SonRise Community Church Evening Seminars

And so tonight in this tough text, we'll explore how this shocking statement, properly understood, does not call us to emotional rejection of our loved ones, but rather to something far more profound, a complete reordering of our of our affections that enables us to love others more deeply than we could ever do before. Through the lens of Augustine's concept of the ordo amoris, the proper ordering of loves, we will discover that Christ's demand represents not the destruction of human love and affection, but it's rather its ultimate fulfillment. So, to begin, Luke places the the words of this text at a crucial juncture in Jesus' uh journey to Jerusalem. Great crowds were following him, uh drawn by his miracles and by his authoritative teaching, uh and the hope that um he might be the long awaited Messiah who would deliver Israel from Roman oppression. And yet Jesus recognized that many in this crowd were motivated not by a a superficial enthusiasm rather than a genuine commitment. And they sought the benefits of following Christ without understanding uh the cost of this. And so this verse is directly uh directed rather primarily to those on the fence or those with practical motives like getting free food, free bread, or those with uh political concerns. So, um in response to this shallow discipleship, Jesus turns and addresses the the crowd with a series of increasingly demanding statements. He begins with the requirement to hate one's family and escalates to bearing one's cross and concludes with the necessity of renouncing all possessions. This is not gentle Jesus meek and mild that we see. This is the Lord who demands everything from those who would follow him. And so this passage from Luke 14:25 through 35, as viewed as a whole, forms a carefully constructed unit on counting the cost of discipleship. Jesus also employs two other parables in this section, the tower builder in verse 28 and the king going to war in verse 31 to illustrate the necessity of a deliberate commitment. Just as no sensible person begins a construction project without calculating whether they can complete that project, we know this from firsthand experience here most recently. Um, and no king engages in battle without first assessing his chances of victory. So no one should embark on the path of discipleship without understanding what is it going to require. The section concludes with a mysterious saying about salt losing its saltiness in verses 34 and 35, which suggests that half-hearted discipleship is not merely inadequate, but it is actively worthless. It's worth nothing. Jesus is not interested in gathering large crowds of nominal followers. He seeks only disciples who will follow him to the cross. So there's a Greek word here, uh that we that that we translate hate in the English, which is miseo. Did I get did I get that right, Adam? Miseo, which typically translate to hate in English, but we must understand it through the lens of first century Jewish thought patterns rather than with modern Western categories. Um, in Semitic languages and thought, comparative relationships were often expressed in absolute terms. So what we would, so how we would express as uh loving something less, the Hebrew speakers would express as hatred. It was much more binary for the Semitic um thinker. The clearest biblical example appears in Genesis 29, 30 and 31. There's many of them, but this is a clear one, where we read about Jacob's relationships with Leah and Rachel. Verse 30 tells us that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, while the very next verse describes Leah as hated. The Hebrew text uses the same root word for hate that underlies Jesus' statement in Luke. And yet clearly Jacob did not despise Leah in an absolute sense. He lived with her, had children with her, and provided for her. The hatred was comparative, not absolute. And so Matthew's gospel um also provides crucial interpretive help. Um, in Matthew 10:37, if you'd like to to shift over there real quickly, I'll wait for you. Matthew 10:37. The same teaching appears in comparative rather than an absolute language. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. So Matthew, writing in a primarily Jewish audience familiar with Semitic hyperbole, preserves what may be closer to Jesus' actual phrasing. Luke, writing to Gentile readers, may have retained the more shocking formulation precisely because it better conveys the radical nature of Jesus' demand to an audience unfamiliar with Hebrew idioms. This parallel demonstrates that Jesus is not commanding emotional hostility towards family members, but instead establishing a hierarchy of devotion. The issue is not whether we love our families, because scripture elsewhere commands such love, but whether we love them more than we love Christ. Notice the comprehensive scope of Jesus' requirement back in Luke. He moves systematically through the circles of human affection, parents who give us life, the spouse in whom we are one flesh, um children who carry our hopes for the future, siblings who share our blood and our name, and finally our very own lives. So nothing is exempt from subordination to Christ. Every natural affection, every human loyalty, every instinct for self-preservation must yield to his supremacy. That's what he demands. So, uh, St. Augustine of Hippo, um, some many of you are familiar with him. He's perhaps the most influential theologian of the early church after Paul, provides us with a framework that illustrates Jesus' teaching. Augustine or Augustine, if you prefer, um, argued that the fundamental problem with the human condition is not that we love wrong things, but that we love right things in the wrong order. This is the essence of his concept of ordo amoris, the proper ordering of loves. Thomas Aquinas also expanded upon this concept and some other thinkers. Um, in order to to to get a foundation for this, please turn over to, I'm this is probably the last verse I'll have you turn to. Matthew 22, 37 through 40. It's one that you you know well. Matthew 22, 37 to 40. Where Jesus says, the greatest commandment is this, love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second command the second is like it. Love your neighbor as yourself. So this establishes the fundamental ordering. God first, neighbor second, self third. Augustine saw this as the blueprint for all properly ordered love. Now, uh different thinkers throughout time have ordered these differently, but the the there is a concept that there are orders to our love. And that God is primary among them. So according to Augustine, God, as the supreme good and the source of all other goods, must be loved supremely. Every other love must be loved in proper relation to him. When we elevate a lesser good, however legitimate in itself, above God, we commit idolatry and we introduce disorder not only into our souls, but into our relationships. This disorder corrupts both our relationship with God and our relationship with the very thing that we have wrongly elevated. So, take a moment to consider how this works practically. When parents love their children more than God, more than Christ, they often turn those children into idols who must then bear the impossible weight of providing ultimate meaning and satisfaction to their parents. The children are unable to bear this burden, and they either crumble under the pressure or they rebel against it. Neither one is a good outcome. So what was meant to be a blessing from God becomes a source instead of dysfunction. But when parents love God supremely and love their children in uh in Christ and for Christ's sake, the parent-child relationship finds its proper proportion and it flourishes according to its design. Augustine also observed that disordered love destroys both the lover and the beloved. So when we make ultimate what God made to be penultimate, we demand from created things what only the creator can provide to us. A spouse cannot be our savior. A career cannot be our security. Children cannot be our redemption. And so when we ask created things to be gods, we crush them under the expectations that they were never designed to meet. Further, that that disordered love enslaves us, not just those around us. And so when family approval becomes absolute to you, we become slaves to family opinion. When romantic love becomes supreme, we become dependent on the fallen hu on another fallen human for our sense of self-worth, which is a disaster. When self-preservation tops our hierarchy of values, fear becomes our master. Only when God in Christ occupies his rightful place at the summit of our affections, do we find freedom from these lesser tyrannies. This is where we encounter the beautiful paradox of Jesus' demand. By requiring us to hate all else in comparison to him, Christ actually liberates us to love people and um to love people and things properly for the first time and in the right order. And so when God is loved supremely, everything else can be loved appropriately. Neither too much nor too little, neither as gods nor as garbage, but as gifts instead. Um, C.S. Lewis captured this truth magnificently in his book The Four Loves, and this is what he said. When I have learned to love God better than my earthly dearest, I shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. In so far as I learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead of God, I shall be moving towards a state in which I shall not love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed, but rather are increased. So this is the gospel's great paradox and mystery. Surrender leads to fulfillment, death leads to life, and hating in the way Jesus means leads us to our deepest and truest loves. As a side note, um Lewis'

As I begin Id like to trace out the context of our passage tonight. The tough text in view is Romans 11:25-26, but in order to understand it we need to see most of Romans 11 that led up to it. So lets see it. In 11:1-10, as Paul begins Romans 11 hes eager to remind us that God has not rejected His people Israel, but has kept a remnant of faithful followers throughout the ages even down to today. So even though the vast majority of Jews reject the gospel, there remains a remnant alive and well chosen by grace while the rest of Israel has been hardened in their unbelief. Then, in 11:11-24, we saw Gods purpose in hardening the majority of Israel was to get the gospel out to us, to the Gentiles, to the nations. Which, God says, will ultimately cause Israel to be stirred or provoked to jealousy as they see us Gentiles enjoying the great promises God first made to them. And from being so jealous God says many of them will return to the gospel. Praise God! Paul speaks of this great return to Christ in dramatic terms. He says there was and is great gain and riches in the Gentiles redemption through the gospel, but when the fullness of Israel returns, there will be much more gain, much more riches, much more blessing and glory to behold. Until then, Paul warns us Gentiles to not make the error of Israel and grow pridefule with a smug sense of superiority over the Jews who are hardened, as if weve totally replaced them as the people of God. No, were not to be proud, were to fear the Lord. After all, since God can do the harder thing and bring us in who were once strangers to these great promises of old, God can do the easier thing and bring Jews who believe back in. Perhaps now were ready to come to our tough text. The Mystery (v25-27) Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Jacob ; and this will be My covenant with them when I take away their sins. As v25 begins we see an immediate connection with what has come before. The section before this, v11-24, contains a hefty warning against Gentile arrogance. Weve looked at some of that already today as we began. See then how v25 continues on in the same vein. Lest you be wise in your own sight is a strong plea for humility, but it also means that what Paul has been telling us and is about to tell us is practical through and through. Weve discussed some elements of eschatology here in our time together as weve walked through this chapter, and I wonder if some of you at the very mention of the word eschatology thought to yourselves Why in the world does this matter to me? You wouldnt be alone in such thinking. Many people believe the great doctrines of our faith are cold and dusty, or clinical and lifeless. Far from it! Paul knows no such kind of theology. His theology, which should be our theology, is vibrant, full of life and practicality. v25 shows us this. Do any of you struggle with pride? Perhaps then, you need to remember who you once were apart from grace. As a Gentile you were once an alien, a stranger, a foreigner, wicked, dead in sin, hated by God and hating one another. Perhaps then you need to remember how God saved you, by grace and grace alone. Perhaps then we need to remember what will come about in the future. That Gentiles arent the end all be all of Gods plan. God will move and bring in the fullness of Israel through Christ. All this to say, Pauls theology here is full of life and practicality because it shows us how no Gentile can boast about who they are after reading this passage. Ethnic pride was a problem in these Roman congregations, and it remains a problem in every age really. See how Paul moves on. After warning against pride he tells us of a mystery he doesnt want us to unaware of. This is one of Pauls favorite ways of saying, I really want you to be aware of this. Whats the mystery? Well first, that its called a mystery ought to be remembered. This is worth noting because while there are things we can know for sure about this, some of what hes about to tell us will remain mysterious. Second, that its called a mystery shows us some of what is truly going on here. A mystery according to the world is something that cannot be known, something totally beyond our understanding. But according to the Bible and how this word is used in the Bible, mystery means something else. It is something that was once hidden and has now been revealed. And that its now revealed means its actually something we can know truly, although not fully. Well, what is this mystery? Paul says it, a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved Of all the passages in Romans 9-11, v25-26a, what we just read, tends to be the most hotly debated sentence. So, follow this closely. Paul has already told us of Israels hardening for rejecting the gospel back in 11:7-10. Paul has also already spoken to us, in great anticipation, of what the return of Israel to God through the gospel will be like in 11:11-15, that when that day comes it will be life from the dead. Now, in v25-26 he tells us more. That Israels hardening, which was partial, will be removed at a specific time. What time? When the fullness or full number of the Gentiles have been saved. When that happens Paul says, all Israel will be saved I do think this is clear. The debate surrounds this last phrase. And in this way all Israel will be saved? What does it mean? Well, this phrase all Israel could just mean the Church, all believing Jews and Gentiles together who make up the New Covenant people. Paul does speak like this in other places, clearly. In Phil. 3:3 he refers to the Church as the true circumcision and in Gal. 6:16 he even calls the Church the Israel of God. This is the view that St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin taught, and this what I used to think this is what it meant, but I no longer believe that to be the case. While Paul truly does speak like that about the Church in other places hes not doing that here in Romans 11. Rather, I think all Israel in v26 refers to the bulk of the Jewish people who will one day return to the gospel. Why do I think this? Because all throughout Romans 11 Paul has been using the word Israel to describe the Jews, contrasting them with the Gentiles time and time again. So Israel means Israel here, Paul isnt going to use the word to refer to one thing throughout the whole chapter and then all of the sudden use it and mean something else. v25-26 shows us this. A partial hardening has come to Israel, to the Jews, and when the moment comes when the full number of the Gentiles has come in all Israel, or the bulk of the Jewish people, will return to the gospel. Thats what the phrase in this way means in v26. The way all Israel will be saved in the end is that circular pattern of rejection jealousy - return described in v11-24 which Paul summarizes in v25.