idolatry.

Verse 30 summarizes the overall point that we don't need to find out the origin story of every piece of meat. If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? With the extension of Psalm 24:1 in mind and the intention of building up the body also in mind, adding thanks is the trifecta of good eats. Thankfulness makes food more clean than bleach. Thankfulness makes food more clean than dipping it forty times in Passover wine, though that might make a great marinade. "Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 4:4).

What makes some mad is that they aren't thankful no matter what is on their plate. Your gratitude irritates them, and they think they'll be happy if they can at least ruin your meal.

Paul finishes the section with three commands.

First, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. This is the mother of imperatives, at least in the current paragraph. Eating has been the subject for three chapters, and in particular eating is a way to either love oneself the most or consider others. Drinking has not been named in connection with idols, but it's a normal part of feasting, and including it also shows that God loves for us to show that He's great in the most mundane of things we do. He loves for us to show Him glory in all the things, whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

What glorifies God? What makes Him shine? Not selfishness. What glorifies God? Thankfulness for His abundance generosity and consideration of others like His Son.

Second, Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God. We're to love God and then love our neighbor, and loving our neighbor is a way we demonstrate our love to God. We're to glorify God and not cause needless offense to our neighbor, which is a way we glorify God. The three categories of people could all be offended in different ways. Jews could be offended that you ate with Greeks and/or that you were conceding to idols. Greeks could be offended that you were too fussy to eat what they offered you for dinner. And Christians could be offended that you ate spiritually-tainted meat that might cause them to return to idolatry (see 8:7).

Paul already said that he sought to avoid irritating others for the wrong things (9:19-23), and again he said just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Those in the church are already saved, but the many outside the church needed to be saved. He refused to put an obstacle in their way to Christ (other than the word of the cross, 1 Corinthians 1:18).

And third, Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. He just reminded them of his priority: he sought the advantage of others so that they would come to Christ. He used himself as the example in chapter 9, a particular instance of Paul not seeking his own advantage, even of something that was rightfully, lawfully due to him (getting material goods from his spiritual work). He gave it up for their growth in Christ. He modeled the gospel, not because he could atone for anyone’s sin, but because he could live like Christ who took our place.

People get bent out of shape by this way of talking (“It’s man-centered”), but Paul wasn't looking for a way to get more power over others. That’s the opposite of his example. For that matter, if we cannot call others to do what we're doing, then we're not doing it right. Besides, we're all to be following in the steps of Christ, this is the word of the cross Paul's been proclaiming since the start of the letter. The cross is our message and our model.

What is the “controlling factor” in our choices (Garland)? Ultimately it should be worship, and as part of our worship it should be witness. Something may be good, but that does not make it the best. What is best is what is beneficial for others, and what is most beneficial is building them up.

Is there anything that you need to give up for sake of someone else? Is there anything you need to receive in thankfulness for sake of others? Paul mentioned that some might be offended if they watch us eat when we shouldn't, are there others who are maybe not offended, but disinterested, as they watch us eat with disinterest?

The right questions:

Three chapters about loving others more than satisfying our every want, and there is more to come from a different angle, including chapter 13. Paul writes about associations again in 2 Corinthians 6. Daily dying to self requires repeated reminders and tenacious self-control, and both of these are reasons to look to Christ.