Bible Q&A • Episode 69

You need to go to a church where you trust the pastor to rightly divide the Word of God. If you're going to a church and you don't trust the pastor, you're going to the wrong church. Hi everybody, and welcome back to another Bible Q&A. I'm Pastor Paul. I'm here with my wife Sue, and we are going to tackle some more of your Bible questions You sent them in, so we're gonna give them a shot here today.

All right, sounds good. The first one is from Lori.

Okay.

Uh, do the mortal people living in the Millennial Kingdom get glorified bodies to go into the Eternal Kingdom? I saw a teaching from a pastor that said they go into the Eternal Kingdom in their mortal bodies and become immortal by eating from the Tree of Life. Please clarify for me, if you will, as to when they receive glorified bodies.

I would be interested, you know, to know if what Laurie heard that pastor say— that he— I would— I'd be interested to know whether he qualified that as his opinion or as an interpretation and what it was based on. There are reasons, I will say, to base an opinion on what he said.

Sure.

But it would only be an opinion. Frankly, the Bible doesn't specifically say, okay, but I don't, I don't agree personally. I don't think anybody is going to go into that period of time after the Millennial Kingdom. And just for people who may not have all of that timeframe stuff down in their hearts,

right,

let's just say that we're living in the Church Age now. The very next thing that's going to happen on the prophetic calendar is the catching away of the church. And then we are thrust into the 7-year Great Tribulation period, followed by the return of Jesus, which we call the Second Coming. And that brings us into a period known as the Millennial Age or the Millennial Kingdom. And we use the word millennial because it refers to 1,000. It is a 1,000-year period of time on the earth where Satan is bound and there is an unprecedented time of righteousness and the rule of Christ on the earth. The Bible says that at the end of that 1,000-year period, Satan will be released for one final opportunity to basically deceive the nations. There will be one final uprising which will be put down very quickly, and then we enter into a period of time which we call the time of eternity. The Bible says there will be a new heaven and a new earth. They will essentially be kind of one. And, and now time as we know it is no longer a factor. We're kind of living in that, that time of the eternal now. Since we've established that, I don't, I don't believe personally that people are going to have mortal bodies during that time. And somebody might take issue with my response and say, well, then why does it say in the Book of Revelation that there will be the Tree of Life whose leaves will be given for the healing of the nations and da da da da da? What's that even for? What's it what's it needed for? Well, we I don't know. I can't answer that question. But to to say that the presence of the Tree of Life at that time period in that time period is proof that there will be some people who have mortal bodies. is reaching. It's coming to an interpretive conclusion based on clues, but they're not rock-solid clues. And so obviously we're not talking here about a salvation issue. Somebody can believe what they do about this and there's no issues here. We're not going to separate over this, you know. Right. But I would disagree. I think at the time of eternity, that's going to be after the final judgment. And I don't think anybody is going to have a mortal body because with a mortal body is a sinful nature. And we're told that everything is going to be made new during that time, everything. And if somebody still has a mortal body with a sinful nature, that's— hasn't— that person hasn't been made new, even if they're given a perpetual immorality— or immortality, excuse me, because of the Tree of Life. That— you see what I'm saying?

Sure.

It kind of goes against that whole idea that The old is gone, the new has come.

That's great. I really love it when people ask these questions because I just don't think about these things, and I need someone else to ask the question, and then you give a fantastic history lesson, which is useful.

Well, good.

Next question is from David. Is there a distinction between the curse of sin and sin itself? Can you clarify the difference in how we are affected, especially by the curse, and how far does it affect us in life?

Well, yeah, okay. First of all, the first question is, is there a distinction between the curse of sin and sin itself? And, and yes, there is. The curse is what is pronounced upon all of mankind due to the fall of man, which of course takes place in Genesis chapter 3. Because of the rebellion and the fall of Adam and Eve and and all who would come after them, there was therefore a curse that was pronounced upon mankind from which we ultimately needed to be delivered, you know, from that. Right. So that, that the curse is essentially the fact that because of our sinful nature that we've taken on now in these corruptible bodies, we are now under a curse because none of us can live up to the righteous requirements of God. That's why we're under a curse. Right. So the curse of sin and sin itself are closely related, but there is a distinguishing element between them because sin is what we do on a daily basis. And the reason we make a distinction between the curse of sin and sin itself is because those of us who are in Christ have been released from that curse. Okay. But we still sin.