[1] This is Pauls great concern here. He isnt concerned with Israel as a governmental or political entity. He isnt concerned with land of Palestine, not at all. His concern is with the Jewish people themselves, with Israel.[2] And just in case we might think all Israel will be saved simply because theyre Israel, simply because theyre Jews, Paul, once again goes back to the OT to correct us and show us the truth in v27 saying. as it is written, The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Jacob ; and this will be My covenant with them when I take away their sins. These two quotations come from mainly from Isaiah. Paul does pepper in a few phrases from the Psalms here as well to make his point clear v27 reminds us the way Israel will be saved. Yes, when the bulk of the Jewish nation returns, they will return to God(why?)because theyre Jews? No. They will return only through the One called the Deliverer, who comes from Zion to save by taking away sins. Who is this One, who does this and establishes a New Covenant? This is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Where did Christ take away sins? The cross. Church see it. Christ, is how the fullness of the Gentiles will be saved and Christ, is how the fullness of Israel will be saved as well. The gathering of Israel into the Church is therefore, not a possibility, and not even a probability, it is a promised certainty.[3] When this occurs, dont forget it. When we see the Jews return and trust in Christ it will be so astounding and amazing that it will be like life from dead as v15 tells us, and we all will rejoice! All of this in v25-27 then, is the great mystery that was once hidden but is now revealed here in this passage. Having told us what the mystery is, Paul, in v28-32, will now explain this mystery further as he sums up his entire argument in Romans 9-11. The Mystery Explained (v28-32) As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all. These verses might at first seem strange to hear. It is not very often that we hear it stated that Israel is a people who are both the enemies of God and the beloved of God. But such is v28. So, what do we do this? Rather than seeing this as Paul saying two opposite and contradictory statements at once, see v28 as Paul summarizing all he has said so far in Romans 9, 10, and 11.[4] How so? Think about it. When the gospel is in view, Israel is inde

Beloved SonRise family, we are in the midst of our Tough Texts series, where we intentionallywrestle with passages of Scripture that challenge, perplex, or even discomfort us. These are theverses that make us stop, reflect, and lean harder on Gods Word. Tonight, we confront one suchpassage: 1 John 5:13-17. If I were to ask you today, What is the single greatest struggle in the Christian life? many ofyou would likely say doubt. We wrestle with the question: Am I truly saved? We examine ourfailures, our inconsistent obedience, and the persistent presence of sin in our lives, and wewonder, Do I really have what it takes to be a Christian? Do I have eternal life?The Apostle John was intimately familiar with this struggle. Throughout this letter, he has givenus a series of spiritual tests to help us discern the reality of our faith and the assurance thatflows from it: Do you believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? Do you obey Godscommandments? Do you love your brothers and sisters in Christ? Johns purpose is clear: tocultivate assurancea settled confidence that those who believe in Jesus Christ truly belong toGod. John connects the assurance of salvation with the power of intercessory prayer and thereality of sin in the believers life. Transition: Before we delve into Johns teachings on sin and prayer, let us consider a poignantexample of the human struggle with fear and doubt. Illustration: John Bunyan and the Sin Leading to Death In Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, John Bunyan recounts a season early in hisChristian life when he feared he had committed the sin that leads to death. For weeks, heagonized, convinced that his sin was unforgivable. He compared himself to Peter and Judas andconcluded his sin was worse than both.Desperate, Bunyan sought counsel from an older believersomeone he thought wiser, moreseasoned in Scriptureconfessing the blasphemous thoughts he had uttered in his heart and hismomentary yielding to temptation to deny the Lord. But instead of offering comfort, the olderman sorrowfully agreed that Bunyan had indeed committed the sin that leads to death. Bunyansanguish reveals a universal Christian strugglethe fear that we might fall so far that grace canno longer reach us. Though Bunyan eventually found comfort in Gods mercy, his tormentunderscores how severe Johns warning truly is. Transition: Understanding Bunyans struggle helps us appreciate why John wrote his epistletoguide believers toward assurance, even in the face of sin, while warning of the dangers ofpersistently rejecting Christ. The passage of 1 John 5:16-17 presents one of the most profound and challenging distinctions inthe New Testament: the difference between a "sin that leads to death" and a "sin that does notlead to death." It is one of the more difficult passages in the New Testament. The passage createstension: on the one hand, the letter is emphatically pastoral, encouraging the reader to know thatthey have eternal life (1 John 5:13). On the other hand, this passage introduces a sin that leadsto death and a caution against praying for it. This passage has been debated for two millennia.We must understand the distinction not as a difference in the severity of the act, but in thespiritual state of the person sinning. Many scholars, theologians, church fathers, and pastors overthe centuries have debated on how one should rightly interpret this text. From a Reformed standpoint, we must hold together (at a minimum) two truths: 1. True believers persevere and are kept by the power of God (i.e., perseverance of the2. saints). The New Testament warns seriously against apostasy, unbelief, false doctrine, andunrepentant sin. To grasp the weight of Johns words, we must first understand the context in which they arespoken. John wrote to churches in Asia Minor, likely from Ephesus, between A.D. 85 and 95.Within these churches, a false teachingwhat scholars refer to as proto-Gnosticismhademerged. These heretics denied the true humanity of Christ. Some, known as Docetists, claimedJesus only seemed to have a body. Others, followers of Cerinthus, taught that the divine Christleft the man Jesus before the crucifixion. This heresy produced moral and spiritual decay. Believing themselves to possess a higher, secretknowledge (gnōsis), they concluded that physical behavior was irrelevant to their understanding.This led to antinomianism, the idea that believers were no longer bound by moral law. Johnexposes their false claims: They went out from us, but they were not of us (1 John 2:19). Transition: With this background in mind, we see that Johns warnings are not about ordinaryfailings but about a serious, deliberate turning away from Christ. Understanding the falseteachings in these churches helps us grasp why he emphasizes both the reality of apostasy andthe certainty of assurance for those who genuinely belong to God. Before addressing thechallenges of sin and prayer, John first anchors us in the unshakable certainty every believer canhave in Christ. The Foundation of Assurance: (v. 13) The Privilege of Intercession: (vv. 1416a) The Warning of Apostasy: (vv. 16b17) 1. The Foundation of Assurance: (v. 13) The purpose of John's letter is assurance. John says plainly: These things I have written to youwho believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.He is not writing to make believers doubt, but to make them certain. The Gospel of John waswritten so that unbelievers might come to faith (John 20:31). This epistle, however, was writtenso that believers might rest in faith. Here, John is not addressing unbelievers, nor is he presentinga hypothetical scenario. He is speaking directly to those who already believethose who haveplaced their trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The goal of his letter is not to sow doubt, butto cultivate certainty and confidence. Assurance, therefore, is both possible and necessary for theChristian life. But what does this assurance look like in practice? John tells us that it rests not in ourperformance, our feelings, or our ability to overcome sin, but in the finished work of Christ. Thebelievers security is anchored in the Person and work of JesusHis obedience, His death on thecross, and His resurrection. As John later emphasizes in 1 John 5:11-12, eternal life is found inChrist, not in our own efforts: And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and thislife is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does nothave life. True assurance rests not in our performance but in the finished work of Christin Hisobedience, His death, and His resurrection. As John Calvin explains: The certainty of salvationis not founded on our own righteousness, but on the unfailing promise and fidelity of God inChrist. Transition: With assurance in mind, John now draws a connection between confidence in Godand our prayer life, showing how assurance motivates intercessory love. Having established theunshakeable certainty of our salvation, John now turns to how that assurance shapes our lives. Aheart confident in Gods love will naturally reach out in prayer, interceding for others in theirstruggles.2. The Privilege of Intercession: (vv. 1416a)John begins in verse 14: And this is the confidence that we have toward Him, that if we askanything according to His will, He hears us. Here, John describes the assurance believerspossess in prayer. Prayer is not tentative or uncertainit is grounded in a relationship with God.Because we belong to Him, we may approach His throne boldly, confident that He hears us. Thisconfidence, however, is conditioned by alignment with His will. It is not a blank check forselfish desires, but an invitation to participate in Gods redemptive work according to Hispurposes. Verse 15 continues this thought: And if we know that He hears uswhatever we askweknow that we have the requests that we have asked of Him. John emphasizes the effectivenessand certainty of prayer. When we pray in accordance with Gods will, we may rest assured thatour petitions are not ignored or lost. Gods hearing is not passive; it is active, responsive, andpurposeful, bringing life, restoration, and spiritual fruit in the believers life and in the lives ofothers. In 1 John 5:16a, John instructs believers: If anyone sees his brother committing a sin notleading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life. Here, John is describing the believerscall to intercede for one another. He distinguishes between sins that are serious yet remediableand those that are final and irreparable. In this verse, he focuses on the first: the sins that do notend in spiritual death. Believers who stumble are still within the reach of Gods grace, and prayerbecomes the channel through which God restores and gives life. John now connects our assurance with our prayer life: And this is the confidence that we havetoward Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we ask, we knowthat we have the requests that we have asked of him. Notice the link between assurance andintercession: those who know they belong to God are quick to pray for others who stumble.Intercession is both a privilege and a responsibility for believers in the local church. We areinvited to stand in the gap for others, not to judge or condemn, but to bring them before God.This prayer reflects the heart of God, who Himself intercedes for us (Romans 8:34; Hebrewssuch prayer for other believers to be answered: 7:25), and demonstrates the Spirits active work within our own hearts. John tells us to expectGod will give him life. This is not presumption, but we can pray boldly for one another, knowing that as we pray for theperseverance of the saints, we pray according to Gods will Transition: John immediately illustrates this connection by distinguishing two kinds of sin:those that do not lead to death and those that do. Lets consider the first category.3. The Warning of Apostasy: (v

