← Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast
How Could One Reconcile Death Before the Fall with Romans 5 and 8?
00:58:00
Loading summary
Transcript12 lines
- [00:00]
Greg Koukl
Sam, Welcome to the show, friends. I look at, I've been listening to that rooster for 30 years, at least 30 years, and I still get a chuckle. Many of you know that's not a rooster, that's Mr. Kokel. And I was just thinking how I ended that little bracket of our. I really hammed it up and I, you know, it makes me chuckle sometimes. But anyway, so this is Santa Reason I'm your host and today we're doing open mic calls, which means that we are going to take calls that people have left recordings of on our website. So they go to str.org, which is our homepage. And under the podcast feature, you'll find live broadcasts and then an opportunity, follow the prompts to leave a question that you have and then we'll take that and save the recording for a show and then we move through them when we have opportunity. Sometimes I take these off schedule broadcasts like I'm doing right now. And so that gives us an opportunity to do this open mic calls, something I want to mention, though, that I don't mention often enough, but I should. And that is not just regarding this particular radio show for open mic calls, but also with regards to strs, that's a show I do with Amy hall. That's a shorter show. This one's an hour. That one's usually 25 minutes on average. And Amy takes these calls that are submitted, I should say these questions that are submitted using a feature called hashtag STR Ask. So if you go to. To X, formerly known as Twitter, you know, I wonder when we're going to get to the point where people don't have to say formerly known as Twitter. Maybe we're getting there now, I don't know. But why did they change the name anyway? I don't, I don't get that. Elon Musk. Yeah, like space X. Is that the whole deal there? I don't know. In any event, if you go to X and you type in a message with the phrase strask, that allows Amy to locate it. And so if you have questions, you want to get Amy's input on it. Let me tell you, this show would, that show was much better than this one because you get me in this one, but you get Amy and me in that one. And she had so much more insight. And I learned lots from Amy as I listened to her reflection. She lets me go first and then she fills in the holes. And I think, dang, that was better than my answer. Anyway, you can listen to Amy by going to Strask and you can ask questions in that environment by using the feature Strask. And isn't there. There's a place on our website where you can also leave the question and does it say SCRs somewhere? Is that a drop down menu or how does that work? Oh, okay. Was that just. Could they hear that? Well, you just said only I heard it. If you go to Strask podcast page, there's a link and then you could type it out and it's basically these are shorter questions. Don't leave paragraphs, just try to keep it brief like what tweets used to be. And it makes it easier for us. But here's my specific request. Whether you use the open mic calls or Strask. This morning we had an atheist offer a number of challenges that we dealt with. We love that we're not just waiting to hear from Christians who say I have this question or somebody asked me this question. We're happy to field challenges from atheists on a whole range of things. It's very interesting. As we did these challenges, it was clear to me that the atheists misunderstood a number of things in the nature of the challenge. And I didn't take umbrage at it at all. But the nature of the challenge, the wording of the challenge displayed a lack of understanding of a number of things. And so as we work through the elements there, it turns out that that particular challenge he offered. I'm not going to talk about it. You have to listen to strskshow two episodes a week on the other days, then this show comes out. So this one comes out Monday, Friday. Is that it? I'm Tuesday, Friday and then it'll be Wednesday. Which one is STR Ask? Okay, this one's Wednesday. Friday. STR Ask is Monday. Thursday, Monday. What happened to Tuesday? Oh, okay, well, we get a break from us. But anyway, you got four shows a week and it turned out that that particular challenge by the atheist was kind of a large straw. It was a mischaracterization. It traded on a misunderstanding and a mischaracterization of Christianity. And so we were able to correct the confusion there and do our best to address that. We love it and we invite more people who are skeptics, tire kickers, full on atheists, whatever, fine. There's no problem with us at all. So we'd love to field your challenges as well. Strask or open mic, both available in the podcast area of the website with the STRS podcast and also just the regular live broadcasts. So with that in Mind, it's kind of a lengthy introduction to this section. Let's jump to Aaron here who has a question about death before the fall.
- [06:16]
Caller
Hi Greg, how you doing? I've been reading Romans recently also. I've been kind of looking into evolution and young earth theories versus old Earth creation theories. And one of the things I'm struggling with understanding is Romans 5 and Romans 8, where you see that death reigned through Adam's sin and that creation was subjected to futility seemingly at the same time as Adam's sin. However, the fossil record shows that death indeed was present far be, you know, far before the historical Adam. And so if, how could both of these be true if it's about a physical death and not just a spiritual death? Because I know that old earth creationists hold these doctrines to be more about a spiritual reality than a physical. But I just wanted to ask what your thoughts are and how I can interpret this correctly.
