The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network.
Today's date is 11-8-2023, that's November 8th, 2023. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. And you can, if you're interested, you can listen online. If you're not in a radio area, you can be driving, you can be on your phone, you can download Clubhouse. And it's an app on the phone. And you can go there, and you can listen online by just downloading that, registering.
Without a big deal, it's easy, it's free. And then look for Matt Slick as a name on the search, and you can find me on there. Also, if you want, you can participate in our chat, and that's easy to do.
Just go to rumble.com forward slash MattSlickLive. And in there, you can check stuff out there as well. Not a big deal, but hey, it's a lot of fun, you know. So, okay, let me check this out.
Let's see, get this right there. Trying to make it, all right. I got all these controls and things like that that I get to work on for video and capture and things like that on the show. And that's what I'm doing. Okay, so we have a few people coming in, different venues.
And I'm hoping that, oh yeah, thank you for reminding me of that, Ernie. So if you would be so kind, would you please consider subscribing to our channels? Rumble is a channel, rumble. You can just go to rumble forward slash, I think, what is it, just karm.org, type it in.
And let me know what the overall thing is. We have Matt Slick Live, we have religion channels. We have different things, you've got to subscribe to each one. And we're not trying to overwhelm you, but that's just how it is on rumble. And you can also go to our YouTube channel, and that's karmvideos, C-A-R-M videos, karmvideos. And you can, we're putting videos up in both places, the same videos in both places.
And there it is, rumble.com forward slash karmorg, C-A-R-M-O-R-G, there you go. Also, I'm just going to give you guys a heads up, we've got a tour going in April. We're going to Turkey, and then Greece, and then Italy.
We're going on the footsteps of Paul. It's an expensive trip, but it's a great, it's going to be a great trip. I've been to Israel, I've been to Turkey on these trips, and I feel probably safe going to Turkey and stuff like that. I've been there before, not a big deal. And we've got a guy who goes all the time, and he leads tours, and it's just like, well, here we go. So if you're interested in that, all you've got to do is go check out bridgepaltour.com, all one word, bridgepaltour.com, and you can check it out there.
All right, I think that is everything. So, oh, yeah, I want to give a heads up on something. I talked to Luke Wayne last night. Now, I mentioned this a while back, and I talked to him. Luke used to work with us at CARM. He's a great guy.
So Luke, I'll give a short version of this stuff. There's a lot more details and a lot of different areas, but he really needs your prayers. He had to move on to another ministry and make more money to provide for his family. That's a noble thing and no problem, and we still love the guy.
He's a great guy. His youngest, his daughter, Liz, Elizabeth, Liz, has got some medical problems, hydrocephaly, and they're going to have to have insurance, and they just happen to have a doctor. I don't understand details outside of the insurance that they have, where they have to go in order to have this rare and special surgery done. So they're meeting today to see if they can even get insurance for that.
If they don't, he's got to pay out of pocket, and he's not a rich guy. So there's that, and there's other things related. There's a lot of stuff going on. He's got a blind wife and adopted some kids that's blind, and he's got a lot on his plate.
So just give me the super short version of things. We talked for like an hour last night, but if you'd be willing to pray for him, just look at Luke and the situation and ask God to be merciful to him and the family. All that's going on, all that's happening, because he certainly does need our prayers. He needs our prayers.
So if this, please lift him up, and if you would, you can pray for him and his family and for miraculous healings and things like that. All right, all right. Why don't we just get on the air here with, let's get to Alan from Virginia. Alan, welcome.
You're on the air. Hey, Matt. How are you doing? Doing all right.
Hanging in there. What do you got, big guy? So I called yesterday about the Black Keeper Israelite thing, and just wanted to kind of continue the discussion. Okay. Do you want me to start off with the topic, or do you want to? Sure, go ahead.
The one I looked up at Trinity Table that you mentioned, and man, this is a nice article. Good. I like it. You have a lot of information on here, and then you know about how to sort stuff so where it makes it where someone doesn't want to go to sleep, you know, like you're just going to grasp and whatnot.