Yeah.

We still mess up from time to time. We have a perpetual spring of forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ. And so the curse no longer has dominion over us. It no longer controls our fate and our destiny. But we still sin. And so for, for believers, you know, that, that's an important distinction to make. But so, so the, the curse again is what is pronounced upon all mankind. Sin itself is how we play out that curse. It's how we respond to that curse. We confirm the curse by living a life of sin.

Right. Yeah, very good. Kennedy is from Kenya. How should we distinguish between practices that have a genuine biblical foundation and practices that may come from tradition, culture, or interpretation beyond what Scripture teaches? My main concern is to understand what the Bible actually teaches rather than simply following practices because they are commonly taught in churches.

I remember reading this note ahead of time, and this person, I believe, is from somewhere in the continent of Africa. I want to say even Kenya. Is that right?

Yes.

Okay, you said that.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, and there are, you know, in particularly in Kenya and other of those countries in the continent of Africa, culture has been mingled with biblical Christianity to the point where at— in some places it's hard to figure out what is really still Christian because culture has become so powerfully intertwined. And it behooves every born-again Christian, you know, a person who has come to faith in Jesus, to know their Bible enough to know what is biblical and what isn't. And I'm happy to answer questions if people want to know, here's the practice we do in our country or in our church, is this biblical? I'll answer that question, and I'd be happy to do that. And frankly, in her longer note, she brought up some instances or things that she was concerned may not be biblical, and they are not. Mm-hmm. And so you gotta, you know, she says, how do we know? Well, you know, by knowing the Word of God. Sure. The way you know something that isn't biblical is by knowing your Bible.

Right.

But, you know, it's interesting. When somebody is involved, when somebody's a born-again Christian, they receive the Holy Spirit of God to live within them.

Right.

And even though they may not yet know their Bible very well, the Holy Spirit is going to speak to them about what is true and what isn't,

right?

And they're going to just get a sense like, I don't know, this just doesn't sound right. This just doesn't seem like it jives with the character of God, the wisdom of God. And they may not know enough to say, I, I've read the whole Bible and that's not there.

Yeah.

But they just know something's wrong. And that's when they need to go to someone who has been through the whole Bible And they can ask the question, is this biblical? Is this practice in the Bible? Now, let me say something about practices here as we kind of finish up this question. There may be things that churches do that aren't necessarily in the Bible that aren't really that wrong.

Of course. Right.

You know, they're like, you know, it's not that big of a deal. You know, you do things, you know, but when things become an obligation, Okay, when things become a requirement for you as a Christian, then we, we recognize that to be a danger zone. Right. Okay, for example, in our church, the church that we pastored for 35 years, we celebrated Christmas.

Right.

Now, um, there's nothing in the Bible about celebrating Christmas, and somebody could actually take issue with our celebration and say, that's not in the Bible. And I would come back and say, you're absolutely right, it's not in the Bible. But you know what? If you don't participate, it's not that big of a deal. It's between you and God.

Sure.

You know, and, and, and it doesn't mean you're less of a Christian, doesn't mean you're not going to heaven. It doesn't mean you're not a joint heir with Christ. You see what I'm saying?

Right.

Our celebration of Christmas had nothing to do with someone's salvation, nothing whatsoever to do with a requirement as a born-again believer. So that's the difference. So if somebody is asking you to participate in an observance, an event, a celebration, or whatever, and they put pressure on you and it's not in the Bible, then that's a problem. And I happen to know that some of the events that we've heard about in emails over the years have been conveyed that way, as this is part of what it means to be a Christian. Well, it's not. It's frankly not. And so people need to know their Bible, and if they don't know their Bible, they need to go to somebody who does.