- [07:18]
Greg Koukl
Well, thanks for the question. And it is a disputed passage. The answer to the question is based on the answer to a different question. And that question is what did Paul mean? What was Paul speaking about? Now, the way you just put it at the end, you said whether is he talking about a spiritual reality or a physical reality? Well, maybe that is speaking about both, but it may not be in an expansive sense, it might be both spiritual death and physical death with regards to a limited class. And I think this is exactly what you find. It is true that there is a difference here between young earthers and old earthers. That is, if you are a young earther, you cannot countenance the idea that there was death before Adam's fall, that all the evidences of death had to be after the fall. Because your understanding, and I'm saying this respectfully though I disagree with it and I'll tell you why in a moment. Their understanding is that physical death of anything is a consequence of Adam's disobedience. And in this passage it's clear that Jesus is a rather Paul is talking about. He's making spiritual applications regarding salvation. And if you don't read this right and read this in a way that negates the point he's making, then at least the argument goes, you are negating the whole point he's making. In other words, you are undermining his teaching about the work that Jesus did on our behalf. And there is a comparison here between the first Adam and the second Adam. And so consequently, from one perspective, this has really substantial theological ramifications. How we understand this question about death before The Fall, when you understand it in the more expansive way that this is about spiritual death of man and physical death of everything, there cannot be any physical death before the spiritual death of man. And the work of the cross is somehow grounded in this notion. I actually think even for a young earther, this is trying to squeeze too much out of this passage. But let me just read it and we'll. Excuse me. And we'll see what we can find. Remember, the question is, what is Paul talking about? And starting in verse 12, which is the beginning of that pericope, kind of a paragraph, so to speak, that unit of thought. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world. But sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For by the transgression of the one, the many died. Much more did the grace of God, and by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ will abound to many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For on the one hand, judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation. But on the other hand, the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. Now, I could go on here, but do you see how as Paul is talking about this, he's shifting a focus. He's making the focus more clear. He is talking about sin and transgression and justification and forgiveness and how the problem was started by one man and then this death happened. Now, by the way, I could ask, when Adam died. I'm sorry, when Adam sinned, did he die physically? No, not right away. Arguably, he initiated the process of dying which culminated in his ultimate physical death. But he didn't die right away. So, I mean, it lays open, well, maybe there's something other than physical death that's in view here and is the emphasis of this passage. And as I continue reading, you could see how the conversation came to be death through transgression and sin resulting in judgment and life that is given by Christ that results in justification. Well, that conversation, obviously at that point cannot be applying to all creatures, because though there arguably is an impact on all creatures from the Fall, it doesn't mean that when Jesus came that all these creatures are somehow going to be saved in virtue. Of the work of the second Adam. That's the focus here. For if by the transgression of the one death reign through the one, much more, those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one Jesus Christ, verse 17. In other words, this is talking about something very specific. And so how did J.P. moreland put it? He talked about the. I'll think of the phrase in a minute. But there is a boundary here of what the conversation is all about. And that conversation is about the plight of man as sinner before God and how he's rescued by Jesus, who is the second Adam, who undoes what the first Adam did. And they're talking about transgression and justification, sin and judgment. So my response to this reading this is he's not talking about death being biological death being initiated at the fall. Now this is what's held by and large by those who are young earthers. And I understand how it fits their system, but there's a problem with that. Now let me just ask this question. The reading that I offered that this is not talking broadly about all biological death, but it's talking principally about spiritual death that may entail the physical death of men, human beings, but it's really talking about the transgression that results in condemnation, that is reversed by the work of Christ, that results in justification for those who trust. That's what I'm saying. Is that a reasonable alternative or is that like completely off the board here? I think a fair minded person is going to say, well, I can see how you see it that way. And I guess that would be a fair reading. All right, so now we got if the young earth reading is a fair reading. And I'm not disparaging that, I don't think it's the best, but let's say it's in the running and this is a fair reading. How do you break the tie? Well, that means you got to go outside. JP Morland calls this external conceptual problems. Sometimes you can't solve the problem from within this set of discussion here. You got to look elsewhere for other evidence that might bear on the question. And you brought it up. You made the comment, Aaron, what about the fossil record? Well, the fossil record seems to indicate that lots and lots and lots and lots of things died before any reasonable young earth