Right, right. Yeah, there's a lot of information. I think I like to say I think I have the ability to take a lot of information and place it down and make it easy to understand, so that's what I want to do.
It also helps that you link it where if you click on it, it doesn't just force you to go to another page, but it just kind of gives you a little pop-up kind of snippet of it. That's really useful. Okay, good. But, yeah, if you were saying something.
No, no, go ahead. Okay, but, yeah, I was just saying that's pretty useful, and I like this article. It definitely will help with my apologetics.
Well, good. Just remember the Trinity is arrived at systematically. When they ask, what's the one verse? Where did Jesus teach the Trinity?
It's the wrong question. They'll believe he's a prophet. Where did Jesus teach he was a prophet? Where does it say that?
You know, I am a prophet. They ask these questions that they know the answer is not there in Scripture because they don't understand how these things work, and you have to correct them. You've got to teach them. Okay. One thing that I talked to them about but they didn't really comment on, that we kind of moved a different thing real quick, what do they think about the concept of Gentiles being grafted in? I'm assuming they reject it, right? Yeah, that's a good question. I've never asked them that. I'd like to, because what they like to do is lead the conversation to where they wanted to go with the script that they've been trained in, and if you deviate out of it, they don't know what to do, and they want to go back onto their script.
So that's all they do. So if I were to ask them about that, which I haven't talked to any for quite a while, but I'd like to be able to get in and start talking to them and ask. But I don't know what they're going to say about that. I think you talked to one of them, I think about a month ago, I think it was about that, and maybe you could talk to him again. Well, you know, I go to different social places.
One of them is Clubhouse, and it's a phone thing, and there's a lot of BHI there. So they get in, and when I go in, they know me, and so generally they kind of mock, and they'll say, man, we've got a question for you. And what they want to do is have only their script, and they know what kind of things to ask, and I'll say, I don't know.
I haven't started that particular thing in depth in that context. I try to tell them a lot as I'm taking notes, because what I'm going to do is go study those objections. I'll say, look, hold on. So on this verse, you're saying that this verse means, you know, whatever it is, and they'll say yes. Okay, they'll write it down, because they don't realize they're helping me, because then what I can do later is just say, well, I'll go back, read the context, put their comment in, and analyze it according to the comment, and then I do a response. So when they ask me again, I've got a ready-made response from studying right there. That's what I'll do.
This can be for any kind of religion. That's what I do all the time. I have outlines, and my outlines on BHI are very small. It's only ten pages of material.
My outlines are 50, 60, 100, 200 pages, but this is just ten, because it's new. All right. So the ones that we're talking to, they use the thing that's called the apothecary and the King James version. Apocrypha. Is that normal for them to use those two things? Yes. They like the King James. They just do. And the apocryphal books, sometimes they'll use those. Different groups will recognize them, and so they'll generally use those.
Yep. What is the apocrypha? Apocryphal books are books written. They're intertestamental books. They were written before the first book of the New Testament was penned, before Jesus was born, but after the book of Malachi.
So it's about a 400-year period. They're called intertestamental or pseudopigraphal. They're different books. That's what it is. They like to say that they're inspired. They're not inspired. No, they're not. They're inspired. And I have ways of dealing with that as well.
So there's ways. I can talk about how Jesus, what Jesus said about the scriptures and the law of the prophets and the psalms. In Luke 24, 45, he says that he taught them everything that was about him in the law of the prophets and the psalms. Well, why did he exclude the apocryphal books? And also, I think it's Luke 11, 51, and the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, you know, to be held against this generation. Well, in the Old Testament, arrangement of the blood of Abel and the blood of Zechariah deals with the first and last books of the Old Testament as they were arranged at that time. So he was also excluding the apocryphal books there as well. Okay?
Okay. And I guess the last note I had, I mean, they talked about a lot. It was hard to remember everything. It was like information overload. I have a bad memory.
No, it's okay. You write it down. You write it down.