Yeah,

yeah,

that's good. We have 2 questions here that have a similar theme. Would you like me to read them together? Uh, yeah, go ahead. And then have you answer? The first one is from someone in India. Who says your teachings are a great blessing to us. After great difficulty, I have found a good church, and I'm wondering if it's okay to go to that church since they hold to the replacement theology view. Is it a fundamental core issue or a minor issue? Many thanks. There's the question from India. Second one is from an anonymous viewer. I attend a good church except that I found out about a year ago that the pastors believe in fulfillment theology. I discovered this when I was politely rebuked for presenting a pro-Israel program. The head pastor said a better term was fulfillment rather than replacement. He said the church is the fulfillment of Israel and thus the new Israel. Is this a salvation issue, and is replacement theology the same as supersessionism?

Okay, good questions. Yeah, these are 2 very good questions. Uh, first of all, fulfillment theology and replacement theology are the same. Supercessionism is also another word for it. So these are all the same thing packaged up with a different wrapper. Sure. Okay, so both of these people are basically saying, hey, this church that I'm attending is involved in these things. And is it— and, and the big question here is, is it a salvation issue? I'm not sure it is a salvation issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a dangerous issue. Because it is an issue of biblical interpretation. And I believe it is an error in biblical interpretation to believe that the church fulfills everything related to the promises given to Israel and therefore is the new Israel or takes over for Israel. I believe that is— it is an error in terms of how it is interpreted. So the danger part is, if they got that wrong, what else are they getting wrong?

Yeah.

You see, because replacement theology, or whether you call it, you know, fulfillment theology, is based on interpreting prophecy. It's how we interpret prophecy, and it's, it's erroneous. It's, it's false. It's, it's bad. And so even though someone may be able to attend a church like that, come to Christ, be a born-again Christian, and, you know, and, and all that's good to go, there are issues here. And those are going to impact other areas of interpretation.

Yeah.

And it's going to also interpret— or excuse me, it's also going to influence how we respond to the nation of Israel today. There are a lot of Christians who have bought into replacement theology who feel completely free to, um, just ignore Israel altogether, to speak very badly of Israel, and to ignore really everything God has to say in the Bible about Israel, because as far as they're concerned, Israel is gone. Yeah. from the physical geographical standpoint, and we are the new Israel. So I, I think it's problematic, and I would caution both of these people from staying in a church where they have engaged in prophetic and interpretive errors.

Sure. And there's so much at play when it comes to— we get notes from people finding a church, trying to find a church, finally finding a church all the time.

Yeah,

there's so much at play. Some people just don't have very many options.

That's true.

They're just, you know, this is like, this is the only church in our area. They're very limited.

Yeah.

People are also in different seasons of life. Now, look, as a mother bringing teenagers into this situation, I would view it differently as a senior citizen woman just going to be part of a church and trying to have fellowship, because I would protect— I want to protect my children from a bad You know, from bad theology.

Yeah, exactly.

And so, you know, I'm not trying to say what's, you know, what's, you know, your own truth. That's not what I'm trying to say. But yet we are in different seasons of life. I guess what I'm trying to say is it's really something the person needs to say, Lord, what would you have me do?

I think you summed it up really well. It may not be a salvation issue, but it's bad theology.

Right.

So we'll leave it there.

Sure. Okay, this next note came from J.I., and we edited this down heavily, and so I'll just wrap it up this way. I recently watched a friend enter into a marriage and culture that promotes no makeup or jewelry for women, dresses only, and have as many children as the Lord gives.

Yeah.

I'm concerned about this change in her life. I would love your biblical perspective on how to discern between the difference between— and I love this, these phrases— the difference between genuine holiness, personal conviction, and legalism, especially when those convictions seem to reshape someone's personality or way of life?