characterization of Adam and Eve. Yeah. So that means there must have been physical death before Adam and Eve. Certainly is plausible. And therefore if there's physical death, if there was biological death before Adam and Eve, then this passage is not referring to no biological death before Adam and Eve, but Adam and Eve being the source of spiritual death. That needs resolution. Human beings need to be rescued, and the rescue plan was Jesus. So that's how I work through this. I think the fossil record is reliable at this point. And I think that there is good reason to believe that there were lots of physical death before the fall. I'm an old Earther. That fits with that, but I'm not an old Earther. I don't believe that because I'm an old Earther. I'm an old Earther because of these kinds of problems that seem to show up. The abundance of the record, the physical evidence, fossils, for example, and the biblical evidence, which is not decisive to me in any way, shape or form about establishing the truth of a young earth. And it creates this problem. What about death before the fall? Now, there's another one that many people have not thought about. Another difficulty of this. If God. Now we have to look at God's plan. And Jesus goes back to the creation order when he talks about certain elements of God's plan, right? He talks about. When he talks to Matthew 19 about marriage, he is talking about the plan that God had from the beginning. Have you not read? He tells the Pharisees when they ask him about marriage and divorce, and he says, look, from the beginning, male, female, and man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. Then you've got another chapter two reference. Notice how Jesus is referring back to the creation order as kind of an ideal, appropriate, the way it's supposed to be. Now, obviously there's a fall, and that was disruptive, but it didn't disrupt the whole creation order. It just marred it. Okay, so now let's think about what the world would have been like if there was no biological death before the fall. I was in a farm once where they raised pigs. No, I wasn't at a farm. I was at Orange County. It was Orange County Fair. We used to take our girls to these county fairs, you know, in the summer. That was a lot of fun when they were younger. And then we went to this thing and there's where all these pigs, you know, and they had this information about pigs. You know, pigs really reproduce fast. I don't know if you knew this. They have lots of. I wish I had the stats right in front of me, but I think they could have up to 16 little piglets, right? And I think they can do that like three or four times a year, maybe not that much. But if you just take a conservative. Twice a year, having 16, that's one pig. Make that two pigs, produce 32 other pigs. And what does it take for a pig then to become old enough to make more pigs? I don't know, maybe a year or two. Say two. That's probably right. Just do the math. Get your calculator out. If there was no death before the fall, just with pigs, the planet would be covered with pigs in a very short time. I don't know, maybe it's eight or 10 or 15 years, but we'd be completely covered with pigs because none of them died. They just kept reproducing. And that's just one animal, a pig. Consider that for all the animals, they're all reproducing. And the planet is limited in size, right? And in resources. I mean, once you cover, you know, a big bunch of the planet with pigs, there's going to be nothing left for the pigs to eat except for other pigs. And that's not going to last long. But they're not just vying with other pigs. They're vying with everything else that needs stuff to eat and a limited resource. You know how fast an amoeba reproduces every two minutes, I think of cell division. So if amoeba were just. Amoeba were reproducing with unrestricted. Just do the math. Before you know it, in a very short time, the whole Earth is covered with amoeba, or the whole Earth is covered with pigs, or the whole Earth is covered with rabbits, or the whole Earth is covered with mice. You see the problem. This is the plan of God. Now, there was a guy before Darwin who realized the problem. His name was Malthus, and he came up with a theorem about this, that if critters kept reproducing and reproducing without dying, they would actually destroy the whole planet. And his graph was such that you look at the population of living things and it goes up and up and up and up. And it hits a point when it's so much that the planet cannot sustain it and everything dies right to the bottom. The lifeline goes to the baseline. They called it the dismal theorem for obvious reasons. Now, it doesn't matter to us that his dismal theorem had some effect on Charles Darwin and his other ideas. Malthus was onto something. And if God made the world with no physical death at all, you are faced with the consequences of the dismal theorem and with everything multiplying without restraint, I mean, whether it's pigs or mice or Rabbits or amoeba. It will not take long before the earth is uninhabitable and everything dies. This is God's plan from the beginning. No, I don't think so, because he made a lot of those organisms. He designed a lot of those organisms to eat other organisms to maintain a balance. He designed them to eat. When I was a kid, I loved studying about insects. And when I was a kid, I was like 7, 8, 9, 10 years old. I remember where I was living in Chicago during this phase of my life. When I was 10, I moved to another place in the suburbs, but I was in the city. And I'd walk down about a mile or mile and a half through the city to go to the library. And I'd walk out with a stack of books I'd carry back home. And they were all entomology books. I loved reading it. And in fact, I'd go out in the garden areas. You know, they have parks and gardens. People do their gardens all in one lot. You have a little segment. And I'd capture these garden spiders. Now, these garden spiders were really big. I mean, they were bigger than a silver dollar, you know, when they just spread their legs out and they were