I had the same problem. Yeah. I got like seven paragraphs I wrote from it for an hour-long conversation. So one of them, I talked about Romans 518 with him about the King James, about how the King James adds to what the autographs say. And take a guess at what their response was.
Probably something like the King James is better than the Greek or something like that. Or you know what you're talking about. You're a jerk. You're just an Edomite fool or something like that. You're a child of the devil.
You know, that kind of stuff. What did they say? Nope.
Nope. They said that sometimes there's just issues with translations and sometimes things can't be translated. Well, that's pretty good, actually. It's a good response.
But at that point I would have said, well, then let me help you. Let's go into it. They'll show you. They'll show you exactly what's going on and why the King James got it wrong.
Because the King James did get it wrong in Romans 518. Yeah. They blew it. Yeah. I didn't even want to go that route because I don't have a super good, I don't have a strong enough foundation to carry the discussion yet. You go on your computer. On your computer you get an outline going and you take notes. Call it your ignorance outline. Your ignorance outline is comprised of the things you don't know. I used to have what I called an ignorance notebook. And I literally was wondering, am I ever going to fill this thing up?
Now I have two or three feet worth of notebooks. It's a lot to learn. All right. All right, buddy.
There's a breakthrough. All right, buddy. There's a break. We got to go. All right.
So God bless. Okay, man. We'll talk to you later.
He did. Thank you. All right. Hey, folks. You want to give me a call?
We have three open lines. 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody, welcome back to the show.
If you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276. Let's get to Chris from Georgia. Chris, welcome. You're on the air.
Hey, Matt. Thanks for taking my call. Sure. No problem, man.
What do you got, buddy? Okay. I'm just wanting to know real quick what your advice or opinion is about divorce and remarriage. As pertaining to what Christ said in Matthew chapter 19, when he said, you know, if a man puts away his wife except for the cause of adultery and marries another, he commits adultery and causes her to commit adultery. Just I don't know what your teaching is on that. That's what he says.
There's nothing to add. Yeah, I agree. See, the reason I ask is because there's so much divorce in the church today.
I mean, does that mean that people that's been married or divorced and remarried, does that mean they're living in open adultery if they've divorced for any other reason? Yeah. Yeah, we can make a case for that.
I mean, there's just so much of it. I mean, so, I mean, do they need to repent of that by like getting divorced or, I mean, how would the Lord look at that? Well, here's a problem.
Okay. Just so you know, there's two grounds for divorce in the Bible. Adultery, sexual immorality, okay, and abandonment. And abandonment is in First Corinthians 7 and 15. All right, so let's say there's a couple and they're not Christians and they get married and then they get divorced because they don't like each other. That's it.
That's the only reason. No adultery, they just don't like each other. And they get divorced. And then they become Christians, both of them.
Now, what happens? Are they free to marry somebody else? Well, at that point, each person should go to the elders and say this is it. And then, well, they were unbelievers at the time. They were in sin when they did this. Now, there are new creatures in Christ. I would say, generically speaking, that they could go get married.
Now, there's some, there's debate about this, okay. But I remember in the seminary, we talked about these kind of things and I loved the idea of the grace of God being given in situations like this. All right, now let's up it up a little bit and say, well, let's say a couple is going to church and they're devout, they love the Lord, and they just can't get along and they just learn to hate each other.
When they've tried, they've prayed, they've gone to counseling. Let's just say this is the case. So they have options at this point. It would be to live separately. Not that it's the best solution, but they live separately and they don't get a divorce. And they're stuck for the rest of their life this way.
That's an option. If they were to get divorced at this point, it's not for abandonment or adultery, then we could make the case that they were in sin. So let's say they do this anyway. They just can't take it and that's it. They get divorced.
Well, then what? Well, are they in good standing in the church? No, they're not. They have to go to the elders. And what if they come to their senses later and repent? Should they get remarried? Well, they know it's not going to work. So maybe they should stay unmarried at this point for the rest of their lives.
