Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by all Let's jump on the phone. Let's get to Rudolph from Raleigh, North Carolina. Rudolph, welcome. You're on the air.

Yes, sir. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, will the Holy Spirit still be here? Yes, because the Holy Spirit is, by definition, ubiquitous as part of the nature of the divinity of who God is. So that person of God will eternally exist as the person of the Son of the Holy Spirit, who is by nature in the Trinity, which has the property of ubiquity or ever-presence. So yes, he will be here just as he's everywhere.

Okay. So I'm going to ask that question, because when Jesus was on earth the first time, the Holy Spirit was not down here. Yes, the Holy Spirit was there in, I think, in Psalm 51, I think, no, no, no, no, no. The Holy Spirit came upon Christ at his baptism.

So he was there, he was there. And I believe it's David in Psalm 51. I think it's Psalm 51. He says, don't take your Holy Spirit from me.

So the Holy Spirit was there in the Old Testament time as well. Okay? Right. Okay.

Yes, sir. I just want to say one thing for the, I understand why, some of the way you think and why, because of the few things I've learned about Greek words and how you learn a lot from Greek. And I understand a little bit of the way you think. So I appreciate what you do and what I've been learning. So thank you and God bless. You're welcome.

And God bless Rudolph. Keep calling, buddy. All right. Bye-bye. Bye. All right.

If you want to give me a call, two open lines, 8772072276. Let's get to Jose from North Carolina. All right. There you go, Jose.

He's here. Hi. Good afternoon, man. Good afternoon. All right, man.

What do you got, buddy? Yeah. All right. So I walked into an Eastern Orthodox church, and one of the things that they were talking about that day is that John the Baptist was the last prophet, very last prophet that there is. And I walked out of there, you know, scratching my head because I thought that prophecy would be a gift of the Spirit imparted to someone else.

But again, I don't know about these things, so I'm definitely asking you. A prophet in the Old Testament sense is different than prophecy in the New Testament sense. So in Luke 16, 16, Jesus says, the law and the prophets were until John, and he's talking about John the Baptist. Now, the law and the prophets is a designation of the Old Testament, and it meant not just the writings, but it meant the whole aspect of God's prophetic work that was revealed in the law, the first five books of the Bible, and through God's prophets that were then inscripturated and recognized as being inspired by the Jewish community. This was until John the Baptist.

That's it. So since that time, the Gospel of the Kingdom was preached. In the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 14, the idea of prophecy exists. Prophecy is the act of speaking something in advance, or sometimes people say it means to proclaim. But we have this prophecy that's practiced in the New Testament church. So Jesus said this in Luke 16, 16, the law and the prophets were until John, and Paul said when someone comes in and prophesies, then you judge that.

So he was undoubtedly aware of what Jesus had said and was seeing no conflict at all. So when an Eastern Orthodox person says the law and the prophets were until John, Luke 16, 16, that's correct if he means there's no Old Testament-style prophets, then that's not a problem. If he says prophecy has ceased, then that's different, and he needs to establish that from Scripture.

Okay, good. Again, I'm scratching my head about it, and yeah, there's a huge difference between the prophet and prophecy in and of itself that I follow. Right, because a prophet in the Old Testament was an individual who was called by God and equipped by God for the office of being a prophet. It doesn't exist in the New Testament economy. What does exist are charismatic gifts that are given to the body of Christ. So where the Old Testament had a representation of prophecy in the Old Testament economy, it's fulfilled in Christ in the New Testament as the Holy Spirit comes and works with the body of Christ. And so we have prophecy, but then people say, well, you're a prophet, you give prophecies.

They're not a prophet in the sense of the Old Testament covenantal system. Okay? For sure. For sure. All right. Thank you for keeping it simple for me. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Amen. God bless. No problem, though. God bless. Okay. All right. That's Jose from North Carolina. Let's see.

Two open lines. 877-207-2276. Ryan from Pennsylvania. Welcome. You're on the air. Thank you, Matt.