The Role of Women in Church? 1 Cor. 14 Our tough text this evening is 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 which says, As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Why is this a tough text? Well, it certainly seems obvious why this passage is among the list of tough texts. What Paul says here has not only been called hateful toward women, it is directly at odds with much of our current cultural climatethat seems ever bent on not just blurring but dismissing gender definitions and roles. Our cultures insistence on this is so strong that it has many within the Church confused, such that many Christians at best have trouble knowing what to do with passages like this, and at worst many Christians no longer hold to traditional gender role distinctions. While we could, from this point, launch out into an entire evening on gender, the Church, and the Churchs role in the world, we wont. Rather, our focus tonight will be narrower, aiming more at what I think is the heart of the matter, the role of women in the Church. I want to focus on this because ones view on women in the Church is something of an orienting position. Meaning, where you land on this issue will by and large determine where you land on many other issues regarding gender. I also want to begin here because most of the modern gender debate begins right here with women. And Im convinced that if we begin on the right track, well stay on that track. So lets dig in. The Reformed tradition, rooted in the Protestant Reformation, has long wrestled with the practical application of biblical principles regarding gender roles within the church. While all branches of the Reformed faith affirm the spiritual equality of men and women as co-heirs of Gods grace and view both male and female as co-image bearers, the interpretation of specific NT passages concerning church leadership and public teaching has caused much debate. This discussion is not merely academic; it shapes the structure, ministry, and daily life of many churches around the world. The views on the role of women in the Church are most often understood in two major positions, complementarianism and egalitarianism. While the majority of believers fall in either of those camps, two more positions have emerged in our day that we need to discuss as well, soft-complementarianism and patriarchalism. Tonight Ill speak on all four of these positions. Of course I wont be able to say everything needed in our time, but it will serve as an introduction to the positions. Well begin with the major two positions, then moving on to visit the two smaller positions. Complementarianism If complementarianism were to have a motto, it would be this, equal in worth, distinct in function. Complementarianism is the dominant position within many conservative denominations. The core tenet of this view is that men and women are equal in essence, worth, and dignity, but God has designed them for different, complementary roles in the home and the church. Scriptural Foundation Where do they get this view? Complementarians base their position on two primary themes within Scripture: the created order and explicit NT patterns. The Created Order: the narrative of creation in Genesis 2 is interpreted as establishing a pattern of headship. The man was created first, and the woman was created as a helper, a term understood to teach us that the woman was made to be a necessary and powerful partner to the man, but made to have a distinct role from the mans. The fall of man in Genesis 3 is seen as a distortion of this original, good order, not where the origin of the order itself. Before the fall we see harmony. Adam leading, Eve submitting as helper, and all is well. After the fall we see tension. God speaks to this in Genesis 3:16 saying the womans desire will be against her husband, but nonetheless he would rule over her. Thus, in the complementarian view, this created order in Genesis 1-2 stands till the end of the world. New Testament Patterns: Pauls letters are considered the clearest articulation of the gender role restriction. The key texts are: 1 Timothy 2:11-14, I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Here there is evidence of Paul grounding his words in the creation order (Adam first, then Eve) and the fall, rather than in the cultural context of Timothys church in Ephesus. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 14:34 which states that women should keep silent in the churches, is seen, not as a blanket statement regarding women and any speech coming from them, but rather as reinforcing the principle that women should not take on the authoritative public teaching role of the church. How is a complementarian view applied in the Church? The practical application of complementarianism centers on the ordained offices of the church of elder and deacon. While women are not restricted from the office of deacon because it is an office of service, women are restricted from holding the office of elder and pastor, because this is the office of teaching, of rule, and authority over the congregation. However, this is not a call or command for the marginalization of women. Complementarians strongly emphasize the positive and essential roles women are called to fill, which are seen as equally valuable and vital to the church's health. In a complementarian church, every role and office within that church is seen as open and available to women, except the role of elder. Egalitarianism If egalitarianism were to have a motto it would be, full equality in all roles. Egalitarianism, while a minority position in most conservative churches, is a robust and growing view within mainstream evangelical churches as well as liberal churches. This position teaches that gender is irrelevant to a qualifications for any ministry role, including the office of elder and pastor. Scriptural Foundation Where do they get this view? Egalitarians argue that the overarching narrative of Scripture, particularly the redemptive work of Christ, supersedes any perceived gender restrictions. They highlight Galatians 3:28 which says, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Egalitarians teach that this verse ought to be interpreted as the definitive statement on the new order in Christ, which abolishes all distinctions within the Church, including those based on gender, making all roles within the Church equally eligible for both men and women. They also point to the examples of women in ministry found in the NT. Phoebe, who is described as a diakonos (deacon or minister) of the church in Cenchreae in Romans 16:1. They believe Junia is called an apostle in Romans 16:7. They point to Priscilla and Aquila who instructed Apollos in the way of God in Acts 18:26, demonstrating an authoritative teaching role. They point to the promise of prophecy in Joel 2:28 which says, Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and then are eager to point out that Phillips daughters prophesied in Acts 21. What do they do about the hard texts in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 14? According to them, they do not ignore the restrictive passages but offer alternative interpretations that harmonize them with the rest of Scripture. For 1 Tim. 2 they say the restriction is contextual, addressing a local problem in Ephesus, such as women teaching heresy or usurping authority, or even just being disruptive in nature. For 1 Cor. 14 they say the passage is seen as addressing disorder in worship, disruptive questioning or cultural customs, rather than prescribing a blanket ban on all public speech from women. Some more critical egalitarian scholars also argue these passages werent written by Paul at all. So in an egalitarian church it is often the case that youll not only find women in authoritative leadership over the church, and in teaching positions within the church, but youll find women pastors in the church as well. So what have we seen so far? While the complementarian positions holds to equality in worth and a distinction in roles, the egalitarian position holds to equality in worth as well as gender roles being interchangeable between male and female. Now that these majority positions have been covered in some detail, lets move onto to the minority positions. Soft Complementarianism This position, often found in the more progressive wings of complementarian churches and does have some overlap with complementarianism. This position maintains the gender restriction only for the ordained teaching role in the lead pastor. But apart from that role, these churches seek to maximize the role of women in all other areas. A soft complementarian church will often allow women to teach mixed gender adult groups in Sunday school, various Bible studies, and on Sunday mornings as long as the woman teaching states she is not exercising final, authoritative, pulpit-level teaching and that she is remaining under the ultimate authority of the male eldership. It will often emphasize the spiritual gifts of women and hire non-ordained leadership roles to utilize those gifts fully, usually going by other labels as opposed to the traditional ones, like ministry director and the like, instead of pastor. Patriarchalism This position, often found in the far right wings of complementarian churches is the most restrictive position well cover tonight. Sometimes referred to as Gospel Patriarchy, this view does have some overlap with complementarianism. But it puts forward a system that emphasizes the comprehensive nature of male headship, t

Psalm 137, By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willowsthere we hung up our lyres. For there our captors required of us songs,and our tormentors, mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion! How shall we sing theLord's song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! Let mytongue stick to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy! Remember, OLord, against theEdomites the day of Jerusalem,how they said,Lay it bare, lay it bare, down to its foundations! O daughter of Babylon,doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be whorepays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones anddashes them against the rock! Why is this a tough text? Psalm 137 is included in our list of tough text because of how it ends. While it begins in hard terms, full of suffering and sorrow depicting Israel as in misery remembering the promise land while off on exile, the Psalm ends with words of imprecation, or words of intense desired judgment and death to fall on their enemies. Words of imprecation are present in many Psalms. Psalm 137 is an example of one, and Psalm 69, 104, 109, and 139 are other examples of these kinds of Psalms. They are called imprecatory Psalms, coming from the Latin word imprecare which means to invoke harm or to curse someone. The question many have on reading Psalms like this is, What do make of these words? Did the Psalmist really mean them? Was it right for them to speak such words of judgment? Is it right for us to speak words of judgment like this about the people in our lives we would count as enemies? And perhaps the most pressing question of them all is, How do imprecatory Psalms mesh with, not contradict, Jesus command to love our enemies, forgive the sins of others, and the command to bless those who persecute us? All those questions and more are before us tonight. Throughout the history of the Church there have been a few ways Christians have approached and interpreted Psalms like this. Tonight, here is what Id like to do. First, Ill give you three reminders. Second, Ill go through some interpretive options, comment on each. Third, Ill commend one option to you over the others. And fourth, Ill offer some closing comments on imprecatory Psalms for our practical use today. Three Reminders Before diving into how to handle imprecatory Psalms, let me remind you of three realities we believe as Christians. First, all Scripture is inspired by God, inerrant, and infallible. We believe this all Scripture is of divine origin. That means we believe the imprecatory Psalms, are divinely inspired. Thus, these Psalms are not merely expressions of personal rage, revenge, or cruelty but are God-breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness as 2 Timothy 3:16 reminds us. To dismiss them, ignore them, or deny them would be to question the nature of the biblical text. Second, covenantal realities work both ways. We believe God is a God who works through covenant. For those who come to the Lord, through repentance and faith, covenantal blessing is the result. But, while we affirm this we often ignore the opposite. For those who deny, refuse, or reject the Lord covenant curse is the result. God will indeed bless and save be merciful to all who come to Him, but He will also curse and judge and condemn all who dont. We believe this. Third, God is a God of wrath and judgment. We believe God is the God of all grace and the Savior of sinners, truly! Without this we are lost. But lets not forget that God is also a God is justice, a God of wrath, and a God who has enemies. Just as God will not let any law breaker go free in His justice, He also will defend His people from all their enemies in His vengeance. We believe this. The Options With those reminders in view, here are a smattering of interpretive options for imprecatory Psalms that Christians have held throughout the ages. Broadly speaking, four categories come into view. First, Literal Interpretations Some interpreters take the imprecations literally, viewing them as legitimate prayers for God's judgment upon the wicked. Yet there are nuances within this view. One view suggests that the imprecations are not expressions of human passion but prophetic utterances, foretelling the ultimate doom of those who hate and persecute Gods children. In this manner the psalmists are interpreted as speaking on behalf of God, warning of the consequences of unrepentant sin. Another view is that the enemies targeted in the Psalms are enemies of God rather than merely personal enemies of the psalmist. This would mean the psalmist would have interpreted opposition to himself as really opposition to Yahweh. Another way these Psalms are interpreted literally is that theyre seen as prayers for Gods justice to prevail, rather than for personal spite. Thus, the psalmists commits the matter to God's hands, trusting Him to avenge all injustices. Second, Critical Interpretations Historically, some scholars and theologians have viewed the imprecatory Psalms critically. This is to say, that they interpreted them as problematic at best, and at worst they see these Psalms representing a lower stage of ethics in the OT, which was later replaced by the NT emphasis on love for ones enemies. Examples of this are many. A Roman Catholic cardinal (Mercier of Belgium) in 1916 once commented on the imprecatory Psalms saying Christians are not to be of the OT, giving room to retaliation and that our lips are to demonstrate Christian charity by uttering no words of hate. Another more famous example is C.S. Lewis. In his work Reflections on the Psalms he said these curses reveal human qualities in their raw material, that these are nave and contain error. Also, Alexander Maclaren said there is a discordance between the temper of the psalmist and that enjoined by Christ which shows he believed the psalmist's temper was distinctly inferior to NT teachings. Third, Figurative or Hyperbolic Interpretations Some interpretations believe that the cursing language in the imprecatory Psalms should not be taken literally but understood as figurative or hyperbolic expressions of intense emotion and moral outrage. Meaning that the psalmists, who was experiencing deep suffering and injustice, expressed their raw emotions to God. These are interpreted, then, to be honest and passionate prayers rather than literal requests for specific acts of violence. This view usually cites Jeremiahs curses against the day he was born (Jer. 20:14-18) as an example of emotional hyperbole, which is certainly not meant to be taken literally. Those that interpret the imprecatory Psalms like this also argue that harsh-sounding prayers were common in the ancient Near Eastern world and that we, modern Western interpreters, should not impose our own views of politeness and decency on these ancient texts. And to their credit, there are plenty of examples from ancient Babylonian and Assyrian texts which show very similar expressions of curses. Fourth, Christological Interpretations This last approach interprets the imprecatory Psalms through the lens of Christ, viewing them as ultimately fulfilled in Him. Some interpret these Psalms as seeing the psalmists own suffering and cries for justice as a foreshadow of Christs own suffering and His ultimate victory over evil. Which means the judgment called out for is ultimately Gods judgment executed through Christ. This view also points out that while Jesus taught love for enemies (Matthew 5:44-48), the NT also contains imprecatory language. Acts 1:20 cites Psalms 69:25 and 109:8; Pauls anathemas in 1 Corinthians 16:22 and Galatians 1:8-9 come to mind as well. For those minded to interpret these imprecatory Psalms in this manner, this all suggests that the principle of divine justice remains, though its application for believers shifts from personal vengeance to trusting Gods ultimate justice at the end and praying for the advancement of His kingdom. Where am I on these four interpretive options? While there are many things to learn in each of these perspectives, I would never commend the critical interpretation, but in each of the rest (the literal, the figurative, and the Christological options) I do think there are good things to learn and lean into. If I were forced to pick one of these over the others I would choose the Christological option, because of how central the cross is in redemptive history, and because I believe all the cries present in the Psalms are ultimately answered by God in the Person and Work of Christ. Use for Christians Today Lastly, how can we use these Psalms today? Well, we certainly dont want to fall into the traps of ignoring or avoiding these Psalms because they seem so harsh or cruel. We dont want to drive a wedge between the OT and NT saying these things are a lower form of primitive religion. We must remember these Psalms are a part of the whole book of Psalms, and thus for us and for the Church in all ages. We can use these Psalms and go to them often in our own lives. How so? By learning from them. Very simply these are prayers, not curses. They are prayers asking God to do what He has promised to do in His covenantal dealing with mankind. They are prayers against Gods enemies, who are hardened sinners, who can only be redeemed by the gospel. But Jesus Christ the Lamb of God slain for us is also the Lion who will crush the ungodly and wicked in the end. In that way these prayers remind us of the reality of sin, injustice, and God's righteous judgment. And they can fuel our own prayers for God's justice to prevail when we see true injustice occurring. Three final encouragements. First, lets own and acknowledge our mixed motives in praying such prayers ourselves. Only Christ can utter these words and mean them in the way theyre intended t