Then there's the variable. Let's say they get divorced. One of them marries somebody else. And then that person who married somebody else comes to their senses and repents. That person cannot divorce the new spouse because you made a new covenant and that's just where it is. And the previous spouse can't remarry that person. So let's say the one who did get remarried, the spouse dies, and now they're free again. They can get married. Well, because they married somebody else, the initial bond is not permitted. They can't get married again.
There's all kinds of variables like this. Well, I mean, I just see so much divorce in the church. I mean, I've never been married.
I mean, this doesn't really pertain. I've never been married because I know it's like a lifelong commitment and it's a lot of sacrifice. But I just see so much divorce in the church today. And people just so flippantly get divorced.
And I'm talking about in the church. And then they just go off and marry somebody else. And I'm like, well, the Lord says that they're an open sin and they're not allowed to get married. I know Christians right now that's been married and divorced like five times. And I know over marriage right now that the lady got divorced from her previous husband and there was no adultery.
There was no sexual immorality. She just said, I'm not happy and she's married to another guy right now. And I try to explain to her, I'm like, God, we'll be looking at you. You're living in open adultery.
Well, here's the thing. So she's an adulterous relationship. Well, what if she comes to her senses and says, oh, my goodness, what have I done? Then she goes to the Lord and she seeks forgiveness and he cleanses. Then she used to stay in that marriage. In her current marriage? Yes.
Yeah, stay in that. So one of the things that we discussed in seminary was what do you do when you go to a culture, a tribe someplace and a man has five wives and none of the people in the tribes are Christians and then they become Christians. Well, you're supposed to have one wife.
What does he do? Do you divorce the four of them? No. The advice was stay married, you can't have any more and don't replace anyone that would die or whatever and that's just the way it is. The idea here is to stay faithful as possible in the situation that you're in.
This is not an easy topic. There are people who say if you've been divorced for any reason, believer or unbeliever, you can never get married again. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that.
I think there's grace in all of this. Yeah, I've heard that too. I've heard that some churches won't let you be members if you've been divorced before.
That's stupid. Jesus talking with the woman at the well, she had been with five or been with four and was shacked up with the one as she was then there. Well, that was a perfect opportunity for Christ to say, you've been divorced and you can't come into the kingdom, but I didn't do that. You've been really helpful, Matt, and I really appreciate your advice and everything. All right.
Here's something else to think about. I'm trying to find it. It's been a while since I've had it quoted, but God divorced Israel.
Yes. I'm trying to find the verses. He divorced Israel for its spiritual adultery.
Well, if divorce is automatically sinful, then that would be an accusation against God's character. So it isn't the case. So they need to reassess stuff. All right?
They need to. Yep. Okay.
Well, they shared a lot of light on the subject. I really appreciate your advice and all. Thank you. All right. Sounds good. Okay. Thanks, Matt. God bless. It's all right. We've got a couple minutes before break.
I want to make a comment before we get to Monique on 2 Timothy. But I've done a lot of marriage counseling over the years. I've been on both sides of the table. But I've counseled 30, best I can remember, 36 couples over probably 30 years. I'm not a counselor, but it'll come up. And when I counsel marriage couples when they're having problems, about 33 out of the 36 times is the man who's the problem.
That's just a fact, what I've seen. And a lot of times they were on the verge of divorce and I asked them the basic questions. Are you Christians? Yes. Are you dedicated to the Lord? Yes.
Have you committed adultery? No. That's it. We're going to work it out.
That's your options. Work it out. Well, I don't like it. Don't want to hear it. I'm a lot nicer when I say it, but that's what it comes down to. I'm sorry.
It's just not what it is. You have to work it out. You have to.
And here's how you do it. And I teach them. And the average session I have with people on this is three hours because it takes a lot of work. And then we go for weeks. And then once a week they have homework. They have the whole thing. And marriages are saved.
You have to be biblically minded and Christians don't have that excuse to not, typically because they don't like each other. It doesn't work. We'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.
Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, all you got to do is dial 877-207-2276.