And I want to thank you again for inviting me to call any time. My question today is about 1 John chapter 4, starting in verse 7. It says, For love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. And this, the love of God, was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.

And this is love. Not that we love God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought to love one another. And in 1 John 2, too, He is propitiation for our sins, not only our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. So in the context of 1 John, what does propitiation mean, and who is it extended to? Propitiation means a sacrifice that removes wrath. It does not mean that the wrath is potentially removed. It means it actually is removed. It comes from the Greek word, hilasmos, or propitiation is hilasterion. So that's what it means.

So in 1 John 2, too, He is propitiation for the whole world, well the question then becomes what does the word world mean? Because in the Jewish mind, the Messiah was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which is what Jesus says in Matthew 15. That's not true. Jesus said in Matthew 15.

That's not true. Because there were non-Jews a part of the covenant in the Old Testament. Can I finish what I was going to say? I'm going to quote Jesus. Jesus said in Matthew 15.24, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That's what Jesus said in Matthew 15.24. So I conclude that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, because that's what he said.

Okay? Well, but you do understand that Matthew wrote that and John is a different writer, and he has a different context and a different meaning, so you're taking the meaning of Matthew and you're imposing upon the writings of John, and that is why I said Jesus. Now that's called illegitimate totality transfer.

It's not what I'm doing. I'm telling you that covenantally Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In the Jewish mindset, they knew the Messiah was sent only to the nation of Israel. But when they broke the covenant requirements, then we the Gentiles were grafted in. That's why it says he was sent to the whole world, not just the Jewish people.

Okay? Okay, so does whole world mean just the elect? Well, it would mean all the nation groups, from what I understand the context of who he was sent to covenantally. So the propitiation, the taking away of wrath, is that taking away of wrath of all of humanity?

Of course not. Otherwise all of humanity would be saved and go to heaven. Well according, then what does it mean when it says not only our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world? The whole world means, in the context of the Jewish mindset, all the nation groups, not just the nation of Israel. So God propitiated for... But John is not writing to the Jewish mindset. Okay, but I'm telling you what he's saying there, and what I understand it to be. The whole world, not just the Jewish people.

He's informing the people he's writing to about that. Well, Matt, in the Old Testament, there were people that were part of the covenant that were not Jewish, correct? The Jewish covenant. The covenant of the Old Testament.

There were certainly Ruth and it was Moabitess, there were certainly Egyptians that became followers of God, there were folks in Nineveh that also repented, and certainly salvation was extended toward them. And so certainly there were Jews that were part of the covenant of the Old Testament, so why would it be restricted to referring to just Jews in the New Testament? What I would say at this point is that you need to study the different aspects of the covenant revelations that are in the Old Testament, because there's different covenants. There's a covenant with Abraham, which is ratified in the circumcision, after the shedding of blood. And that covenant was called the Abrahamic covenant, where God would bless all the nations in Abraham and is prophesied in Genesis 12.3 and quoted by Paul in Galatians 3.8 as being the gospel.

So we know that that is something that includes all the people groups. However, there's a narrower covenant, another covenant, where the Messiah would be coming only through the nation of Israel, and the covenant aspects and requirements are reiterated through the broader covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, down through David and a certain line to certain times. And then when the covenant boundaries were broken by the nation of Israel, then the prophecy of Genesis 12.3, and you all the nations shall be blessed, was then enacted or fulfilled because the sub-covenant of the covenant with Israel proper was broken by Israel. And that's how come the broader covenant was in effect. So you can't mix the covenants, okay? You've got to study covenant theology. Does God have a covenant with all of creation? Yes, the Adamic covenant. Since Adam represented all people, Romans 5.18 and 1 Corinthians 15.22, so all people are obligated to follow God and serve God and to exercise the dominion mandate under the sovereignty of God in Adam. Adam broke his covenant promise with God, his agreement, and so we then suffered the consequences of our federal head, but we're still under the covenant, believers and unbelievers, in the Adamic sense. But new covenants would come in and would be narrowing their focus throughout history to bring about the arrival of the Messiah. When Jesus came, he was then sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matthew 15.24. That's covenant language. When the nation of Israel broke the covenant, then we, the Gentiles, were grafted in. And Paul talks about this, the natural branches versus the unnatural branches, the natural branches being the Jews, and we were grafted in.