I. Introduction: The Mystery at the Heart of Divine and Human Agency Few subjects have provoked greater controversy in theology than the relationship between Gods sovereignty and human will. It is a question that has occupied philosophers, divided denominations, and humbled saints: How can God be absolutely sovereign over all things, and yet human beings act freely and be held morally responsible?The apostle Paul provides, in passing, a profound glimpse of the answer in 2 Corinthians 8:1617:But thanks be to God, who put into the heart of Titus the same earnest care I have for you. For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest he is going to you of his own accord. (ESV)In these two sentences, Paul compresses the entire mystery of grace and freedom: God acts first-He puts into Tituss heart the same care that Paul feels. Titus responds-He goes of his own accord. The text refuses to let us choose between divine sovereignty and human willing. God initiates; man responds freely. The paradox stands, not as a puzzle to be solved but as a window into the nature of divinehuman cooperation.This essay will explore how Scripture sustains this tension, how philosophy has distorted it, and how the Christian vision of freedom differs from every worldly notion of autonomy. II. The Common Misconception: God as a Being within the System The most basic error in understanding divine freedom arises when people imagine God as one being among others-simply the most powerful entity in the universe. In this view, divine and human wills share the same stage and therefore compete for control of the same events. The more God acts, the less man seems to.This conception collapses the Creatorcreature distinction, the very line that defines biblical reality. Peter Jones calls this worldview One-ism-the idea that everything, divine and human alike, belongs to one great continuum of being, an ocean of being. In this ocean, God is imagined as the largest whale surrounded by smaller fish. His strength would necessarily crowd out theirs; His will would nullify their freedom.But the God of Scripture is not the biggest creature in the ocean; He is the Creator of the ocean itself. His being is of another kind altogether. To confuse the two orders-divine and created-is to commit the oldest theological error in history: the sin of making God in our own image. III. The Zeus and Prometheus Analogy: Freedom as Competition This mistaken view of God can be illustrated by an ancient myth. Imagine Zeus upon Mount Olympus, thundering his commands. Below him stands Prometheus, the rebellious Titan who dares to defy the ruler of the gods. Zeuss power operates on the same plane as Prometheuss will; the more Zeus exerts his force, the less freedom Prometheus retains. Zeuss freedom displaces Prometheuss.Such is the pagan vision of divine sovereignty-freedom as domination. The might of the stronger robs the weaker of his agency. If we project this image onto the Christian God, we create a tyrannical deity, a cosmic Zeus whose sovereignty obliterates human liberty.But the Bible insists that God is not within the system at all. He is not one billiard ball knocking another. He is the foundation of the table, the cue, the energy, and even the laws of motion themselves. His freedom does not suppress creaturely freedom but sustains it. Without Him, we would not act at all. IV. Two-ism: The CreatorCreature Distinction Restored In Peter Joness Two-ism, reality is divided between Creator and creation-two fundamentally distinct orders of being. God alone is self-existent, eternal, and absolute; creation is derivative, contingent, and dependent.This distinction is not a barrier but a relationship. The Creator sustains the creatures being at every moment. When God acts, He does not intrude into the world like an external cause; He moves all things from within as the ground of their existence.Acts 17:28 captures this perfectly: In Him we live and move and have our being. Understood this way, divine sovereignty and human willing are not rivals but harmonious levels of causation. God is the First Cause; man is a real secondary cause. Gods sovereignty is not a zero-sum game; it is the condition that makes all creaturely action possible.Thus, when Paul says that God put into Tituss heart the desire to serve, he is not describing coercion but creation. Gods grace enables Tituss love. The more God acts, the more alive Titus becomes. V. False Freedom vs. True Freedom To grasp this, we must distinguish false freedom from true freedom.In Paradise Lost, Satan declares, Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. He defines freedom as autonomy-the right to do as he pleases. But the result of his rebellion is isolation, misery, and slavery to pride. Miltons Satan embodies the tragic irony of the fallen will: his quest for independence destroys the very capacity to love.By contrast, Psalm 84:10 proclaims: For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness.The psalmist finds freedom in service. He is not diminished by obedience but exalted through it. To serve God is to live in harmony with ones created purpose.Here lies the heart of biblical liberty: Freedom is not the power to do whatever we wish but the ability to desire and to do what is right. The will liberated by grace is not neutral or autonomous but aligned with divine goodness. Only in union with Gods will can man be truly free. VI. The Illusion of Neutral Freedom: Sprouls Analogy R.C. Sproul, in Chosen by God, demolishes the myth of neutral freedom-the idea that the will can choose without any governing motive or inclination.He imagines a donkey placed perfectly between two identical piles of hay. Unable to prefer one over the other, it starves to death. This is absurd, yet it mirrors the concept of a will without bias. The will cannot choose in a vacuum; it always moves toward what the heart most desires.Sproul also invokes Alice in Wonderland, where Alice asks the Cheshire Cat which road she should take. That depends, the Cat replies, on where you want to go. If she doesnt care, it doesnt matter which way she walks. Choice is meaningless without direction.The biblical view agrees: the heart governs the will. Out of the heart flow the springs of life (Proverbs 4:23). Our choices reveal our nature. Thus, a fallen heart inevitably chooses sin; a renewed heart delights in righteousness. Freedom lies not in indifference but in transformation. VII. Jonathan Edwards and the Renewal of the Will No one articulated this truth more powerfully than Jonathan Edwards in his 1754 classic, Freedom of the Will. Edwards defined the will as that by which the mind chooses. He argued that every act of choice follows the strongest motive presented to the understanding-and that motive arises from the disposition of the heart.Hence, to be free is not to act contrary to ones nature but to act in accordance with it. A corrupt nature produces corrupt choices; a regenerate nature produces godly ones.This is precisely what Paul describes in Tituss case: God put into his heart The new desire was implanted by grace. Gods work did not override Tituss will but recreated it.Edwards wrote, The will always is as the greatest apparent good is. When God changes the heart, He changes what appears good-and thereby liberates the will.The sinner in bondage cannot choose holiness because he loves darkness. The saint, renewed by the Spirit, freely loves the light. Grace does not chain the will; it heals it. VIII. The Puppet Master Rejected: Divine Causation as Empowerment One of the most persistent caricatures of divine sovereignty is the puppet master image. If God determines human choices, are we not merely puppets on strings?The answer is no-because personhood is not mechanical. A puppet has no consciousness or moral responsibility. But humans are made in Gods image: rational, moral, and free.When Scripture says, It is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), it describes empowerment, not manipulation. Gods sovereignty operates at a deeper level than physical causation. He moves the will from within, by transforming desire, not by bypassing it.The puppet analogy fails because it imagines God as one agent among others in a causal chain, rather than the author of the whole play. The human actor performs his role freely, yet the story unfolds precisely as the Author intends. Divine sovereignty does not eliminate moral significance; it guarantees it. IX. Exposition of 2 Corinthians 8:1617 Let us return to Pauls text.Thanks be to God, who put into the heart of Titus the same earnest care I have for you. The verb didōmi (put into) carries the sense of placing, granting, or bestowing. Paul credits God with initiating Tituss affection. It is the language of divine implantation, reminiscent of Ezekiel 36:2627-I will give you a new heart and cause you to walk in my statutes.Then Paul adds, For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest, he is going to you of his own accord. The Greek word authairetos (literally self-chosen) emphasizes voluntary action.Thus, in one breath Paul attributes Tituss zeal to Gods sovereign work and in the next celebrates Tituss voluntary obedience. The grammar of grace unites divine causality and human freedom: what God ordains, the believer desires.This is the living out of Philippians 2:1213-Work out your salvation for God works in you. Gods work and ours are not sequential but simultaneous. His sovereignty energizes our freedom. X. The Logic of Paradox: Harmony, Not Contradiction Reason protests that if God determines all things, man cannot be free; and if man is free, God cannot determine all things. But this is a false dilemma created by the limits of creaturely understanding.From eternity, Gods comprehensive providence encompasses both the ends and the m

1 Cor. 11:2-16, Now I commend youbecause you remember me in everything andmaintain the traditionseven as I delivered them to you.But I want you to understand thatthe head of every man is Christ,the head of a wifeis her husband,andthe head of Christ is God.Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,but every wifewho prays orprophesieswith her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the sameas if her head were shaven.For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.For a man ought not to cover his head, sincehe is the image and glory of God, butwoman is the glory of man.Forman was not made from woman, but woman from man.Neither was man created for woman, butwoman for man.That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.Nevertheless,in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. Andall things are from God.Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?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.If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor dothe churches of God. Why is this a tough text? This passage is included in the tough text series because this passage raises the question of head coverings. To cover or not to cover, that is the question. While this is certainly the main question in view, other questions and important topics arise in this passage as well. For example, here we see the headship of Christ over all mankind, the headship of a husband over his wife, and the headship of God the Father over God the Son during the incarnation. In addition to these we find Paul covering the appropriate actions of men and women in worship, the appropriate (proper, natural) length of hair for men and women, and generally speaking how all this impacts our worship. And lets not forget v16 either, the call and command for brothers and sisters in Christ to not be contentious about their views on head coverings in worship. So what Id like to do tonight is work through this passage, verse by verse, comment on it, give my thoughts on the two prominent views of this passage, and conclude with a variety of what I think are helpful principles to glean from this passage. Introduction (v2) Now I commend youbecause you remember me in everything andmaintain the traditionseven as I delivered them to you. Here Paul commends the church in Corinth, for what? For remembering Paul in all their actions and for maintaining the traditions Paul taught them. Many Protestants believe traditions are negative things, and there is truth to that. Elsewhere Paul speaks of the traditions of men that ignore Christ (Col. 2). But here in v2 he is not referring to negative or sinful traditions of men, but traditions that he himself taught the Church. This could refer simply to Pauls preaching and all he taught them, but I think it rather refers to certain practices Paul believed were good and useful for the Corinthians to adopt. Here he commends them for heeding his counsel. The Foundation (v3) But I want you to understand thatthe head of every man is Christ,the head of a wifeis her husband,andthe head of Christ is God. Paul truly commended these Christians for following him on many points, thats what v2 means. But here in v3 Paul isnt commending them, hes correcting them. What is he correcting them about? Here in v3 he speaks on headship. He explains headship in three ways. First Paul speaks of Christ being the head of every man, meaning Christ is the Lord over all, not only as the head of His body the Church, but the Lord before whom every knee will bow. Second Paul speaks of the husband being the head of his wife, not meaning to say the husband is greater while the wife is inferior, but that when it comes to authority in a marriage it is the husband who carries the authoritative role while the wife embraces a submissive role. Third Paul speaks of God the Father being the head of Christ the Son, not meaning that the Father is greater or more important than the Son who is inferior, but that during the incarnation the role of the Son truly was to submit Himself to the will of the Father in all things. Paul says these things in v3 because of what he is about to say in the rest of the passage. So here Pauls laying a foundation of understanding the difference between authority and submission. The Main Argument (v4-5a) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,but every wifewho prays orprophesieswith her head uncovered dishonors her head Here Paul makes his main argument, and its all about head coverings. One note on coverings first. Its helpful to know how head coverings were used in the culture in and around Corinth at this time. Three quick things. a) in pagan religious ceremonies prominent and wealthy men would pull their togas up over their heads to cover them. b) in this time a woman who covered her head in social or religious settings did so to indicate that she was married. In this she was seen as honoring her husband. So too a married woman who refused to cover her head would be seen as dishonoring her husband. c) a married woman who refused to cover her head in social or religious settings was automatically identified as being rebellious or promiscuous. Because of this many men and women in Corinth did not know what was proper and improper in worship regarding head coverings. Enter Paul. His main argument in v4-5 is a simple one. A husband who covered his head in worship was acting like the prominent pagan men of the time, so in worship Paul says a man should not cover his head, so as to not dishonor Christ. So too, a wife who uncovered her head in worship was acting like the rebellious women of the time, so in worship Paul says a woman should cover her head, so as to not dishonor her husband. Reason #1 (v5b-6) since it is the sameas if her head were shaven.For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. Paul gives his first reason here for why he said what he did in v4-5a. Simply put, a wife with an uncovered head in worship is culturally shameful. Pauls logic is clear. Step one, Paul says a wifes uncovered head is the same as having a shaved head. In this time the penalty for a woman who was arrested for adultery would be the shaving of her head, which would publicly shame her for having a hair that looked like a mans. Step two, Paul says a wife with s shaved head is disgraceful, which implies again that a wife with an uncovered head is disgraceful. Step three, therefore, a wife should cover her head. Reason #2 (v7-9) For a man ought not to cover his head, sincehe is the image and glory of God, butwoman is the glory of man.Forman was not made from woman, but woman from man.Neither was man created for woman, butwoman for man. Now Paul adds another argument, one from the original design of men and women. In v7 he affirms what he already has said, that a man should not cover his head. But now he adds more reason to it. The reason a man should not cover his head is because man is the image and glory of God. Contrasting that is woman, who Paul says is the glory of man. This doesnt mean women are not made the image of God, not at all. The issue here on one hand is how a man may honor or shame Christ, while on the other hand how a woman may honor or shame her husband. In v8-9 Paul adds more. Men and women are not interchangeable. God made woman from the man and for the man, thus woman is the glory of man, while man is not the glory of woman. This how we were made. Paul uses this argument from creation that transcends culture and applies it to the Corinthian context, specifically about head coverings. Reason #3 (v10-12) That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.Nevertheless,in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. Andall things are from God. In v10-12 Paul gives us another reason for his main argument by saying, because of all these things it is right for a woman to have a symbol of authority on her head because it demonstrates that she is indeed gladly under authority. He adds women should do this because of the angels Im honestly a bit puzzled why he would say this. It either refers to actual angels who watch over the Church with great interest, observing all we door the word angel means messenger (original Greek), implying that those who witness men and women acting disgracefully in worship will give a bad report to others in the community. v11-12 is Pauls brief reminder that men and women need each other. We are not interchangeable, yes. But were also interdependent beings, needing one another. Final Reason (v13-15) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?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. Pauls final argument is an appeal to what is natural or proper for men and women. In v13 he asks a rhetorical question, in which were meant to see that it is indeed improper for a wife to pray with an uncovered head. v14 adds to this saying it is proper or natural for man to have shorter hair, and for a woman to have longer hair. This implies that it is improper and unnatural for men to have longer hair and for women to have shorter hair. This argument is a creation principle. Paul is teaching the Corint

1 Peter 3:18-22 says, For Christ alsosufferedonce for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous,that he might bring us to God, being put to deathin the flesh but made alivein the spirit,in whichhe went andproclaimedto the spirits in prison,becausethey formerly did not obey,when God's patience waited in the days of Noah,while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is,eight persons, were brought safely through water.Baptism, which corresponds to this,now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body butas an appeal to God for a good conscience,through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,who has gone into heaven andis at the right hand of God,with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. Why is this a tough text? As is easy to see, this passage present numerous difficulties. First, in v18 we dont have a difficulty we have a glorious and wonderful statement about the end and purpose of the death of Christ. Specifically, that Christ suffered once, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God! That last phrase of v18 refers to Jesus, being put to death in the flesh on the cross, but made alive in the resurrection by the Spirit. All of this, I think, is clear. Now the difficulties then begin. First, in v19 what does it mean that Christ preached to the spirits in prison? Does this mean that Jesus, after His death on the cross descended into hell and preached a sermon? If so, what was the sermon about? His victory over death? Or was He preaching the gospel, offering the spirits in hell a way out of hell? If this doesnt mean He descended into hell and preached a sermon there, what does it mean? Many questions here. Second, in v20 what does the reference to Noahs days mean, and why does that come after v19? Does this comment about Noahs day change how we interpret Jesus preaching to spirits in prison? If so, how? If not, what does it mean? Third, in v21 how does baptism correspond to Noahs day mentioned in v20, and what does it mean when it says baptism now saves you as an appeal to God for a good conscience. Does this teach that baptism saves you? If so, how does that not contradict the rest of Scripture? If it doesnt mean that baptism saves, what does it mean then, and what does it have to do with our consciences? Fourth, in v22 how does the resurrection and ascension of Christ function in this context as a conclusion to the passage? Taking all these difficulties together, many claim this passage is one of the most complex and debated passages in the entire Bible. As weve done before in our handling of these tough texts, Ill lead you through a variety of interpretive options, comment on them, and conclude with some final thoughts. Option 1: Ancient and Medieval Church Views During the early Church and medieval age, interpretations of this text differed greatly, which reflects the developing of doctrine throughout the ages, especially regarding the doctrine surrounding Person and Work of Christ and the nature of the afterlife. -Augustine: he acknowledged the difficulty of this passage and proposed a symbolic interpretation, suggesting that the spirits in prison represent unbelievers in Peters own time, with the historical event of Noah's flood serving as a type of impending judgment. He argued that Christ's proclamation to the spirits was a pre-incarnate spiritual preaching through Noah to the disobedient generation before the flood, warning them of impending judgment. He questioned the logic of Christ preaching only to those who died in the flood and rejected the idea of Christ emptying hell of all souls after preaching to them. Regarding baptism, Augustine is something of the forerunner to the modern Roman Catholic view of baptism, because Augustine taught that baptism was necessary to give to infants in order to cleanse them from original sin. More pertaining to 1 Peter 3 and his views on baptism Augustine would say that salvation through water (as seen in the flood and Noahs ark) prefigures Christian baptism, which itself appeals to God for a good conscience through Christ's resurrection. -Athanasius: contrasting Augustine's symbolic view, Athanasius, held to a more literal interpretation. He suggested that Christ, after His death, literally descended into hell to preach to the souls there. Regarding baptism, Athanasius emphasized its transformative power and its connection to the Trinity. He taught that baptism regenerates the soul, because of its participation in Christ's death and resurrection, and because of that it is also a means of receiving the Holy Spirit. More pertaining to 1 Peter 3 and his views on baptism Athanasius held and taught the same view of Augustine, that salvation through water (as seen in the flood and Noahs ark) prefigures Christian baptism. -Medieval Catholic View: the broad medieval Catholic view, influenced by the Apostles Creed affirmation of a descent into hell, understood 1 Peter 3 to teach Christs literal descent to hell to proclaim salvation to the righteous who died before His coming, thereby liberating them. Some believed Christ descended into limbo, and others said sheol to preach and liberate captives. Others believed the proclamation of Christ was a proclamation of victory and salvation, not a second chance for the damned. Regarding baptism, the medieval Roman Catholic church was follow Augustines view on baptism. -Thomas Aquinas: Aligning with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas also held the view that Christ's preaching was pre-incarnate preaching, done through Noah. This interpretation believes that the eternal Son of God, who later became incarnate as Jesus, spoke through Noah to the people of his time. Regarding baptism, Aquinas believed baptism should be placed on the infant and that all Christian baptisms did four things to those baptized. First, baptism removes all sin both original and actual. Second baptism infuses grace and virtue enabling the baptized to live their new life in Christ. Third, baptism imprints an indelible spiritual mark on the soul, which is a participation in Christ's priesthood. And fourth, Aquinas taught baptism unites the individual to Christ making them a member of His body, the Church. More pertaining to 1 Peter 3 Aquinas believed Noah's ark prefigures baptism as a salvific power through Christ's resurrection, which leads to a good conscience. Option 2: Modern Day Roman Catholic View Modern Roman Catholic theology generally believes a view consistent with the historical understanding of Augustine and Aquinas, believing in Christ's literal descent to the place of the dead where He proclaimed His victory and salvation to the righteous souls who had died before His resurrection, liberating them and opening the gates of heaven. The spirits in prison are understood as these righteous dead, awaiting the Messiah. This view denies that Christs preaching offered any kind of second chance of salvation to those who rejected Him in life, but rather was the culmination of Christs redemptive work for those who died in faith prior to His coming. A less common, but still discussed, interpretation within Roman Catholicism suggests that Christ's proclamation was to fallen angels, announcing His triumph over them. This view draws on early Jewish writings like 1 Enoch, which links fallen angels to the disobedience in Noah's day. Option 3: Historic and Modern Protestant Views Reformed interpretations generally deny with the literal post-death descent to the dead view, and affirm Christ's pre-incarnate work or a proclamation of triumph to spiritual entities. Yet even these views have their differences. One widely held reformed interpretation, put forward by John Calvin and Francis Turretin, believes the spirits in prison refers to the wicked unbelieving people of Noahs day. It is these unsaved wicked souls that Christ preached to through Noah. These denied such preaching, and are thus now suffering judgment being that they are spirits in prison. To back this up they cite 2 Pet. 2:5 which calls Noah a herald of righteousness. They cite 1 Pet. 1:11 which says Spirit of Christ was preaching through the OT prophets, which presumably includes Noah. This view also likens Noahs day to Peters day, in that just as Christ was preaching to a minority that would be saved in Noahs day, so too Christ is preaching now to a persecuted minority now, who will be saved, and to whom Peter is writing to. Another widely held reformed interpretation, taught by John Owen, teaches the spirits in prison are fallen angels. In this view, it is the sons of God from Gen. 6:1-2 who are in mentioned in 1 Peter 3 as the spirits in prison. So Christ, descended to hell prior to His resurrection, to proclaim His triumph over these demonic powers, who were involved in the wickedness of Noah's day. This view is eager to cite 2 Peter 2:4-5 which they say agrees and explains this passage further saying, For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment, if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly This view also is eager to remind us that almost every use of the term spirits in the NT is referring to supernatural beings rather than people. Lastly, another very much smaller reformed view, teaches that Christ descended to hell after His death to offer a second chance of salvation to those in hell. Though held by some, it must be rejected for how it denies loads of other passages of Scripture. Regarding baptism, all of the Protestant views deny the Roman Catholic teaching (Augustine/Aquinas) and affirm that the salvation through the waters of judgment in the flood of Noahs day prefigures Christian baptism, and that each time we see a baptism in the NT church that same reality is symbolized. Protestants deny that baptism itself saves, but rather t