Let's get to Monique from North Carolina. Welcome. You're on the air. Good evening. Can you hear me?
Yes, I can hear you fine. Okay. First of all, God bless you this evening.
Thanks. Two questions. Well, one question really. Yes, sir. And two scriptures.
So just bear with me. I'll tell you the scriptures first. They're coming out of 2 Timothy 24-26, pretty much. 2 Timothy 2, yes, the Lord's bond servant. Uh-huh. Yes. Yes. And Jude, of course, is just one thing.
Jude 22-24. Okay. And my question is, this is kind of you have to just listen. I mean, assuming the talker that's leading to the person who's opposing themselves is indeed a brother or sister and sincere, is, for lack of a, you know, to just one line it, sarcasm. I've also had some questions about sarcasm. Of course, there's ranges.
But would sarcasm or to go to the higher extent, the more obvious extent, maybe in that conversation referring to the person as moron or stupid. What's your question? I don't understand what your question is. This happens all the time.
That's why I started out. Okay, the question is, in the application of the two scriptures I mentioned, 2 Timothy, you know, and the Jude 22-24. And then what I said next is the question is going to be, does this, you're going to have to kind of listen to this part, behavior, I should say, fly in the face of this instruction from the Lord. Which behavior? I know you know what it is.
I'm sorry? Yeah, I know those verses. Which behavior? Okay, that's what I'm getting to. So as I said before, for example, a broader example would be just sarcasm in general. But to be very pointed, say that a Christian brother or sister is talking to someone who opposes themselves, and in the midst of that conversation, for whatever reason, the other person is wrong or saying something silly or anti-scripture, is sarcasm, and that's why it's kind of ishy, because you can be nice with sarcasm, I guess. But more pointedly, calling them, you know, their, them, worse, stupid or, you know, saying your idea is just ridiculous, not your wrong. So you're asking, you're asking if insulting people is biblical? No.
Absolutely why I set it up that way. When you are dealing with a person who opposes themselves, and in that- Wait a second, it doesn't make sense. They oppose themselves? Okay, let me read the scripture. So 2 Timothy, I'm trying to answer your question that you just asked.
2 Timothy 2, went in, no I lost it, 24. The Lord's servant must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach and patient instructing his opponents with gentleness. So I could stop there and say, with gentleness. Is that not in opposition to sarcasm, or flat out, you're being stupid, or I'm just giving examples of what people say, you know, you're being a moron, or your idea is absolutely stupid.
And I emphasize, not it's wrong, because of course, if they are not in agreement with scripture, they are wrong. Okay, so- You see? You want to know if someone's insulting.
That's what it comes down to. It's a broad category of insult, and there are different subcategories within it. Okay, sarcasm can be or cannot be, depending on the context.
But you're talking about- Which is what I said, mm-hmm, mm-hmm. That's why I was very pointed, because, you know, insult could also be broad. You can insult someone very sarcastically, and you can do it very directly. I say calling them stupid is not an indirect sarcasm.
I've called people stupid when I thought it was appropriate, in chat rooms. Okay, so you just answered, okay, that answers my question. But- But hold on, let me explain a little.
I'm saying go ahead. There's different contexts, and different reasons to say different things. And so it just depends on how long you've been discussing, how deep of a conversation, how someone is being, and how difficult they might be, and what you think is necessary at that time.
Okay, so that does answer my question. So not to misunderstand you and take away not what you're saying. To paraphrase, that is, it basically depends on how the other person is carrying on, how they are carrying themselves. There's a yes and no to that, because normally speaking, we're to be as gentle as possible and not be insulting. But I do believe that there are times when it's appropriate, just as Jesus called people whitewash supplicers, and they're a father of the devil.