So the covenant language of, so the covenant language of Matthew? Okay. We gotta go. Yeah, there's, yeah. You can study covenant theology, okay?

We need to study that. That's where the answer is. Hey, folks. One open line, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Everyone, welcome back to the show. One open line.

One open line call, 877-207-2276. Let's get to Jason from Scottsville, Arizona, I guess. Yep. Scott, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, Matt. Hey. Hi. My biggest challenge calling you is narrowing down to just one question.

But I want to ask like 300, but I'll have to be patient. Today can you just give me your eggs of Jesus on Romans 11-22? Thank you.

Behold the kindness and severity of God to those who fail severity, but to God's kindness, to you, God's kindness, if you continue in his kindness, otherwise you'll also be cut off. Okay. Whoops. I gotta turn my phone down. My own bad here.

I'm gonna do that during the break, I mean during the show. Come on. There we go. So which focus do you want to get on the issue of eternal security?

Is that it? Or the issue of God's kindness as it relates covenantally? Whatever you feel, I mean, it's a confusing passage to me because we're saved by grace, so he can't be talking about losing salvation, right?

I mean, but whatever you tell me, I'm open. Well, it is a difficult passage because it's not exactly clear. This sends severity to those who fell severity. In the Old Testament, people broke God's covenant as well in and out.

I mean, they did various things. And God's kindness, if you continue in his kindness. So you're gonna have his kindness if you continue in it, but if you don't, you'll be cut off. Cut off his covenant language.

Now, this is something that is extremely important. In fact, let's make a little side note, because this is coming up more and more, this issue of covenant, one of the things I've entertained the idea of doing is simply starting in Genesis, doing word searches on covenant by wreath, and going through and doing research on the kinds of covenants that are ratified in the Old Testament with the covenant boundaries. Now, what I mean by that is, for example, a marriage covenant is till death do you part. That's one of the boundaries.

The other one is to keep yourself to her or to him and no one else. That's another boundary. So covenant boundaries are the sets of the requirements in the covenant, and they can be broken, depending on the nature of the covenant, or there's also covenants that are eternal, like the Trinitarian covenant is an eternal covenant, which can't be broken because it can't be broken because God doesn't break it.

So anyway, that's a side note that I'm interested in studying this because I've noticed that things like this are related to that, to be cut off, the natural branches and the unnatural branches. The natural branches are the Jews who were in the covenant, and the unnatural branches are the Gentiles who can be put in the covenant. Now what gets interesting is there's the Adamic covenant, which is everybody. There's the Abrahamic covenant, which is everybody, the Davidic covenant, which is not everybody, and then there's some other ones related inside and in between. So theologians debate, there's one covenant, two, three, five, twenty.

How many are there? How many sub-covenants and what categories are there to fall under? Generally, most people go with two main covenants and go with sub-covenants at any rate. So if he's saying you'd be cut off, is he saying you're being cut off from the covenant, or is he saying you're being cut off from salvation? Now if people say it's from salvation, then they would have to say that you keep your salvation by keeping yourself in the covenant, and that's salvation by works, and that contradicts scripture clearly, so that would be a problematic understanding of it. If we understand covenant to mean a set of rules that we are to enter into. For example, now this is my opinion, just my opinion, and if people don't agree, that's okay, but I believe in infant baptism as a covenant sign, not as a sign that saves.

I believe it replaces circumcision, and that in that Abrahamic covenant where children were included in the covenant aspect, it didn't mean they were saved. It was just, it was, boy, I thought I turned that down. It was, hold on one second, let me turn this down right here, sorry.