Yeah, yeah. One of the things I've said for a long time is that God looks at the heart, and I believe that when you're trying to distinguish genuine holiness from things that might appear as an act or a lifestyle of holiness is that the whole idea of what's going on in the heart— God looks at the heart, and it is easy to follow rules, religious rules about jewelry, clothing, hairstyles, and so forth, and have a very corrupted heart. It's very easy, actually. And so what we're saying here is that somebody can look— have all the appearance of holiness on the outside, but God is looking at the heart. And that is the first thing that we need to say going into this. But, you know, how do we distinguish when it's— when it's a desire for real sanctification versus just legalism? Well, we distinguish that when these things become requirements, when they become mandates to being saved. If a group is saying if a woman doesn't have long hair that she puts up in a bun, never wears makeup, never wears jewelry or any kind of fine clothing, then she's probably not saved.

Yeah.

Or they might even go as far as to say she can't be saved unless she, you know, basically applies herself to this specific strict rule of how we are supposed to live. Well, that's legalism. That's, that's, that's, that's the definition of legalism.

Yeah.

They've created a rule that is now the determining factor of whether someone is truly in Christ or not, or can be in Christ. That's a problem because the issue is the heart. It always comes down to the heart. Okay, so, you know, that, that's kind of the best I can do. Somebody might come back and hearing my comments and say, well, you know, but Pastor Paul, doesn't it say in the Bible that a woman's beauty should not come from outward adornment like braided hair and fine clothes and jewelry and that sort of things? And I come back and I say, yeah, it does say that. And what Peter meant when he said that was that should not be where her beauty comes from. He was not forbidding

a

woman to wear, uh, you know, makeup or, or fix her hair or even to wear fine clothes. We go, we go to Proverbs 31 and we read about this incredible woman, uh, of, of noble character, and she dressed herself in fine clothes.

Right.

You know, um, So that, that's really the issue. Peter is saying, the Bible is saying to women, don't let your, don't let your, your beauty just be external.

Right.

Make sure that it's internal. And that's why he went on to talk about a gentle and quiet spirit, which, you know, women like Sarah and others demonstrated and exemplified. Uh, and, and he says that's, that's the kind of inner beauty that a woman should be cultivating. And again, it doesn't mean that he's forbidding her to look nice on the outside, you know. There's not a problem with those things. And so here's the deal: when people read the New Testament with an Old Testament mindset,

right,

they're going to read a passage like Peter's statements about a woman's clothing, hair, and that sort of thing, and they're going to interpret it as a prohibition, because that's their gravitational pull,

right,

is to think of things in terms of don't do that, rather than looking to the heart. God looks at the heart. God wants your heart to be holy. God wants your heart to be set apart for him. And if a woman— and, and I'll just say this— a woman can do that. A woman can have her heart set apart for God and still wear nice clothes and jewelry and And, uh, and fix up her hair. So yeah.

Uh, Pierre from South Africa said, I'm studying in 1 Peter— speaking of 1 Peter— at the moment, and in verse 7 it says that husbands and wives are heirs together in the grace of life. In my understanding, we as husbands have no place to claim a priesthood over our wives. Our wives have their own relationship with our joint high priest, Jesus.

Yeah. Yeah. I think what Pierre is doing is he's kind of flopping one way or the other. You got to take the whole thing in tension. And he's kind of saying, you know, for what reason do we have a right to have any position over a wife, for example, when they are joint heirs with us in Christ? Mm-hmm. And of course, that's true. The Bible says that, and that's the way husbands are to view their wives. as joint heirs of the blessing and grace of God. However, Ephesians also says, wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, of which he is its Savior. So there are, there are things that we have to hold in tension here.

Right.

The headship that God has given to a husband in marriage is not a power play. It's not a position of ultimate authority where I say jump and my wife has to say how high. I am in fact called to love my wife. I'm, I'm called to lay down my life for my wife. And that means I need to be always concerned about her feelings, her thoughts, her ideas, and, and so forth. So I'm not to have dominion over my wife, but I do have a role. I have a role to play in marriage, and that role in the Bible is called headship. And so there— and, and we need to make a point. This role of headship that is given to the husband is just for the age in which we're living, okay?

Right.