So what Paul is talking about in 2 Timothy 2, 24 through 26, and also in Colossians 4, verses 5 and 6, the general principle of being kind and patient with people, which is what I am, with a great many people. But sometimes I think it's appropriate to say, I'm sorry, you're just being purposely stupid on this. Or you're being obstreperous, or you're being puerile, and you need to step up at the plate and be more mature in your discussions, or control yourself, and I've done that. It just depends on the situation, okay? Okay, and that is why I wanted to hear you out on that. So that is why I wanted to hear you out. That is how you're applying those scriptures based on what you just said.
I got you. And then again, the 22 through 24, because it does say, and on some having compassion, making a difference in others, saved with fear, pulling them out of the fire. And this is why I wanted to ask, and I am a believer, by the way, so it would be very odd for us to be at odds. But he says, and others saved with fear, pulling them out of the fire. So I was curious about that both because I've always been, as far as I like to understand where my other brothers and sisters are coming from, so as not to say, my gosh, you're not following that scripture. I would like to hear where they're coming from if they think they are, and this is where, okay, so I got my answer there. I would, you know what, no, I won't even say that. Thank you, that's what I wanted.
Your understanding of the application of those scriptures in your speaking to people who, you do many, of course, that do oppose themselves, and that is the answer. Just plain and simple. Okay, well, good. I appreciate you letting me know where you're coming from with that. All right. Well, thanks for calling. Thanks. Yes, sir. Have a good one.
All right. All right, so if you want to give me a call, we have wide open lines, 877-207-2276, and just to take a little bit of a lead off of that for the next couple of minutes before the break is, I do have a reputation online for being, for the most part, very patient with people, and it's taken me years to work that because there are some people online who are obstreperous, puerile, base, banal, recalcitrant. And so I have developed in response to some of that, I've developed what I call the slicktionary, where people are guilty of stupidification or moronification and various things because dealing with various people over the years, let's just say that it can become quite frustrating to deal with various individuals and particularly with the unbelievers. So generally what I'll do is I'll just keep quiet, let them say what they're going to say, and then I'll just ask them if it's okay if I continue. I've done this a lot with atheists and the obstreperous types.
Obstreperous means boisterously recalcitrant. So I will sometimes say to people who interrupt me constantly in chat rooms, I'll just interrupt me, I'll just wailer done and say, do you mind if I finish my questions without, or answer your question without being interrupted? Well, if you say this and thank you, and I say, well, do you mind if I just finish my questions? Have you finished my answers to your questions and then you can respond? Well, you see, I'm not going to let you talk like, so you're not going to agree to that? No? Okay, then I won't talk to you.
And I'd say, anybody else? And that's how I handle a lot of it. And if they continually interrupt, I just say, we're done talking. And I ask them, I say, look, why do you ask me a question? I go to answer it, then you stop me from answering it. I don't understand that.
Why would you do that? And so I'll do that a lot and try and get people to participate in a civil, non-puerile conversation. So I'm not trying to be obsequious with them, but I am trying to be proper, okay? So there's a bunch of words and all that stuff. I kind of like that. So Humble Clay says, when I use big words to define big words, it's kind of redundant. So I like to, you know, I'm a sesquimitillian. I like big words. That's what that means. And one of my favorite words is penicantemporaneous. Penicantemporaneous. Does anybody know what that means?
Because it's in the penumbra of time. I'll get into that some other time if you want. I love that stuff.
Hey, we have wide open lives. Why don't you give me a call at 877-207-2276. Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.
Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 877-207-2276.
We have nobody waiting right now. So often when that does happen, what I will do is go to my e-mails. And people like to e-mail me questions and comments. So let's see, radio question that just came in from Joanne. Matt, when the Bible mentions all of Israel shall be saved, Romans 11 26, is that spiritual Israel or the nation of Israel? That's a good question. I don't know. But the theories that get around that are that it's anywhere from national Israel in the country and that God will bless them.
That's one option. And the other one is that it's the true people of true Israel who are the true believers in the elect will all be saved. So that's another thing.
And then there's another one. 1 Timothy 4.10 says Jesus is a savior of all men. And does that refute the idea of limited atonement, which is the doctrine that Jesus only died for the elect, only bore the sin of the elect. So if he's a savior of all men, especially those who believe, 1 Timothy 4.10. That verse was brought up to me last night, I think it was.