black with orange figure on the back of their back. And they were gorgeous, I thought. And I collect these things and watch them spin these incredible webs and these big, giant, beautiful webs. Now they had this tremendous ability, amazing ability when you think about a spider. And a spider can builds a web by ejecting a liquid that turns solid in contact with air. And they can spin this and make things with it called webs. And the web is very sophisticated. And you know what these webs look like, this particular kind of web. There are different types of web. They're big and round, and anything flies through the opening that this web is blocking, it's going to get stuck because it's sticky. And when it's sticky and it starts moving around, then this spider knows that that motion on the thing will bring it out that he caught something. And you know, it's like, how does that poster go fishing? Is a jerk on one end of the rod waiting for a jerk on the other end. Oh, there's a spider in, hiding off to the side waiting for that jerk. Then they run out and they grab this thing. They spin it up in their web now and they stick it with a hypodermic needle from their back end, their. Whatever they call that part you got head, thorax and that third part, and they kill it. It's got Poison in it, man, that's sophisticated. And by the way, they don't even learn to do this. They know how to do it already. Oh, that's a design feature. In other words, God designed spiders for the purpose of killing other things to eat. And everything about them is designed to that end. They are designed to kill. So I think this creates a problem, both the dismal theorem and all these other created species that are highly designed to kill. It's not just like, oh, you know, I guess lions could eat grass maybe. No, they don't have the guts for that. They don't have rumens multiple stomachs where that ferments, you know, like cows do. Anyway. No, I'm talking about a whole bunch of other things that don't have any other alternative because spiders aren't going to catch leaves and inject leaves with God designed these in a very sophisticated way. Now I've heard some people say, well, God designed them so that they would take advantage of things that died after the fall or something like that in anticipation of, I don't know, this sounds specious to me. It just sounds like, I don't think so. That's not the best answer. But it's something you have to kind of stretch to adopt if you want to save your paradigm. So I think that if you want to say that Paul in Romans is talking about biological death, which includes human biology and spiritual death, then you have to hold that nothing died before the fall. And I'd be curious how long it would take just for amoeba, which existed before the fall. And there are lots of them on the whole world, if they start reproducing it, dividing every 20 minutes. I mean, maybe they wouldn't even get to the time where they could be tempted by Satan and eat the fruit and fall before the place is just swarming with amoeba. See the problem? And you have these other features that are clearly designed to create death. Animals live on death. I was at Summit Ministries in Colorado Springs area one summer and in between my sessions with them, I went for a run on this side road. And there I saw a dead animal. It was like the size of a rabbit or something like that. And I knew it was dead, it was obviously dead, but it was moving too. And I thought, why is this thing moving? I could see it moving, but it looked dead from a distance. So I went up closer, closer. And the closer I got, the more I was convinced that it was dead and the more I saw it moving. And when I looked very closely, I realized what was causing the motion. It wasn't the critter that was dead. It was all the critters inside the dead critter that were eating the critter. It was God's disposal system, right? And I probably counted five or six different kinds of critters that were eating away at this carcass. And I guarantee you, within 24 hours, that thing would have been gone because God's disposal system would have gotten rid of us. See, God designed that to recycle the dead things. All of those critters are made to eat dead things. They're not predators. They're not killing the thing to eat it. They're eating what's left, cleaning it up. And sometimes we have critters that the, you know, the cats bring in. They kill lots of different wounds. We have three cats that are good hunters. Okay, now we got a dead thing in the house. What are we going to do? Well, we used to put it in a Ziploc bag, and that didn't work because it still stunk. You throw it in the trash. There's an empty lot next door with trees on it and stuff like that. Brush. I said, honey, we're just going to start throwing this next door into this lot. We call it the boneyard. And the reason is it's a lot easier for God to get rid of those things, those carcasses, than for us to do that. So I just pitch it out in the boneyard, and probably in a day or two, that thing doesn't exist anymore. It's gone. It's recycled, with God's recycle team, as it were. So notice that these are all creation design features, and they all depend on there being death as an ordinary part, natural part, if you will, of the created order. I don't see how you can escape that. And that's why all of those reasons, since we have two options that prima facie reading the plain sense of the text, it could go either way in Romans 5, since this other view, the young earth view, no biological death before the fall, creates so many other problems. That pushes me towards understanding Paul's comments here as referring to spiritual things and not to physical things, like no biological death before the fall. And in fact, as I read through the passage, the internal evidence of the text just reinforced that idea. So anyway, that's the way I would explain this, Aaron. And you know, love it or leave it kind of thing, I guess. Eat the meat and throw away the bones. Oh, that would be a good metaphor for my point. All right, let's Take a break. Back with more after this.