This is not going to translate into heaven. I, I'm not going to be your spiritual head in heaven. I am today. A husband has that position for now, but he has it even in light of the fact that his wife is a joint heir with him in Christ. And so he needs to keep all of those things in mind while he walks out the role that God has given him as the leader and the head of the home. And that's the— you know, why did God make men the head of the home. I don't know. He just did. It was his choice, you know. And, and so we, we just walk it out, but we walk it out in love. We walk it out in understanding. We walk it out in compassion and kindness and tenderness toward our wives. So what I kind of hear Pierre responding to is maybe a harsher attitude of some men that might be looking at their position as the head of the home as kind of a power thing. And I can kind of tell you what to do. And, and I'm over you. In fact, I'm superior to you.

Well, the term he even used here was priesthood over our wives.

Yeah. And you know, the word priesthood isn't used specifically in the Bible. That's not to say it's necessarily wrong, because a priest is someone who intercedes for others. And that could very well be the function of of a husband. However, priesthood doesn't mean authority.

Yeah.

It's not a position of authority. It's a ministry position. Men have a ministry to their wives. Wives have a ministry to their husbands. And here's the deal: the position of headship and leadership that God gives the man does not mean that he is superior to her,

right,

in any way. Uh, men and women are equal in the eyes of God. There is no superiority. There is no inferiority. That's what I think Pierre is almost responding to, a sense of—

Yeah.

All of these terms that are given to husbands tend to give it an air of superiority, and he says, Well, that doesn't make sense. We're joint heirs in Christ,

right?

Well, it's not a superiority thing. It's a ministry thing. Men are called to the ministry of headship, not the superiority of headship.

Yeah, that's a really good way to sum it up. I like that. Uh, Dottie says, someone recently told me that God has to call you. Did he do that when he went to the cross for our sins? Doesn't God call every single one of us? I'm confused and hope you can explain.

Yeah. Call is an interesting, you know, word. The Bible says— well, Jesus said, in fact, no man can come to me unless the Father draws him.

Right.

So rather than calls, I might use the word draws. Okay. Did Jesus do that? She asked the question, did he do that when he died on the cross? No, not necessarily on the cross. He paid the penalty of our sin. so that the Holy Spirit then could draw us to him and we could respond. She asks, does he draw or call everyone? I believe he does. I believe God calls and draws everyone. Right. I don't believe everybody responds to that call, sadly. But I do believe— I do believe God draws every person. Yeah. And so what I guess what I'm saying here without saying it is I believe that it is possible for someone to resist that calling or that drawing of the Holy Spirit. Our Reformed and Calvinist brothers don't believe that. They believe that there's an irresistible element to the grace of God that calls us, and when he does, it is irresistible. I don't believe that. I don't see it in the Bible. We can resist, and many people do.

Right.

Yeah.

Well, hopefully that answers her question.

I hope so.

Here's a YouTube question. My question is regarding 2 Corinthians 10:5, which says we take every thought captive to obey Christ. I wanna know if this means that we as believers take every false thought captive and make them obey Christ, or if it is saying we as believers take every thought captive in order that we may obey Christ.

This is a classic example of taking a verse out of context, or actually taking a statement out of context, which I've heard a lot of people do. this very passage about taking every thought captive.

Yeah.

The context— and I've got this in front of me, I've got it open in front of me from 2 Corinthians 10, starting in verse 3. Paul gives the context. He says, for though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but have divine power to destroy strongholds. And then he goes on to say in verse 5, We destroy arguments and every lofty or haughty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, to take every thought captive to obey Christ.

Right.

All right. So, yes, we do take thoughts captive. What's the context? To destroy arguments and lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God. Okay, so first of all, that's, that's what's going on in the passage. Paul is talking about responding to arguments and opinions that stand against the Word of God.

Right.

He says we take those things captive, and what he means by that is kind of an interesting dynamic. It's probably open to some interpretation to some degree, but he's kind of saying, no, we're not going to let those things pass. We're not going to just sit back and let people, you know, express their lofty opinions when they're so contrary to the Word of God. We're going to say, no.

We need to put them in prison. Put those behind bars.