I did turn it down, it didn't, okay, now I turned everything down, sorry. So in the Abrahamic covenant, the children were included in the covenant, but it doesn't mean they were saved, and they could grow up and break the covenant and leave it, but they were still ultimately in God's plan and work. It doesn't mean they wouldn't be saved.

So this is why I'm saying it's a toughie. It's not a toughie because I don't like what it says against my theology, and if that's not it, it's a toughie because what's he saying? Is he talking covenantally? He seems to be, because he goes on to say, and they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again.

In who? Is he talking about the Jews or the Gentiles here, and that's another question to discuss. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted in contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will those who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? It's like, what is he saying? It appears that what he's talking about is the Jews who are the natural branches to the olive tree, and the olive tree represents basically Israel, and that people can be in and out of the covenant inside of that covenant relationship with Israel, and so people can break the covenant of God and still be under the favor of God, but not necessarily the aspect of specific covenants that they were breaking, but they could be under, generically, the Abrahamic covenant.

This is why it just gets so complicated, this is why I'm thinking about just doing a major study on this. But he goes on, I do not want you brethren to be uninformed so that you will not be wise in your own estimation that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fault of the Gentiles comes in, so all of Israel will be saved, just as is written. He delivers Israel, etc. So it looks like, in my opinion, that what Paul is doing, I think what he's doing, this is what I think, is that he is speaking to the Jews in Rome who understood a lot of stuff, because in Romans 2.17 he says, if you being a Jew. So he's talking to the Jews, and I think what he's talking about is the relationship that is there of national and natural Israel in the natural covenant that God has given to them, it's a natural thing, they're the natural branches to the covenant of God. But they can be broken off through to disobedience, just like you can Gentiles, because he does speak to the Gentiles also.

And so, I think what's going on is that the Jews and the Gentiles in the Roman church were arguing back and forth about who is the true Jew and all this stuff, the true Christian, and Paul is writing to put a stop to a lot of the bickering that might have been going on. And we're the real Jews. No, we are. We're circumcised.

You're not circumcised. No, that's not what real Judaism is. And then they go to Romans 2, the last two verses of Romans 2, to talk about that. So what I think he's doing is alluding to the idea of the covenant nature that belongs to Israel, and that we the Gentiles could be grafted in because we are in a sense true Israel who keep in the covenant, and therefore can be counted in. But don't be so uppity in your own understanding as you complain about the Jews, because you can be taken out of the covenant. It's not saying that you're going to lose your salvation, but you can be disciplined by failing to keep the covenant requirements and stuff like that. You see how complicated this can get to me? Yeah, I agree with you.

I know the Armenians loved that passage as a proof text to their losing salvation, but that would contradict everything Paul wrote. Right. Well, we've got a break. Jason, hold on, because I want to talk about this a little bit more. Okay.

Okay. Hey, folks. One open line, 8772072276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 8772072276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right. But welcome back to the show.

Two open lines. If you want to give me a call, 8772072276. Let's get to Jason. Jason, you still there? Yeah.

Hi, Matt. I was just saying, I think a lot of people try to use that as a proof text to prove losing salvation, and I was telling someone that would uproot everything Paul taught. There's no way that that can be the interpretation when literally I can pull 75 passages where Paul says the exact opposite. So go ahead.

Ask him this. What is it exactly in the verse that says we can lose our salvation? And they can only go to- Cut off. It'll be cut off. And say, show me where cut off means you lose your salvation.

Show it to me. Where does it mean cut off means you're going to hell? Because if it's covenant theology, it doesn't necessitate that. And then I take them to John 6, 37 through 40, and it says, the will of the fathers that Jesus lose none. And I ask them, can Jesus lose any?

Very quick and slick. Well, you see, they can lose themselves, but Jesus didn't lose them. You know, they do this incoherent thing. Plus, as Christians, we're part of the body of Christ. We're one spirit with the Lord, 1 Corinthians 6, 17, right? So if we're his children, we're regenerated. Why would he lop us off? Because we fail to be good at something like, you know, maybe you're not as good as you like, you know, continuing in his goodness. I mean, if that means you've got to have faith plus works, who's going to stand in the end? I mean, who's going to survive that? I mean, so right. Well, you know, one of the things I will do also when people say they can lose your salvation, I say, okay, all right, you can lose it.