- [29:46]
Red Pen Logic Host
As a high school teacher, I always had a red pen close at hand. When I wasn't in front of my students teaching a lesson, you could find me assessing assignments, grading essays, and evaluating exams. The red pen played a crucial role in the educational development of my students. With it, I questioned their assumptions, exposed their errors, and challenged them to think critically. You see, a good teacher doesn't merely tell his students that they're wrong. A good teacher shows his students why they're wrong so they don't make the same mistakes twice. He corrects because he cares. Last year I was scrolling through social media and frankly, I was discouraged at all the bad thinking that undergirded much of what I was reading. Then it hit me. What if someone applied the red pen to this flawed thinking? And Red pen logic with Mr. B was born. In the last few months, Red Pen Logic has grown in popularity through our engaging and shareable educational graphics and videos. We are helping people, especially young people, assess bad thinking by using good thinking and we have a lot of fun in the process. So here's your homework assignment. Like the Red Pen Logic Facebook page so you don't miss our next graphic. And subscribe at the red Pen Logic YouTube channel so you don't miss a single video. Class dismissed.
- [31:03]
Stand to Reason Donor Message Speaker
Have you ever wondered how Stand to Reason is able to produce fresh, accessible content each week? We rely on generous donors so that we can provide you with the tools and tactics you need to be an effective ambassador for Christ. If you've benefited from this podcast or any of our donor provided resources, including our apps, blog posts, articles and short videos, consider making a financial contribution to Stand to Reason today. Just visit str.orgdonate to show your financial support. It has been an honor providing you with a host of free resources for more than 27 years to help you give voice to the Christian worldview. Help us continue by making a financial gift today@str.org donate.
- [31:57]
Greg Koukl
All right, back at you, back at you here at Stand a Reason. And we've got some more really great questions here for open mic calls. Let's see, let's go with Jake here wants to know about the Bible's role in the future, so let's see what you have to say. Jake G' Day Greg.
- [32:18]
Caller
This is Jake from Perth, Western Australia.
- [32:22]
Greg Koukl
I've just got a quick question about the Bible and the New Heaven and New Earth. The question is, will the Bible still play a role in the New Heaven and New Earth? I know that the Bible is God But I guess I'm more talking about the actual words and the histories and the stories that form what we have today. Thanks, Craig. Well, good day, Jake, and glad for your call. I think Jake's called before. It's good to hear from you from Down Under. I just always wondered why the blood doesn't rush to their heads down there. I don't know. They're all upside down, still clinging. Well, anyway, My suspicion is the Bible will not play a role. It isn't that God's word goes away. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of God abides forever, stands forever. Maybe that means it's true forever. But I don't think we're going to be having Bible studies. I don't think we're going to be reading about God because we will be in the presence of God. Paul talks about in 2 Corinthians that we have a hope that will be revealed in the future. Now we don't see the revelation of the hope. We're not there yet. But he says hope that is seen is not hope. Once we are there, we don't hope for it. We are doing it like a person who is hoping to get married once he's married. Once he says I do kisses his bride, there it is. He doesn't hope to get married. He is married. So the hope looks forward. And I think this is similar with the word of God. You know, 1 Corinthians. I can't remember exactly where I want to say 13, but I don't know. That's the love chapter. But I think that's where we also find when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with. Now I don't think that the word of God is in a certain sense partial. It's fully adequate for what it was given to do. 2 Timothy 3:16. The word of God is living act sharper than a two edged sword. Oh wait, that's the wrong one. That's Hebrews. For all scripture, as God breathed profitable for teaching correction, for training in righteousness, that we would be perfectly equipped for any good work. Okay, so it's good for that. But it also is meant to teach us and tell us about the Father. And when we are resurrected in the new heaven and the new earth, that instruction will not be necessary. We will be with him. And I don't know exactly what that looks like. If he's kind of hovering over the earth in a glow like the sun, will Jesus be walking around? We have to make an appointment to talk with him a little Bit, I don't know. But God's got it figured out. The important thing here is I don't think we're going to have Bible studies because when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with. When we see him, we will know him, because we will see him as he is. So there is, I think, a reliable sense that when we pass from this life into the next in a glorified state, in other words, when it's all resolved and enter into the new heavens and the new earth, as opposed to just being with the Lord in some sense, some important sense, after we die, but before the resurrection and the new heavens and new earth. Okay, there it may be. Not sure all that's entailed in that period. We don't have a lot of information about it. But in the final thing, I think we are going to not be in want of any knowledge we need to have about God. We don't need to read about the prophecies in the Old Testament and how the Jews messed things up and how the Gentiles messed things up and how the world messed things up and how Jesus came and did what he this is all going to be ancient history to us. So I don't see any reason why, any reason to think that the Scripture will play a role in the new heavens and the new earth. So there you go, Jake. I could be mistaken. I mean, this is conjecture, but here's Jennifer and she's talking about, you know, prophetic Psalms, etc. Let's hear what you have to say, Jennifer.