Matthew 12:22-32, Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw.And all the people were amazed, and said,Can this be the Son of David?But when the Pharisees heard it, they said,It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.Knowing their thoughts,he said to them,Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul,by whom doyour sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.But if it isby the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, thenthe kingdom of God has come upon you.Orhow can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeedhe may plunder his house.Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, butthe blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.And whoever speaks a wordagainst the Son of Manwill be forgiven, butwhoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either inthis age or in the age to come. Why is this text a tough text? When reading this passage its clear the difficulty comes from v31-32 where Jesus refers to not only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but that those who commit such a sin will not be forgiven. This is the famous passage that speaks of the unforgivable sin. And many Christians, upon reading this text, truly struggle. Why? Because they wonder if theyve committed this particular sin and being unsure what Jesus really means here, the same Christians then grow anxious about their eternal state, fearing that they may be living under some kind of delusion of thinking theyre Christians on their way to heaven when in reality theyre lost on their way to hell. As for all of these tough texts, there are options of interpretation. So in our time tonight I will give you the options for this passage, make some comments on each one, and then give you some final words on this thorny issue. I want to give you three options tonight, and you might be surprised to hear me say it, but all three options are good options held by godly men and women. Option 1: Andy Naselli view This view is represented by an article on The Gospel Coalition website written by Andy Naselli, one of their writers. Though it represents one interpretive option it is a common and popular view among many interpreters. What does this view teach? This view teaches that the unforgivable sin is specifically what the Pharisees did in Matthew 12, attributing Jesus miracles to Satan. We see this in v24 of Matthew 12, which says, But when the Pharisees heard it (referring to the miracle in v22), they said,It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.This view says the Pharisees statement in v24 is a deliberate, conscious choice to reject the Spirits clear witness to Jesus in the miracle itself, not just by denying it, but by saying it was Satan who really performed it. Naselli comments further saying the Pharisees clearly saw undeniable evidence of Jesus power in this miracle. And instead of submitting to Him and bowing before Him as they should have done, they declared this was the work of the prince of demons. This wasnt ignorance, it was willful rejection. A refusal to embrace with their hearts, what their eyes clearly saw. Naselli concludes that their sin is unforgivable because it reveals a final hardened unbelief present in them, which reveals Gods hardening work on those who continually reject Him. This isnt a modern view alone, it was originally held by the early Church theologian and preacher Chrysostom. For Chrysostom, any attributing the work of God to Satan is demonic and unforgivable. Naselli is keen to encourage tender consciences though, by reminding us at the end of his article that those who worry about committing this sin should be encouraged because their worry is evidence that they havent. If you have committed this kind of sin, you wouldnt worry about it. The kind of rejection here is temporary doubt, or a struggle with sin, not even like Peters denials here, but a decisive knowing rejection of Christ. Option 2: John Piper view This view is represented by John Piper, from many different sources. Over the years he has taught on this passage many times, and written about it in various articles and books. Particularly helpful to discover and trace out his view is his sermon Beyond Forgiveness: Blasphemy Against the Spirit. In this sermon Piper makes the argument that the unforgivable sin is a settled hardened resistance to the Spirit, so deeply entrenched in the soul that the Spirit withdraws His convicting work. Without this work, repentance is truly impossible, and without repentance, forgiveness is impossible as well. In the sermon I just referred to Piper says, The unforgivable sin is an act of resistance which belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws forever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven. As Naselli did in the first view, Piper also stresses that this sin isnt just one slip of the tongue or a moment of doubt. Its a deep, ongoing resistance to Gods Spirit. From this Piper warns us against sin. He says this passage warns us against toying with sin in all possible ways. The longer we resist obedience to the Lord, the more well sin, and the more we sin, the more numb well grow to the things of God. Once we get to that point well refuse to heed the inner conviction of the Spirit which will in turn harden our hearts more toward the Lord and increase sins grip on us. You should know this isnt just a modern view, it was originally held by the early Church theologian Origen. Though at times Origen interpreted this text in Matthew 12 allegorically, he most often spoke just like Piper speaks here. Piper also encourages us that if you fear youve committed this sin, that very fear is evidence you havent. Only a soft heart worries about it, while a hardened heart refuses to worry about much of anything. At this point you might wonder what the difference between the first two views are. While there are overlapping realities in both these first two interpretive options, the emphasis is different. Naselli believes the unforgivable sin is what the Pharisees did, attributing the work of God to the devil, while Piper believes the unforgivable sin is not so much what the Pharisees did as it is a settled hardened resistance to the Spirit, so hardened in fact that the Spirit withdraws His convicting work. Naselli focuses more on the action of the Pharisees, while Piper focuses more on the heart behind these actions. Option 3: R.C. Sproul view This last view is represented by R.C. Sproul. Like Piper he has taught on this many times, but mainly his view is clarified in his book Hard Sayings, chapter 15 titled The Unpardonable Sin. There Sproul makes the following argument. Sproul teaches the unforgivable sin isfinal, hardened unbelief. Its not one particular utterance or moment of sin, but a settled refusal to embrace Christ that ends at death. He does what neither of the other options does, when he says clearly that the only sin God will not forgive isrefusing His only way of salvation, Jesus Christ, through the Spirits testimony. One can sin grievously, but until they physically die, the opportunity to repent is always possible, if God in His sovereignty chooses to save the sinner. Again, this isnt a modern view only, it was originally held by Augustine. Like Sproul did our own day, Augustine did in his, emphasizing that the unforgivable sin does not just to apply to the Pharisees but applies more broadly, to anyone persisting in sin long enough to die in it without repenting. Others who held views very similar to this are Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. Sproul emphasizes, as the others do, that only unbelievers can commit this sin. Believers may sin grievously like David, and many others, or even deny Christ like Peter, and yet they are restored by repentance. Unbelievers, if they remain in their unbelief, will never repent, hence, they will never be forgiven. Sprouls large concern here is assurance. He often tells of how he speaks to encourage Christians anxious about this unforgivable sin. He tells them thatif they are in Christ, they cannot commit this sin.The Spirit has sealed them and will not let them go. But for unbelievers, however, the danger is real: reject Christ until your dying breath, and forgiveness will no longer be available. Conclusion: What have our three interpretive options showed us? First, Andy Nasellianchors the unforgivable sin in the context of Matthew 12, namely, calling Jesus Spirit-powered works satanic. Second, John Piperhighlights the danger of hardening our hearts until repentance is impossible. And lastly, R.C. Sproulgives pastoral assurance that the only unforgivable sin is dying in unbelief. All three of these views find their origin in theologians from Church history, and all three are truly good options. Common to all three options is that the unpardonable sin is not a one-time slip or moment of weakness. It is not ordinary doubt, or even serious sins like murder or adultery. It is a settled, willful rejection of the Spirits witness to Christ. And if you fear youve committed it, that very fear is proof you havent. So what are we to take away from this tough text in Matthew 12? We can takeaway both warnings and comforts. First, the warnings: -Dont play with sin. It hardens the heart. -Dont resist the Spirit. When He convicts, repent quickly. -Dont slander the works of God. Speak carefully about what is and what is not the work of the Spirit. -Dont presume upon grace. A heart that refuses to repent may one

When you go out to war against your enemies, and seehorses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them, for theLordyour God iswith you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.And when you draw near to the battle,the priest shall come forward and speak to the peopleand shall say to them, Hear, O Israel, today you are drawing near for battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint. Do not fear or panic or be in dread of them,for theLordyour God is he who goes with youto fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it.And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has notenjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit.And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.And the officers shall speak further to the people, and say,Is there any man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go back to his house, lest he make the heart of his fellows melt like his own.And when the officers have finished speaking to the people, then commanders shall be appointed at the head of the people.When you draw near to a city to fight against it,offer terms of peace to it.And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it.And when theLordyour God gives it into your hand,you shall put all its males to the sword,but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, youshall take as plunder for yourselves. Andyou shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which theLordyour God has given you.Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. Butin the cities of these peoples that theLordyour God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,butyou shall devote them to complete destruction,the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as theLordyour God has commanded,thatthey may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so yousin against theLordyour God. When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it,you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?Only the trees that you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls. Introduction: Why is this a tough text? Much of this passage might seem like normal rules for war that would fit any nation and almost any context throughout history. For much of history, and especially for Israel in this Ancient Near Eastern context, war was a normal part of life. Some of you know this more than others. If you have been in the military or have a family member or friend in the military you know more than most about the ins and outs of war. Much of this text falls into that category, and most people apart from pacifists believe this kind of war can be morally justified. Regular Bible readers are used to much of this kind of language as well. In v1-4 God promises to be with His people as they go out to fight, and because of that they dont have to fear, because God will fight for them. In v5-9 God even allows different categories of people to go back home and leave the warfront. In v10-15 there is an offer of peace extended to conquered foes, a command for tribute to be made to Israel, and a charge to make the defeated people slaves to Israel. If they refuse to submit to these commands, Israel was to kill all the men of the city and plunder all their goods. Theres even a command to not cut down all the trees at the end of this chapter in v19-20. Again, language like this isnt all that surprising to read. The tough part of this text comes in v16-18 when God gives commands for a certain kind of war. A war where God commands His people to devote His enemies to complete destruction. Where no man, woman, or child is to be left alive. Where nothing that breathes is to remain. What are we to do with this? Questions abound here: is God a moral monster for commanding this? Is this just an example of primitive barbaric religiosity? Does this bring into question the credibility of the OT? Does this bring the doctrine of inerrancy into question? Does this reveal that the God of the OT really is different than the God of the NT? Well touch on some of these, but perhaps the main question in view tonight is this: is this genocide or is this holy war? This is the tough text before us tonight. What are we to think of this? Well, as you can imagine there are options on how to interpret this passage and others like it. Five options to be specific. For the rest of our time, Id like to take you through those five options, critique and comment on them while also encouraging you toward two of them over the others, and finish with some conclusions to keep in mind. Option 1: Re-Evaluating God One very common way to interpret texts like this in our modern day is to conclude that the warfare presented here is nothing more than unwarranted violence, and that God who commands this must, therefore, be re-evaluated. This God is either wicked Himself, or He simply doesnt exist altogether. In effect making the warfare here a prime example of one people using their own religious dogma to fuel, not just hatred of other peoples, but to justify the entire slaughter of other peoples. In this view the religious dogma itself is the problem, making the remedy the removal of all religion in the world. If this occurs, peace will reign and war will end. Much like the song Imagine by John Lennon. It should go without saying this is not a good option to take on this text. It is generally only taken by those who embrace an atheistic worldview. Thus, this view is at odds with and contradicts every tradition of Christianity. It is overly utopian and unrealistic. Option 2: Re-Evaluating the OT This second option is yet another very common way to interpret this passage in our modern day. While the first option throws God into doubt for His seemingly barbaric ways, this second option throws the Bible into doubt for the same. But there is some nuance to notice with this view. Rather than casting doubt on the whole of Scripture, this view believes our passage tonight and all others like it are either not authoritative texts or not historical texts. There is some variety in this view, and the differences tend to come down to what the interpreter believes about the inerrancy of the Scripture. Remember inerrancy is the doctrine that teaches there are no errors in the Bible. So for example, one person who falls into this second option could hold to a form of inerrancy yet deny that these texts were ever a part of the original due to seemingly severe nature of our passage. This would make the rest of the Bible inerrant, just not in these passages. Another example would be one who denies inerrancy. This person would believe our passage is an example of a place where the Bible does contain an error due to seemingly severe nature of it. As before, it should go without saying this interpretation is also not a good option to take on this text. There does seem to be a struggle within the individual who takes this view to see the Bible as being from God in a way. But ultimately this passage is denied due to how it offends a persons sensitivities. Option 3: Re-Evaluating Interpretation This third interpretive option does uphold the inerrancy of the Bible and does try to honor God in handling this passage, but this view does some gymnastics with the text. Instead of taking the passage on its own terms, within the genre of historical narrative that it comes to us in, this interpreter says the language in Deut. 20 is to be taken hyperbolic or metaphorical, instead of taking it literally. In effect making the conquest of Canaan more a spiritual reality than a physical reality. Now, there are problems with this view. First, while I do believe there is much hyperbole and metaphor in the Bible, this text isnt one of those places. It is clearly within historical narrative and thus ought to be taken literally. Second, this interpretation doesnt do anything to solve the seeming problems of this text. Even if you take this view, there are still dead Canaanites you have to deal with, and this view tends to shy away from that. Third, this view ends up attempting to soften the hard edges of the text using other kinds of speech found in the Bible. It just isnt a very plausible view. Option 4: Re-Evaluating Violence This fourth interpretive option upholds the nature of Scripture, seeing it as inerrant. It desires to honor God and not diminish Him in anyway. And desires to not soften away any hard edges in this passage. What does this view do with the language of the text? It affirms it, and it teaches that God truly did command the holy war on Canaan, saying the violence doled out on these peoples wasnt barbaric but morally warranted. In other words, this option teaches that the peoples in the land of Canaan were so sinful and wicked, that God commanded them to be purged from the land. The land, by the way, that God gave to His people. So for the unique purpose of keeping His people pure and holy, ensuring that they would not be infected by the sins of the pagan peoples a