Your perspective. I've got my hands on my keypad, my keyboard here. Would you please list out for me, you know, say three or three things, I don't know, three that you have to do to keep yourself right with the infant and the holy God. Please tell me. I've got my fingers ready.

Give me one. And, you know, they're going to say, well, be faithful. Don't do what? What do you not have to do and what do you have to do? Because I'm reminded at that point of the parable that Jesus gave in Luke 18, 9-14, the Pharisee of the Tascans went up and the Pharisee was boasting, look, I don't do these bad things and I do these good things. So he's talking about how he's right and I'm going to ask the people who say they can lose their salvation, then what do you have to do to keep it?

What do you have to do? Because the Pharisee, Jesus condemned, this is in Luke 18 and he says, he said, the Pharisee said, I don't swindle. He's not stealing. He's not unjust.

He's not an adulterer. He's not a swindler like the tax collector. He pays tithes.

He fasts. So surely wouldn't he be saved? I mean, he believes in God. There he is. He's doing the right things and not doing the bad things. I'd say to them, would you agree that he's a good guy? Yeah.

Okay. Then why does Jesus condemn him? Because he's appealing to salvation and is standing before God on his faith and what he does. So they are at risk of believing a false gospel and you need to evangelize them and say, don't you listen? We need to talk about the true gospel. It's not based on your ability, based on Christ's ability.

Well, you've got to remain faithful and say, you know what, let me ask you a question. Do you take credit for your own believing? And I've had them tell, of course I do. I'm the one who chose to believe.

Wow. Pat yourself on the back. Philippians 1 29, to you, it has been granted not only to believe, but also to suffer. So it's been granted to you and the grant that has been granted in Greek is the heiress passive indicative. It's a grammar analysis thing we do.

And heiress means past tense and passive means you receive the action and indicative means it's a fact. It's a natural reality to past tense action that you receive that's already been done. To you, it has been granted to believe. So God has granted to you the act of believing yet you do the believing, but God granted it to you. Do you take credit for it? No.

No. You do the believing, but God has one who's granted that you do that. Well, I don't believe in that. Well, then just deny Philippians 1 29. And it's not like some people say they reword the text and make it fit with their theology is, no, he grants you the opportunity to believe.

It's a load of crud. And then I say to them, furthermore, the faith that God grants you and that faith is in Jesus because Jesus says the work of the father is that you believe on him whom he has sent. John 6 29. So I say, is the faith that God grants to you that is in Christ, is that sufficient enough to save you? Yes. Okay. Do you take credit for that? Yes. They say yes. They got a problem. They say no.

They're on the right track. Good. Are you to continue in belief? Yes.

Is that your doing? Now that's a debatable question. People just say, well, I'm going to stop believing. So can you? Because 1 John 2 19 says they went out from us because they never were of us.

If they had been of us, they would have remained. So, okay. Thank you very much. Okay.

Hope that helps. Have a good one. Okay. Thank you. Bye bye. All right, man.

God bless. All right. All right. All right.

All right. We have three open lines. Why don't you give me a call? 877-207-2276.

Demetrius from Virginia. Welcome. You're on the air.

Hey, thanks, man. How you doing tonight? Doing all right. Just multitasking, typing, talking, and putting notes in all at the same time while I'm answering your questions, hopefully.

Yes. I was actually doing it. I was looking for something. My pantry, you know, I missed the last question, but it was interesting because I was just doing a study this morning and I saw that being cut off is kind of a form of a, can be a form of a church discipline, not necessarily a salvation thing, but, you know, a little leaven, you know, causes the whole month to rise. So, you know, 1 Corinthians 5, Paul was telling the church to, you know, there's sexual morality to get rid of them because they're making the Bible look bad. I don't know if that was the content of the last question, but, however, my question. No, no, that's interesting because I hadn't thought about it in that position.