- [37:09]
Stand to Reason Donor Message Speaker
Hey Greg, My name is Jennifer. I'm from Tennessee. I was introduced to your podcast when I was listening to J. Warner Wallace. I just want to thank you for really strengthening my walk since I've been listening to you. It has really ignited my love for the Bible and I've been trying to read it from a more critical perspective by including commentaries, really paying attention to the context of things. Since I've been listening to you, I became a strategic partner.
- [37:43]
Greg Koukl
Wow.
- [37:44]
Stand to Reason Donor Message Speaker
And my question for you is regarding Psalm 45. I've been reading through the Psalms and I've been including commentaries from Matthew, Henry and Charles Spurgeon. And I struggle with the Psalms when I'm trying to take read things in context. So like in this psalm, it, it seems to be. It says it's a love song. But in the commentaries I'm reading, they have pointed it to Jesus. And I'm just trying to figure out, I can see when I'm reading that how that could be the case. But how do they know that when this psalm was actually written that it was a prophecy of the Messiah? Thank you for all you do. I appreciate you and I love listening to you. Thanks.
- [38:43]
Greg Koukl
Well, that's sweet. Thank you, Jennifer. Hat tip to Jay Warner and sweet listening to your Tennessee accent. Jennifer, this is a very good question, and it's one I've asked a number of times. And it's encouraged me to encourage others to be careful how we are citing Scripture, or I should say Old Testament passages as prophecies fulfilled in Jesus. Because when we look at some of these passages, it is kind of hard to see how anybody just simply reading the passage in isolation of New Testament will draw the conclusion that this is a prophecy about the Messiah. Now, some seem to be really powerfully suggestive. Psalm 22, for example, Isaiah 53, Micah 5, 2, where it talks about Bethlehem being the place where the Messiah will be born. And sometimes, by the way, the references in the Old Testament to Messiah, they don't just say, this is where the Messiah will be born, but they are a little bit more. I don't want to say veiled, but they use language that seemed to be obvious to the people reading it that may not be obvious to us. It says, Bethlehem, Ephrathah, you are not least, though you are least in the kingdoms of Judah. From you will come forth one whose beginnings will be from everlasting. And their language like that, and they will bear the scepter of Judah a shoot, will spring forth, whatever. And so the readers at the time saw and understood that this was something looking forward. So part of the answer then to your question about how do they know this is Messianic is if you read the passage, the passage seems up, prima facie, in other words, on the surface or on the face of it, to be referring down the line to someone else. Okay. And this is why there are passages that the Jews famously took to be messianic. Psalm 2 is another one. You know, the nations are roaring against God and his anointed. That is, the anointed is translated Christ Christos in Greek and transliterated Christ in English. So that's talking about the Messiah. There are some passages that seem to be really, really powerfully suggestive. There is debate with the Jews, Jewish people about Isaiah 53, because it just mentions my servant. And sometimes the text is referring to the Jews as God's servant. And so maybe that's who it's talking about and not Messiah. But when you get to Isaiah 53, it's clear that the servant there is dying on behalf of the Jews, so the servant can't be the Jews. And also there is a resistance there. Seeing that in terms of Messianic prophecy, because it sounds so much like Jesus, you know, that's a problem. But sometimes we can read the text and it seems that way. Other times we have New Testament authors under the inspiration of the Spirit, citing these texts as being Messianic, that they're hidden or embedded in these texts about other things. There are these sentences that go beyond the text. Now, I would never be able to discern that myself, especially with a number of the references in the New Testament to Jesus in the Old Testament. I go back there and I said, well, I don't see that. Here's a verse kind of right in the middle of a whole bunch of other stuff. And this is just about Jesus, I think, where the reference that a friend of Jesus would betray him and get 30 pieces of silver or whatever, I mean, I am reading that in the Psalm and I said, I don't see. I know that happened with Jesus, but I would never say that's Messianic just by reading the Psalm. But the authors of Scripture in the New Testament did see that. So in virtue of their testimony and their spiritual insight being inspired by the Holy Spirit, they see the Messianic nature of this passage. So this is one reason why Jewish, or rather biblical scholars say this is Messianic, is because Matthew, Mark, Luke or John said it was Messianic, and that gives them confidence. Other times, just in a, like I said, the internal evidence, the prima facie, you just read it over and it just seems to be obvious that this refers to the Messiah. But there's one other category here, and it is the category of Jewish scholars prior to the