I forgot where, anyway. And I just asked the question. I said, is he the savior of those who are damned?
No response. Because people are going to think through what they're saying. If he's a savior of all men, what does the word all mean there? Does it mean every individual who's ever lived and he's their savior? Well, that can't be the case because he didn't save the ones who are damned. So how's he the savior of all men? Does all men there mean all people groups?
Well, that doesn't seem to be the case because Matthew 15.24, Jesus says, he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And so all can mean all people groups. So when people, they throw these verses out the way they do and they think they are game stops, enters, oh, I just proved you wrong. Well, let's ask them questions. And then usually they can't answer the questions. And I find a lot of times that people who are against whatever theological perspective, they tend to act quickly and vociferously. That means with a lot of verbiage, a lot of talk, a lot of invectives, which means negative things, let's just say. So that tells me that they've not really studied the issues and they're just emotionally reacting.
And it's unfortunate. Let's get to Chris from North Carolina. Chris, welcome here on the air. Matt, what's going on?
What's shaking bacon? Look, I called you the other day. And Matt, I caught the tail end. I was coming out of the grocery store, and I caught the tail end of your explanation to the caller about how the King James Version got the Romans 8 through 10 mistranslated. No, Romans 5-18. Romans 5-18, yeah.
Okay, 5-18, my bad. So can you give me the Reader's Digest version up there, please? Sure. I'll have to give you the Greek and then explain something.
And if you've got enough time to do that, you're the only caller. So I'll go through this and explain what's going on and why the King James got it wrong. And this particular verse I was reading in the NASB, and its translation is different than the other ones, and it caused me to go look. And having had Greek, I was able to go look at the Greek.
Long story short, here we go. What it literally says in the Greek is two sentences joined by conjunction. But the thing is, in the two sentences, there's no verb.
And this is what's really interesting. So we generally, speaking in English, we always have a verb in a sentence. You know, I went to the store. The word went is a verb. You know, I ate the hamburger. Ate is the verb. And someone says, so did you eat that hamburger?
You go, yeah. Well, it's a response without a verb, and it's an affirmation. So generally, statements have verbs, and we can get around that sometimes in English as well. But nevertheless, in Greek, what it says is sentence A and sentence B. It says this in Greek. So then, as through one transgression, condemnation to all men.
So there's no verb. So then, as through one transgression, condemnation to all men. Even so, through one act of righteousness, justification of life to all men.
So that's what it literally says in the Greek. So it has two sentences, sentence A and sentence B. And sentence B says, so also, or even so. So sentence B is taking its lead from sentence A. So it says, sentence A, through one transgression, condemnation to all men.
So also, through one act of righteousness, justification of life to all men. So sentence B is taking its lead, or its structure, or its form from the previous verse. This is very critical.
Now, what do we do with this? Because we don't have a verb there. So we've got to put a verb in there. So remember, sentence A and sentence B are equal. But they're equal, except differently. What both are saying is, through one act, there was a result.
There was a certain effect. Through one transgression, condemnation to all, through Jesus' sacrifice, one act of righteousness, justification of life to all. So each one, sentence A is talking about Adam, and sentence B is talking about Jesus. Through Adam's sin, condemnation to all.
Through Jesus' sacrifice, justification of life to all. That's what's going on in it. Well, wait a minute.
So we've got a problem. So what the King James has done, and some other versions have done, is instead of letting A govern B, they let B govern A. They reverse it. Because it says justification of life to all. Well, we can't have it be that everyone's justified because justification means salvation. So they interpret the word all to mean every individual who's ever lived. That's their first mistake.
They shouldn't do that. Just let the text speak. So what they'll do is, since they presuppose that justification of life to all men, of course, not everybody's saved. We know that because people go to hell. Mark 3, 29. Matthew 25, 46. So what they do is they say, well, sentence B can't mean that everyone is saved. So now we have to look at sentence A and soften sentence A in light of B. That's the exegetical mistake that the King James translators did.