I don't, we were talking about Romans 11, 22, if you continue with kindness, otherwise you'll be cut off, and cut off from church fellowship. I never thought of it that way, so you got me kind of curious. Let's think about that. I don't think that's going to float very far down the river, but it's a good thought.

Maybe it will. You know, the hair's cut off, you know, and stuff like that, and cut off, you get me thinking about it. So, good, I like that. Good stuff.

Yeah, good stuff to do tonight. Yeah. So, my question, Matthew 19, 9, kind of doing the study myself on 19, 9, whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality.

So, that part of the context there, you know, I had a question on that, I know in the Greek it's pleneo, and I wanted to know what was, you know, what's included in that. And I don't want to look at it from a legalistic standpoint, but like, what is considered sexual immorality? Okay.

All right. So, I've done a lot of marriage counseling over the years to couples, and in this topic, there are, I'm going to, before I say, I'm going to speak generically, all right, because we're on radio, and when I speak specifically, it's in private. But generically, there's two forms of porneia, thought and deed. So, none of us, I would venture to say none of us men are perfect in our thoughts, even in marriage. But Jesus says, if you even look on a woman to lust, well, have I ever done that, since I've been married?

Most probably. I mean, I'm not going to boast, oh yeah, you know, hope my wife's not listening. But I mean, I'm a human being, and I've seen women, and et cetera, et cetera, and I'm sure it's probably happened. At least I don't focus on it, I don't dwell on it, and if I did, you know, I repent, you know. But I'm just saying, does that mean then that I've actually committed adultery?

And the answer is no. Now, there's a sense of moral perfection that I must adhere to. So, whenever any temptation in thought comes along, I give it to the Lord. Now, I've never committed physical adultery, and never will. It's never going to happen, because I love my Lord, and I've made a commitment to my wife.

And that's just how it is. So, when the Bible talks about, back in 1999, Jesus says, whoever divorces his wife except for immorality, the context is physical adultery. So in physical adultery, then, that's why I say to people, if you're married, your wife commits adultery, physical adultery. You have the right to divorce, but not the obligation to divorce. If you divorce, you can do it, but you don't have to.

It depends on you, and her, and the Lord. So that seems to be what's going on, and this is based in the issue, I forgot where, where God issued a writ of divorce to Israel for their spiritual adultery, which was their idolatry, going after other gods. So he says, I issue a writ of divorce. So that's how that's equated, okay? Yeah.

So, when I look at Hebrews 13.4, also talking about marriage, it should be heard about all, and the marriage bed kept under file for God will judge the sexual immoral and the adulterous. So are we looking at... Hold on, we got a break, because you're going to ask a good question.

That needs to be after the break, okay, because it's good stuff. All right, man. Hold on, buddy. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages, three open lines. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276, we'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Okay, buddy, welcome back to the show.

Three open lines, 877-207-2276. Okay, so Demetrius, you still there? Yes, sir.

Yep. Okay. All right, go ahead.

Go ahead. Yeah, so in Hebrews 13.4, marriage should be honored by all in the marriage bed kept under file for God will judge the sexual immoral and the adulterous. So in this particular passage, there's a distinction between the two. So I'm assuming this extends beyond the act of porneo, but it must incorporate something else.

Okay, so let's take a look. So in Matthew 19.9, whoever divorces his wife except for immorality, the word is porneo, and marries another, commits adultery. That's the word moikati, and that's the word for adultery specifically means adultery. So porneo includes ultimately adultery, fornication, various things. I don't want to mention too much because there might be children in the car, but you get my drift. Some of these are pretty bad. And a lot of these are just rampant today, and people are participating in all kinds of sin. I'll just leave it there. Okay, hold on.