Yeah, those thoughts, we take them captive. Exactly. So the context is responding to statements that are made by unbelievers that are contrary to the Word of God. It is taking those thoughts captive to obedience so that they are in line with— instead with the Word of God.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay, well, Ernest says, how and when do you determine if someone is a false teacher? I know there's grace for ignorance, but what if you address someone who teaches falsely on a subject, but they say you've got it wrong and continue to teach falsely? For example, My pastor teaches that tithing is 10%, which is false. Tithing was never given to believers as a command, yet my pastor teaches that if you don't give, you will be cursed.

Okay, well, first, what's— who, who are we talking to here?

Ernest.

Ernest. Okay, the first thing, Ernest, is that your pastor is actually correct. Tithing does mean 10%. That's actually what the word tithe means. It means 10.

Yeah.

And the second part is wrong. Believers were at one time commanded to tithe under the Old Covenant.

Sure.

They were believers, and God did command that. In fact, it was part of the Mosaic Law. They were, they were told to give into the storehouse so that there would be, you know, provisions for the priests and the Levites and, and even the poor. Yeah. And that sort of thing. Now, under the New Covenant, he is correct when he says the Bible does not command tithing. That is absolutely true. The Bible says that each man should give according to what he has determined in his heart,

right?

Not under obligation, right? Because God loves a cheerful giver. So if a pastor is saying that we are commanded to tithe in the— under the New Covenant, That is a wrong teaching. I wouldn't necessarily refer to that person as a false teacher.

Yeah,

I would save that term probably for people who are really like, have a different gospel.

Sure. As it pertains to salvation.

As it pertains to salvation. This could be someone who has just been misinformed and they've been, they've been preached the same message so often. It's all they've ever heard. Questioned it. Sure.

Yeah.

So, so this guy, apparently he went to his pastor, confronted him on some of these things. Obviously, like I said, you know, uh, he's wrong. Ernest is wrong on the issue of tithing is 10%. But again, if the pastor's saying it's demanded, if it's a command of the New Covenant—

Well, and the, the key here at the end is that he teaches if you don't give, you will be cursed.

Yeah, yeah, that is— that's wrong. That's basically applying an Old Testament statement to the New Covenant,

which becomes a manipulation.

Well, it sure does. Yeah, it sure does. And there's a lot of this going on. It's a ton. I mean, this guy is not isolated by any stretch. There's a lot of that.

Probably that sense of manipulation is probably what's getting under his skin.

Yeah, I would imagine, and rightly so. Here's the, here's the bottom line. And I tell this to people when they write to me about something their pastor said that they just struggle with. You got to, you got to come to terms with whether or not you can trust this person to rightly divide the Word of God.

Yeah.

You need to go to a church where you trust the pastor to rightly divide the Word of God. Simple as that. If you don't, you're in the wrong church. You're going to sit there and you're going to have a bad attitude, and you're going to sit there and you're going to be kind of giving him that evil eye sort of a thing, like, I wonder if that's true. Oh, I, I have a doubt about that. That's not the way to go to church.

No. And we know what the Bible says about a root of bitterness.

So yeah, and that's not healthy bitterness. Absolutely. So if you're going to a church and you don't trust the pastor, you're going to the wrong church.

Yeah.

Bottom line, you got to go to a church where you trust the leadership to speak correctly about the Word, even about tithing. This may not be a salvation issue, but it's a manipulation issue. It's a wrong interpretation issue. He's, he's interpreting the Old Testament in, you know, in light of the New. And that's wrong.

Sure. So save the label of false teacher for something else.

Yeah.

However, You got to think through, can you receive from this person?

Exactly, exactly. And I, you know, like I said, I tell people, don't stick around in a church where you don't trust the leaders.

Yeah,

that's just— it's not good for you, it's not good for them, it's not good for the rest of the body of Christ.

Yeah,

yeah.

That's all we have for today.

Those are the questions, huh?

Yeah.

Okay, well, uh, hopefully there was something in this batch of questions that, um, spoke to you. And it might even have generated a further question that you have. If you have a question you'd like to send in to us, just email us at questions@lifebibleministry.com. We'll do our best to get to your question as soon as we can, and we'll be back next time with the 70th episode.

Oh, wow.

Of our Bible Q&A. So stick around for that next week. We'll see you soon. God bless.