Because the reason is, you look at sentence A, it says through one transgression, that's Adam sin, condemnation to all men. Make a lot of noise there, buddy. Make a lot of noise. I'm going to have to mute you.
Matt, I'm sorry. I'm in the car wash. Hang on. I'm going to mute it and listen to you.
In a car wash. Okay. All right. And so through one transgression, the right verb is their resulted. Condemnation to all. We know that's true because in the next verse, it says through one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners. It's an aorist act of indicative.
I can get into that. But what it means is that it's an actual occurrence. Everyone was made sinners by what Adam did. So the proper verb is their resulted.
That was it. It's through one transgression, their resulted condemnation to all men. That's the proper verb.
But then you've got to drop it down into sentence B. But that means that through one act of righteousness, the resulted justification of life to all men. Justification of life means they're all saved. Well, all can't be all or justification. So what they did was what the King James did was this to get around this problem. I'll explain why they made a mistake and they don't understand the text. It says in the King James, therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of the one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Well, the free gift is not there. They completely added it in and changed the meaning of the text because they let B govern A. It's supposed to be A govern B. Let the Bible speak for what it says, and if your understanding of the text doesn't agree with what you think it actually says, then you need to change. So here's the answer. The best translation is the NESB, so then as through one transgression, the resulted condemnation of everybody.
That's a fact. Even so, in like manner, through an act of righteousness, the resulted justification of life to all men. Well, all men are not saved. You're right. If all means every individual.
But wait a minute. You see, Paul does this, and I actually thought about writing a paper on this, where if you go to verse 15, there's a phrase, the many. Yeah. Look at this. The many.
Check this out. But the free gift is not like the transgression, for if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound it to the many. He does this again, where the many, the phrase the many, has two different meanings in the same sentence, just like the word all has two different meanings in Romans 5-18. Because he's thinking theology. He's thinking of the representation of Adam and the representation of Jesus.
It's implicit in the text. Adam is the first one who represented everybody, but Jesus represented his people, not every individual. Because the Father gave to the Son the elect. Ephesians 1-4, and Jesus came to redeem the elect. Because all the Father gives me will come to me. John 6-37.
He says, I lay my life down for the sheep. John 10-15. So he's coming for the ones that are his, and that second all is all that the Father has given him.
Then when you look at it, it makes perfect sense. Well furthermore, if you go to 1 Corinthians 15-22, it says, as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all should be made alive. So in Christ is a term of federal headship, where he is the representative, and it says in Christ all will be made alive. That all can only be those who are in Christ, who are saved.
Furthermore, and I'm going to go through this kind of quickly because we're a little bit running out of time. When you go to 2 Corinthians 5-14, something very interesting is said there. For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died. That verse is critical. People say, well, he died for all.
That means everybody. But then it says, therefore all died. If you do research on the phrase all died, or dying with Christ, you'll find out that only the believers are the ones who have died with Christ. You can go to Colossians 3, verses 1-4. You can go to Romans 6-8.
Those are three places. We have died with Christ. We have been made to die to the law through the person of Christ.
We've died with him. So whenever it talks about anybody dying in relationship to Christ, it's only the believers. We would say in the broader scope only the elect because they become the believers because God grants to the elect faith, Philippians 1-29. That faith is in Christ, John 6-29. So if it says he died for all, and the all are the ones given to him, therefore all died, it makes perfect sense.
If it says, therefore one died for all, it means every individual who ever lived, therefore every individual who ever lived died in Christ. Well, that can't work theologically. So we go back to Romans 5-18. We see that Paul is using the word all differently than we do.
And that's why the King James gets Romans 5-18 wrong, and the NASB gets it right. There you go. May the Lord bless you. By his grace, we'll be back on the air tomorrow. We'll talk to you then, everybody. God bless. Talk to you later. Bye.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-11-09 10:46:38 / 2023-11-09 11:06:44 / 20