Thereforelet us leavethe elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentancefrom dead works and of faith toward God,and ofinstruction about washings,the laying on of hands,the resurrection of the dead, andeternal judgment.And this we will doif God permits.For it is impossible, in the case of thosewho have once been enlightened, who have tastedthe heavenly gift, andhave shared in the Holy Spirit,andhave tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,andthen have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, sincethey are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.Forland that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.Butif it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed,and its end is to be burned. Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better thingsthings that belong to salvation.ForGod is not unjust so as to overlookyour work and the love that you have shown for his name inserving the saints, as you still do.And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assuranceof hope until the end,so that you may not be sluggish, butimitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Our first question tonight is Why is this a tough text? It is clear on reading through it why this is such a difficult passage. It says many things that seem problematic, it raises questions that are difficult to answer, and it seems to teach things that contradict many other passages of Scripture. While the beginning and ending of this passage seem fairly straightforward, the difficulties are mainly found in v4-8. Let me begin by saying this. The book of Hebrews is wonderful. Its rich in theological depth and practical application. It was written to Jewish Christians who were facing persecution and were tempted to abandon Christ. So the author's primary aim is twofold: first, to demonstrate the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant over the Old Covenant. And second, urge these Christians to persevere in their faith and grow in spiritual maturity. This passage, 6:1-12, is truly one of the most debated and, for some, unsettling passages in all of Scripture. Our goal tonight is not to shy away from the difficulties but to engage with them thoughtfully, seeing the full counsel of God's Word to shape our understanding and strengthen our assurance in Christ. By the end of this study, I pray not only that our understanding clarified, but that our faith will be deepened, and that we would grow in our own assurance as well. Here's the plan for tonight. First, well briefly examine v1-3. Second, well linger on v4-8 seeing the difficulties, asking our questions, and giving possible answers. And third, well briefly look at v9-12. v1-3 To understand the beginning of chapter 6, we must turn back to the end of chapter 5. There in the end of chapter 5 the author of Hebrews teaches us the difference between the mature believer and the immature believer and the difference in their spiritual diets, milk and solid food. As chapter 6 begins that same idea carries forward with a call to spiritual maturity in v1-3. Leaving behind elementary things and pressing forward to maturity in our faith. Thats the call. And in v3 we find that we will grow and mature in our faith, if God permits it. So right away as this tough text begins we see how God is sovereignly at work in our lives as Christians. v4-8 Here we come to it. And right away one can see the numerous difficulties present. This seems to teach about one who enjoyed so many Kingdom benefits but was ultimately removed from the Kingdom for falling away. This raises important questions like: can we lose our salvation? What do all the characteristics mean in v4-5: once being enlightened, tasting the heavenly gift, sharing in the Spirit, and tasting the goodness of the Word of God, and the powers of the age to come? Does that mean they were a Christian? What does it mean to have fallen away? Why is it impossible for such a person to be restored to repentance? How would that be a re-crucifying of Christ? As is the case in many tough texts, options for interpretation abound. So, in that light here are three options for this text. Interpretation 1: The Plain Sense (Arminian) It is right and good of us to begin with a view of this text that takes this text on its own, as it stands, with no qualifications. This view, held by many of an Arminian persuasion, believes that if a true believer commits apostasy and falls away, even after enjoying all the benefits mentioned here in v4-5, that they do indeed lost their salvation, such that they cannot come back at all. Those who hold this view believe they are being faithful to the plain sense of the text, and that any who disagree with this plain sense are twisting to text to a set of preconceived theological opinions. So in sum, this first view believes the warning here exists to do just that, warn true Christians that they can truly fall away. Interpretation 2: The Hypothetical Warning (Piper) One interpretation views the warning in Hebrews 6:4-6 as hypothetical. This perspective argues that the author is suggesting a hypothetical scenario. The argument is that if it were possible for a truly saved person to fall away in such a manner, then indeed, their restoration would be impossible because it would entail a re-crucifixion of Christ, which is absurd. Proponents of this view often point to verse 9, where the author states, Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better thingsthings that belong to salvation. This verse is seen as the authors clarification that his audience, being true believers, are not the ones in danger of this ultimate apostasy. The warning thus, serves as a powerful deterrent and a means by which God preserves His elect, not as an actual real case scenario. It highlights the heinous nature of rejecting Christ after having experienced abundant exposure to the truth, and it underscores the seriousness of perseverance. The warning is real and serious, but the outcome for the elect is secure due to God's preserving grace. Interpretation 3: External Profession/Participation (Sproul) A second prominent interpretation believes the individuals described here to be those who are part of the visible covenant community, but who are not necessarily truly regenerate. This view highlights the distinction between external participation in the blessings of the church and internal, saving faith. The five attributes listed in v4-5 are interpreted as describing a profound external experience with Christianity, but not necessarily internal regeneration. Once been enlightened can refer to intellectual understanding of Christian truth, and exposure to the true gospel. Unbelievers can be intellectually enlightened to theological truths. Tasted the heavenly gift could refer to partaking in the Lord's Supper, experiencing the benefits of being in a Christian community, or receiving common grace blessings, none of which necessarily indicate saving faith. Shared in the Holy Spirit could refer to experiencing the outward manifestations or gifts of the Holy Spirit (e.g., prophecy, miracles), which can be given to unbelievers (e.g., Balaam, Saul, Judas), or simply being part of a community where the Spirit is active. It does not necessarily imply the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that accompanies regeneration. Tasted the goodness of the word of God refers to hearing and understanding the preached Word, perhaps even being emotionally moved by it, but without genuine conversion or submission to its authority. Tasted the powers of the age to come could mean witnessing or experiencing miraculous works associated with the coming kingdom of God, again, without personal salvation. According to this second view, the warning is directed at those who have had significant exposure to the truth and blessings of God within the covenant community but have not truly embraced Christ in saving faith. Their apostasy is severe because of the light they have received and rejected. The analogy of the land in v7-8 seems to supports this: the land receives rain (blessings/exposure to truth) but produces only thorns and thistles (unbelief/apostasy), indicating a lack of true fruit and ultimately leading to judgment. This interpretation aligns with 1 John 2:19, which states, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. The warning serves as a diagnostic tool, revealing the true spiritual state of those who fall away. Also, this view emphasizes that the nature of the Church here in earth is and will always be a mixed bag. That is, a mixture of the sheep and the goats, or the wheat and the chaff. This means there will be those within the Church who are part of the body visibly, but are not part of the body invisibly. These unbelievers in the mix might be phonies masquerading as believers, or they might think theyre true believers but are dreadfully mistaken. The severity of the language here emphasizes the inevitability of a continued persistent rejection of Christ after having received significant light and experienced the blessings of the covenant community. It is a warning against hardening one's heart to the point of no return, a state where repentance becomes impossible not because God is unwilling, but because the individual has utterly repudiated the only path to it. Conclusion? While these three interpretations offer distinct interpretations of this text, there is some overlap and commonality between them. Ultimately, I land in the third interpretation, that this warning here is for those who have had significant exposure to the truth and blessings of God within t

Introduction: Ephesians 4:25-32, Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of youspeak the truth with his neighbor, forwe are members one of another.Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,andgive no opportunity to the devil.Let the thief no longer steal, but ratherlet him labor,doing honest work with his own hands, sothat he may have something to share with anyone in need.Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may givegrace to those who hear.Anddo not grieve the Holy Spirit of God,by whom you were sealed for the day ofredemption.Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.Be kind to one another, tenderhearted,forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. Now, before getting to the text itself we must answer the question, why is this a tough text? On the surface of things it seems fairly straightforward, but is it? In v26 we find the first mention of anger in this passage, where were told to be angry and dont sin. So it seems anger and sin are two separate categories. But then in the rest of v26 we read the sun isnt supposed to go down on our anger, so does that mean anger is sin, or that were never to let anger be stirred up in us for very long? And more so, in v27 what does the devil have to do with our anger? Are we giving him an opportunity in our anger to hurt us or trip us up in someway? And then in v29 we see the only kind of talk were to allow out of our mouths is talk that builds up and doesnt corrupt or hurt others. Does that necessarily mean anger and angry talk is out of bounds for Christians? v30 then provides what might be the key to this whole section, when it says were not to do or say anything that would grieve the Holy Spirit, what does that have to do with this anger? And finally in v31 we find Paul instructing us to put away all bitterness and wrath and anger. All in all this text is a tough text, because of its seeming contradictory teaching on the place of anger in the life of the Christian. The big questions is this? Whats does Paul teach on anger here? Is there good anger? Or is all anger inherently sinful? My argument will be as follows. If we were honest, wed all admit that we know anger far too well. That fiery emotion that flares up when we feel wronged, frustrated, disrespected, or hurt. But I do not think anger is always bad. I think theres a good anger and a bad anger, and understanding the difference is essential for the Christian life. Tonight, Id like to show you that very thing. That anger, in its purest form, is not inherently sinful. The problem isn't anger itself, but how our fallen sinful nature distorts anger. We often find ourselves angry about the wrong things, and perhaps even more dangerously, were often not angry enough about the things that truly grieve Gods heart. So when your heart starts to heat up, Scripture doesnt just say dont feel that. It says, Be angryand dont sin. Tonight well learn how grace can train our anger to honor and not grieve the Holy Spirit. Tonight, we'll explore what Paul teaches on anger, and from his teaching I think well be able to: 1) understand the biblical definition of anger, 2) be able to diagnose our own anger, and 3) discover a path towards redeeming our anger, transforming it from a destructive force into a tool for righteousness. Lets begin working through the text. v30 provides a framework from which we can interpret the whole passage. There Paul tells us of the reality that we can grieve the Holy Spirit. Think on that. At our conversion it was the Holy Spirit who applied the saving work of the Son to us. It was the Spirit who awoke us from our graves of sin. It was the Spirit who baptized us and brought us into union with Christ. It was the Spirit who indwelt us. It was the Spirit who sealed us in Christ. And now it is the same Spirit who continues to apply the saving work of Christ to us. The Spirit still revives us, keeps us, grows us, teaches us, sanctifies us, and even prays for us. If