time of Christ. And I don't have any of these in my library. But my understanding is that there are writings from Jewish scholars prior to Christ, before Jesus of Nazareth became the Messianic figure that that accounted for these verses. That is, the verses talked about him. And then of course, the Jews are going to push back on that. But when they weren't, when that wasn't an issue, Jewish rabbis saw certain passages with their own insight, given their own cultural capabilities and understanding how the writing worked and reading the Hebrew in the context of the period of time these things were written, they just saw that this is messianic, this is about the coming Messiah. And so since the ancient Hebrew scholars saw these passages as Messianic, and I think that Psalm 2 is an obvious example, that's another source of Information that the scholars writing nowadays might have to have confidence that these passages testified to the Messiah. Now, I think there is also a final category, and that is just in the educated opinion of these scholars, this passage in their mind is Messianic. Now, I think when they make that claim, they're going to have to give the reasons why, and I suspect they do. In the commentaries you're reading, they have confidence this is messianic for this reason. They're not just fabricating this out of thin air. So those are a number of factors that might be involved in establishing certain passages as messianic. But keep in mind that some of them are much more vague on their prima facie reading than others. And in those cases, I wouldn't go to those passages to try to make the case that Jesus fulfilled this passage, because a skeptic, I think legitimately is going to say, I don't see that. Why would you pull that line out and apply it to Jesus? Now take Psalm 22. Psalm 22 looks like a description of a crucifixion. 750 years before crucifixions were used as capital punishment. And from the perspective of the person being crucified, wow, that's different. So this definitely seems prophetic in nature. And when you see these things happen to Jesus, who claims to be the Messiah, then I think it's entirely fair to look back at this passage and say, well, this happened to Jesus just the way it's described in Psalm 22. And Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. This looks like a messianic passage. So that kind of reasoning, that direction of reasoning, I think is going to be legitimate, too. All right, so there you have it, Jennifer. And by the way, thank you so much for being a strategic partner. That's wonderful. I'm thrilled. Let's hear from. I want to say, how is G I L E s pronounced? Is that Giles or Giles? Maybe Giles. Well, it's that person. That guy is next. Okay, Mr. Giles. Giles, what's up? Hey, Greg. This is Giles from Boverty, Texas, and I was wondering how you would answer this question. You Christians tout that heaven is a free gift, but it seems like there's a lot of strings attached. Going to church, reading your Bible, doing what Jesus would do. This sounds more conditional than free, so I was just wondering how you would answer that. I have my own ideas, but curious to hear your response. Thanks again. Well, thanks for the question, Giles over there in Texas. And I actually think this is easier than it might appear because when you talk about Strings attached. It turns out to be things that accompany salvation that are good for us to pursue. Going to church, reading the Bible, praying, seeking godliness or holiness. None of these are offered in the Scripture as meritorious. Paul makes it really clear, and I recommend either Romans, which is longer, or Galatians, which is shorter and actually much more focused on this issue, that we are not saved by works. It's either works or faith. It's either God's grace or the law. It can't be both. If righteousness comes to the law, then Christ died needlessly. That's what Paul says in Galatians 2:21 or something like that. All through Galatians, this contrast is being made in very vivid ways. If it's by grace, it's not by law. If it's by law, it's not by grace and honor. On and on and on. In fact, there are so many legalistic Christians and even Christian denominations where de facto, as a matter of fact, salvation is a result of works. It's amazing to me how people who are leaders in those enterprises could hold such a thing. When there is no ambiguity of any kind. When you read the book of Galatians and sections of Romans none, how is it that they get off on this workspace thing? Okay, so as far as the teaching is concerned, the Scripture teaches that salvation is a gift. Ephesians 2:8:9, the first Bible verse I ever learned. I guess if learning means knowing it, to recite it or repeat it, I didn't try to memorize it as far as I know. It just was so powerful to me. For grace, you have been saved through faith. It's not of yourselves, not of works. Lest any man boast, now, you are created for good works, but you are not saved by good works. I mean, that's kind of a paraphrase of what he continues to talk about there in Ephesians 2. Now, once you are saved by grace through faith, once you are justified freely as a gift from God, now what? Well, there's lots more. It isn't like, okay, now I'm in. I'm out of here. The idea is to get into God's family. It's