I had to cough. All right, so Jesus distinguishes the issue of, except for sexual immorality, if you divorce based on this, but it's not for that reason, which is in the scope or under the umbrella of generic sexual immorality, fornication, adultery, other things, commits adultery. Leastiality could be under immorality there, sexual immorality. And there's probably a few other issues we could put under that umbrella, and so unless it's one of those, sorry, you're committing adultery. So Matthew 13.4, in the covenant aspect of Matthew 13.4, Hebrews 13.4, he's speaking of the Hebrews. Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled.

The marriage bed is talking about the physical. For fornicators and adulterers, God will judge all the sexual immoral and those adulterers too. Now, what's interesting is that the Hebrew way of talking, well, wait a minute, why did it say all the sexual immoral? Why say fornicators and adulterers? It's like when Jesus talked about the sinners and the tax gatherers.

Well, tax gatherers were sinners. So there was a subgroup of a broader group that was focused on, and this is what's going on here. The broad group, the sexually immoral and the adulterers. Now, the NASB translates it as fornicators, and we know what that is. And so the ESV just says sexually immoral, which I think is a little bit more insightful and helpful here than just fornication. That I think fornication works, but nevertheless. So I would say in the context of though, that's why the distinguishing is going on because it's one of the things Jewish way of talking, you know, the sinners and the tax gatherers and the sexually immoral and the adulterers.

So he's talking generically and then specifically, and usually the specifics have to do with a certain audience that has a certain thing in mind and he's bringing it out and addressing it. Okay? So, so it sounds like there may be some acts that may be considered sexually immoral, but not exactly adultery, but those will both be judged. Right. So a married man who has sexual relations with a woman he's not married to, that's adultery. A non-married man who does the same thing with another woman, it's called fornication because it's outside of the bounds of marriage.

And then bestiality is either one, in my opinion, inside the marriage, it's a divorceable offense because it's a definite sexual immorality as would be other things. I want to say them, but we can get them out, but I know there's kids in cars and stuff like that. I just want to be nice, you know, and let mom and dad know, maybe we can turn this down for a little bit, you know.

I'm not like the left who wants to groom the children. I don't believe in that. Yeah. I'm glad you said it first, cause I was definitely thinking in my mind, I'm not just on the phone, this is actually other people listening too, so. That's right. Yeah. That's right.

I appreciate it man. Good. And as men, we are obligated as Christian men to guard people, to help people. And like today, this is a small thing, but I was shopping, and I got some cat food, and I was at Costco. And just five feet from me is a woman muscling a 50 pound bag of dog food. And I go, man, can I help you please?

You know, and I'm six feet tall, 220 pounds, you know, just pick it up, move it, done. And you know, what a pleasure it is in my manhood to be able to assist and to help. That's one of, just one of the ways we as men need to help, but we also need to guard, we can guard physically, but we can also guard verbally, emotionally, mentally. And this is what we're obligated to do as men, and I like to talk about this to men a lot because they need to, some men they slap upside the head.

Not me, I've got it all down and I'm fine, but others, you know, they're the ones who do. Right. Yeah.

Mm-hmm. I agree. All right, brother. Yep.

That helps? Thanks, man. I appreciate it.

Very insightful. All right. Good stuff. God bless. All right.

Four open lines. Why don't you give me a call? 877-207-2276. Mike from Winston-Salem, sorry for making you wait 40 minutes, but here we go. You're in, man. That's okay, Matt.

You're worth waiting for. Oh. Tell my wife that. Okay.

You had a previous caller, and you answered her question, and that triggered a thought that I had in the back of my mind. Is there a difference between the gospel and the gospel of the kingdom? Wow. Or is it both those things the same thing? I want to say yes and no.

And I also want to add I'm not sure. So I've done a study on that. I did it a while back.

Let me see if I can. If I did release an article, Gospel of the Kingdom, you spell it right here, let's see if I have. I did write it up.

I can read my paragraph. What is the gospel of the kingdom? The kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God. So you know what?

I don't know how to answer you because I'm not exactly sure what it means. So if we go to Matthew, and I would type in gospel of the kingdom, that's right, because I'll just do this little, we'll have a little fun right here, and I'll show you something. Its first occurrence is in Matthew 4.23, where Jesus was going throughout all Galilee teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom.