we obey the Lord and live in light of His commands, we honor the Spirit who resides in us. But v30 is sobering. If we disobey the commands of Christ we will grieve the Spirit. We could interpret this as grieving in the sense of injuring or harming, but I think its better to speak of our grieving the Spirit in the sense of causing the Spirit to be burdened or pained by our sin, just as a parent grieves when their beloved children stray. This reality in v30, as I said, provides a framework for our whole passage. There are four arenas in which we can honor or grieve the Spirit: truth-telling (v25), labor and generosity (v28), kindness and forgiveness (v32), and then anger (v2627, v29, v31). Ill cover the first three quickly and then well camp out on anger the rest of our time. Truth Telling (v25) In v25 Paul provides the initial command. Because we are members of one another, all being united to Christ our Head, we must always do two things. First we must put away what is false, and second we must only speak what is true to one another. If we do this, well honor the Spirit, and if we dont do this well grieve the Spirit. Labor and Generosity (v28) Next, in v28 Paul instructs us against theft, saying honest work should occupy our hands, so that we have something to share with one another, instead of stealing from one another. Again, if we do this, well honor the Spirit, and if we dont do this well grieve the Spirit. Kindness and Forgiveness (v32) In v32 were given the command to be kind, tender-hearted, and forgiving toward one another, because God in Christ has forgiven us. If we do this, well honor the Spirit, and if we dont do this well grieve the Spirit. Anger (v26-27, v29, v31) Now come back to v26-27. There we read much. First we receive a command Be angry and do not sin Here Paul is not being innovative, hes quoting Psalm 4:4. There are various ways to translate this phrase, but note that in the top 17 English translations of the Bible, only 1 removes the form of command. The ESV, the NIV, the KJV, the NKJV, the CSB and others all translate this in the form of command Be angry Only the NLT removes the form of command and says Dont sin by letting anger control you In this we see how important it is to translate things properly. Here the NLT leads one away from the meaning and intent of Paul while the other translations keep us on the right track. But to be more generous to those who do read this translation we could simply say the NLT captures the warning while the other translations preserve the imperative. Now, the English is good, but what does the Greek say here? Since the Greek is the original, seeing what it does here might settle this for us. And it does. In the Greek here Paul uses the imperative form, not the indicative form. Do you know the difference between those? Imperatives give authoritative command, while indicatives give facts or state opinions. One of my own Greek textbooks says There is no more forceful way in the Greek language to tell someone to do something than the simple imperative. Thus, we now know what v26 is. Its a command from God, Be angry and do not sin This is further proved by the fact that in the Bible we see God Himself angered by sin. You dont have to look too far to find this: God is angered by Noahs generation, by Sodom and Gomorrah, by the actions of Egypt as they enslaved and oppressed His people, and by the other nations around Israel in their pagan idolatry. We see Jesus get angered in the gospels too: cursing the fig tree, flipping the tables, weeping in a rage outside Lazarus tomb, and more. And I think we also see the Holy Spirit get angered in a sense as we grieve Him in our disobedience, or as James 4:5 says the Spirit yearns in us jealously when we sin. Now one could say here, Well ok. God is perfect, and God always does anger rightly. Because were sinners, shouldnt we always try to avoid anger? That is an understandable response to this. God is perfect and God does always do anger in the right way. We are sinners and almost always do anger in the wrong way. Yet, in the Bible we see godly men and women angered by sin. Moses in Exodus 32 throws down the tablets before the people at the golden calf incident. Phinehas gets angry enough in Numbers 25 to intervene and stops sin from spreading in the camp. Samuel is rightly angry at Saul many times, for not obeying God and taking matters into his own hand. David is angered as he hears Goliath blaspheme Gods name before Gods people, and David is angered when he sees no one standing up to do anything about it. More so, prophet after prophet is angry with either Israel or the nations around them for their various sins. Paul is angry at the Galatians for abandoning the gospel. Paul is angered by Peter when he avoids the Gentiles for fear of the Jews. And on and on. Bottom line: godly anger is motivated by a deep concern for God's reputation and glory, rather than personal offense. Godly anger is directed at injustice, evil, and sin, seeking to uphold God's standards of righteousness. While anger can be a sin, godly anger is not, as it is motivated by love for God, others, and a desire to see things restored to God's will. All of what I just said is true, but see more in v26. Im very glad for those final few words because it reminds us that anger, though not sinful in and of itselfcan easily lead to sin. This not only reminds us that godly anger is a true sign of spiritual health, it guards us from allowing anger to go too far in us. How does this work? Anger typically begins with a godly anger at sin and its effects on ourselves, on others, or on the world. So we see the sin, we properly hate the sin, and we mourn over the wreckage that it has brought. That is what godly anger looks like. But if this anger is held onto, or nursed within us it will turn si

Intro to Tough Texts What do you do when you read the Bible and you come across a verse that makes you stop and think, Wait a minute, did God really say that? Do you skip it? Do you wrestle with it? Do you doubt? Do you close your Bible in frustration? Or do you pray and ask God for help? All of us have faced these moments, and those moments are what this series is all about. It is good to be with you all this evening as we embark on a new evening sermon series. As many of you know the series this is called Tough Texts, and in this series we will be looking at just that, passages in the Scripture that are difficult to handle. A few weeks ago we announced that we would be beginning this series in our various small groups, and we asked many of you to think about passages that they find difficult. Many of you went home, thought about this, and you came prepared to our most recent members meeting where I asked you to share them with me. Many passages were shared, but only 13 were selected for this sermon series, at least for this fall. I am eager to get to these texts and start working through them with you, but tonight is all about introductions. So in our time together tonight I want to tell you where we'll be going, and tell you the texts that were chosen, but I also want to tell you about the hard reality of difficult passages in Scripture, and I want to tell you why I did not choose certain passages. Let's begin there. There were many passages given to us that I did not choose, here's a few reasons why. First, I did not choose topics that were given. Meaning, I tried to stick with texts, actual messages in the old or New Testament that people find difficult. For example, someone shared that they would love to hear about the difficult topic of divine sovereignty versus human responsibility. I think that's a great topic. I think that's a needed topic. But it is a topic rather than a text. There were other examples like this, that were more a general topic then a specific passage of scripture, and while those would be good studies in and of themselves that's not really the aim of this series. Perhaps at a time in the future we can do a series called tough topics where we are not zeroed in on a specific passage of Scripture but are rather thinking more broadly and systematically through a topic presented to us in the Scriptures. All this to say, my aim was to choose specific texts rather than specific topics. Second, I did not choose texts that are near our current Sunday morning series. We are currently going through the book of Exodus in our Sunday morning gatherings and so if anything was near the book of Exodus or found in the book of Exodus I did not choose it for this series. Why? Because while those are specific texts, they are texts that we will come to and deal with in the near future in our time together on Sunday mornings. For example, someone shared that they would love to hear the passage explained in Exodus chapter 4 where many puzzling things occur. There the Lord seeks to kill Moses, there is a swift circumcision, followed by Moses's wife throwing the foreskin of that circumcision at Moses's feet, and her calling him a bridegroom of blood. This is certainly a tough text, but it is a text that we will come to very shortly on Sunday morning. Another example, someone shared that they would love to hear an explanation of the entire passage of the 4th commandment, concerning the Sabbath rest that God commands His people to make a regular part of their week. That also is a classic example of a tough text, but it's one that we will be hitting together Lord willing in 2026 on Sunday mornings. So rather than dealing with it here in the evening as well as dealing with it in the morning we will just leave things like that to the morning series. Third and lastly, I did not choose texts that were given from the book of Judges. This is not because I dislike the book of Judges and this is not because I think the book of Judges is inappropriate for us to study. On the contrary I love the book of Judges and think it's very appropriate for us to study in our time together. The reason I did not select any texts from the book of Judges is because there were so many texts given that come from the book of Judges, so many in fact we couldve spend half our evening series in that book. Apparently SonRise has loads of questions about the book. So it would not be a bad idea to consider actually going through the book of Judges sometime soon as a church, perhaps we can do that this coming Spring. That way we not only will be given the opportunity to learn from the entire book of Judges, but we will get to work through every single one of those texts that were shared and given for this series. So to summarize what I did not choose for this evening series: I did not choose anything that resembled a topic, I did not choose anything from, near, or related to our Sunday morning sermon series, and I did not choose anything from the book of Judges. Now, what did I choose? Here is the list: 8/24 Anger in Paul? (Eph. 4:26-31) 8/31 Losing Salvation? (Hebrews 6) 9/7 Holy War or Genocide? (Deut. 20) 9/14 God Hates Sinners? (Psalm 5 / 11) 9/21 Did Jesus Descend into Hell? (1 Pet. 3:18-22) 9/28 Head Coverings? (1 Cor. 11) 10/5 God Regrets? (Gen. 6 / 1 Sam. 15) 10/12 Free Will? (2 Cor. 8:16-17) 10/19 Imprecatory Psalms? (Psalm 137) 10/26 Reformation Movie night 11/2 Role of Women in the Church? (1 Cor. 14) 11/9 Sin Leading to Death? (1 John 5:16-17) 11/16 Hating Family? (Luke 14:26) 11/23 Will All Israel be Saved? (Romans 11:25-26) Lastly, I d like end by discussing the hard reality of tough texts. And to do that I'd actually like to take you to a text. So if you have your Bibles open to 2 Peter 3:15-16, And countthe patience of our Lord as salvation, just asour beloved brother Paul also wrote to youaccording to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,as they do the other Scriptures. Notice right away what Peter says. He is honest about the contents of Scripture. He isnt shy about it, he doesnt try to hide it, or cover it up, no, he tells us plainly that there are passages in Scripture that are hard to understand. Not only notice how Peter refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture, but notice how Peter is honest about Pauls writings, that there are portions of them that are hard to understand. If even the apostle Peter found this to be true of Paul, we will as well. Now, since this is true for Paul. Can we not apply this to the whole of Scripture as well? I think we can. How do we respond to this? Should we ignore those passages? Or throw in the towel and give up when we come across them? Not at all. Even though theyre hard to understand, we should work at understanding them better. The easy thing to do would be to do what Peter says some do in this passage. the ignorant and unstable twist the Scripture to their own destruction This shows us what not to do with tough texts. We should not interpret them in such a way that is ignorant or unstable. What do the ignorant and unstable do with the Word? They interpret the hard passages, the tough texts, not by reading them for what they are, no. Instead they twist them to suit their own desires, and thus make plain their own destruction. Do not do this with tough texts. Read them for what they are, rather than interpreting them in an underhanded manner. In this we see why this is not just an academic exercise, handling the Scriptures rightly really is a matter of life and death. Lord willing, part of my aim each week as we work through these texts is to demonstrate how to handle the text in an appropriately God honoring manner, rather than an unstable and ignorant manner. So we have see that tough texts exist, and what not to do with them. But lets go further. R.C. Sproul, in his book Hard Sayings says tough texts can be classified into three categories. First, a passage can be a tough text if it appears to be harsh to us in its meaning. So if a text jolts us, shocks us, or we have a kind of shrinking back from them, they are a tough text to us. Well deal with a few of these kind of tough texts in our evenings together. Second, a passage can be a tough text if it is hard to understand. While the first category of tough text is clear just difficult to swallow, this next category of tough text is different in that they are texts that are very difficult to unravel. Well also deal with a few of these kind of tough texts in our evenings together. Third, a passage can be a tough text if it is controversial in the history of interpretation. Whats an example of a text being controversial in its interpretation? Well, that kind of brings us back to the first two categories doesnt it? If it a text seems harsh to us, or if a text seems like an unsolvable puzzle, we will see a mass of interpretive options throughout the history of the Church. One last encouragement and then Ill take some questions. One way to grow in Christ and in the knowledge of the Scriptures thats not talked about very muchis focusing on the tough texts. Think about it. When you come to a text that seems greatly puzzling to you, you have a choice. The easy road is to ignore it and move on, staying close to those portions of Scripture you do find easy to understand and digest. But will you grow like that? I mean, its always great to read the Bible, but if we only ever read those parts of it that we find easy to understand, well likely only ever stay in the shallow end of the biblical pool. But if we make the harder choice, and face those texts, really leaning into them and trying to understand them, the odds are that well end up understanding them and growing in our knowledge of God and the Scriptures. So too when you come to a text