to escape God's wrath and then get into his family and operate within his kingdom. Once you get into God's family and you're properly positioned in the kingdom of God under His rulership, there's a whole lot of things that are involved, but those are things that just are entailed in right living and good family relations. You know, Hebrews 12 talks about God disciplining every one of his children. He's like a good parent. He disciplines perfectly. And discipline is not fun. All discipline for the moment, seems not to be joyful. No way sorrowful. However, afterwards, it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Now, that's done inside. That's not judgment. That's discipline. Judgment is for outsiders, discipline for the insiders. Now, I realize sometimes you can't tell the difference experientially. That felt like judgment to me. Well, it's not. But when you are on the inside, there's a whole bunch of things that now apply not to keep you on the inside. You're already in. The gifts and the callings of God are irrevocable. Paul says in Romans somewhere, nine or ten, the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable. He's given us a gift of salvation. Salvation entails a miracle of transformation. On the inside, we call it regeneration. Jesus referred to it as being born again. Now, you can't be unborn again. You can't be unregenerated. You are transferred from death to life. I mean, these are all these passages that talk about the nature of the thing. And so now we are on the inside. And in my view at least, regeneration is irreversible. Genuine regeneration is irreversible. Okay, now what? Well, now there's a whole bunch of stuff that properly apply to being a member of the family of God and to be a subject in his kingdom. Notice that there are different relationships here. We are children in his family. We are subjects in his kingdom. There's another one. We are servants to a master. And all of these different relationships also, he's the potter and we're the clay. Romans 9. So now that we're in a family, there are different, I guess you would say, behaviors or ways of living that are appropriate to this relationship that we have been brought into by God. John says it so beautifully. In 1 John 3:1, he says, See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the children of God. And such we are. Oh, that's great. Now we're God's children. Now we're on the inside. Well, that means he's a father to us, but we are children to him. That's an active relationship that entails certain things. Kids, obey your parents. Yeah, so you can stay kids. I should say stay offspring. Members of the family. No, because that's appropriate, to obey your parents. They know more than you do. Actually, that's the first commandment with the Promise. So it will go well with you. And the same thing is true about our relationship with God. Once we become Christians. Now we're children in the family. And now what? Obey. Why? It's good for you, so it will go well with you. Now, none of these commandments, directives that have to do with how to live a virtuous life have anything to do with earning salvation or keeping ourselves saved. You know, The Titus chapter 3 passage is so powerful. It says, when the kindness of God, our Savior, appeared and his kindness towards mankind, I think it says, he saved us not according to deeds that we have done in righteousness, but according to his mercy by the washing and regeneration of His Holy Spirit. Therefore, being justified by his grace, we will have peace with God or something to that effect. And then he says, I want you to be confident of these things. You got it? Not works. Grace, not by yourself. You didn't save yourself, God saved you. Got that? Okay, we got it. Then he says, ah, now that you're confident, now be careful to engage in good works. These things are profitable for men. See the sequence there? First, salvation, cleansing, forgiveness, made right with God in the family. God's not mad at us anymore. Now we approach God as a father. Not as a judge, not merely as a sovereign, but as a father. And that changes everything. And now we enter into a new life. Those who are in Christ have become new creatures. Behold, old things have passed away and new things have come. That's also in Corinthians and one of my verses, the Jesus movement that I remembered. So let's just say you're sick and you've got some ailment. You haven't been living well, you've been doing stupid stuff. Your health falters, you get sick, the doctor heals you. You're clean, you're back to normal. That's great. Now, Doc says, do this, that and the other differently than you did before because that will help you stay healthy. Now, this parallel has limitations. You're not going to get sick again in the way you were sick before. But you can still get sick, morally sick, even as a Christian, you're not going to be out of the family. But it's similar here. Jesus saves us from our deadly disease. And then once we're in and saved and cleansed and rescued, then God tells us, here's how to live. Hang out together, read your scripture, pray, etc. Etc. Etc. That's where it fits. Giles from Texas. Thanks for the call. All right, friends, that's it. Greg, Coco here for Stand a reason. Give them heaven. All right. Bye bye now, Sam.