Wait a minute. It can't be the gospel of death, burial, resurrection of Jesus, because that is in 1st Corinthians 15, 1-5. So what is the gospel? The gospel is the word euangelia in Greek, the good news. So what's he teaching? I'd like to have had a transcript of what it is that Jesus was saying.

That would have been fascinating. So it occurs also in Matthew 9.35. We've got nobody waiting so we can do this. And it says, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom. This is Matthew 9. In Matthew 24, the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached and the whole world is a testimony to all nations and then the end will come. Now that seems to be the gospel of the kingdom is the gospel of evangelism. So it looks like the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel are the same thing. However, it appears that before Christ was crucified, the gospel of the kingdom contained enough information that it would include enough information such that people, by believing it, would be justified. Was it something that Jesus says, look, I'm going to be crucified on a cross, three days later rise from the dead? Now if that's the case, the Jews knew that they might have tried to thwart that prophecy by not having him killed or do something else.

Who knows? So it doesn't tell us pre-cross what it is. But in the pre-cross event, Jesus prophesies the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world, talking about the end times. So he's looking ahead.

So this is why I say I'm not exactly sure how to answer it, because it's a toughie. And look at this. This is Luke 16, 16, which I mentioned earlier today. The law of the prophets were proclaimed until John, since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached. And everyone is forcing his way into it.

Now that is interesting. How are they forcing their way into the gospel of the kingdom of God? What does that mean? I think what it's talking about is people who are trying to have gain, popularity and acceptance based on them preaching something they didn't necessarily believe in. Like the demon, the guy who is simony, the gospel that Paul preaches, and he didn't believe it.

And then the demons came out and beat the guy up. Let's see if it occurs. Those are the times it occurs. Is those just in Matthew and in Luke. So you see, I'm not exactly sure how to answer it. Well, I'm not spending more time studying it because when I get on something, you know, when something like that starts, starts me thinking, you know, I try to dig until I get an answer or try to get something and it has to be biblical.

It has to agree with the Bible. Good for you. So I have to sit there and struggle with it, I guess. Exactly. Now, let me tell you, that is not a bad thing.

It's a very good thing. There have been many times in my studies where, let's just say an issue like this, where I've spent two days studying it and can't come up with an exact, what I think is very pristine, very clear answer because there's some ambiguity in some things. And so I'll say, I've said to my wife, I spent two days studying this issue. I don't have a great answer to the question, but boy, I learned three other things. So it's always profitable. And sometimes it's just, we're too stupid to get it, not spiritual enough to get it or God did not want us to get everything. And it's okay to say, like I do in the radio, I don't know.

Good question. I could study that. And if you come up with something and you learn something, call me up and go, hey man, we talked about this.

I go, oh yeah, I think I remember you. And then tell me what you learned. I'm always open to being taught. Yeah.

Well, we all should be, we all should be. Let's see. Gospel of the kingdom. I'm going to look it up.

We've got nobody waiting. I'm going to look it up. No, it doesn't occur in my topical guide because what I like to do is see how the phrase occurs and it's not there either. I'm going to do it here. Let's see. Search.

I can search everywhere. I have a lot of Bible stuff and I like to look and do searches on phrases and or words just to see how they, if they come up. And the phrase gospel of the kingdom is not showing up in any of my things, my tools I have. Let's see. Gospel of the kingdom.

Maybe it's just gospel and then the sub category of the kingdom, but this is the kind of thing I do. I love it. I always learn. So that's a good question.

You need to study it and then you could call me, but tell me what you learned. Okay. Okay.

Will do. All right. Thank you, man. All right, man.

God bless, buddy. All right. Oops. Sorry.

I cut him off there. Sorry about that. All right.

Nobody waiting right now. There's nobody left in the show and I thank you for listening. And by God's grace, we're back on here tomorrow and hopefully we'll talk to you then. I hope you have a great evening, everybody. God bless. Talk to you later. Another program powered by the Truth Network.