Podcasts about english bible

After several chapters of prophecies of destruction at the hands of the Assyrians, Micah concludes his book with a promise of restoration for the people of Israel. Although there are some differences between the Masoretic text on which the old Testament of our English Bibles is based and the Septuagint, which was translated from Hebrew into Greek by about 200 BC, the overall message is the same: God will chastise His people for their behavior, but He will bless the remnant who repent and return to Him. Sharon's niece, Sarah Sachleben, has been battling stage 4 bowel cancer and the medical bills are piling up. If you are led to help, please go to GilbertHouse.org/hopeforsarah. Our latest book The Gates of Hell is available in paperback, Kindle, and as an audiobook at Audible! Derek's book Destination: Earth, co-authored with Donna Howell and Allie Anderson, is available in paperback, Kindle, and as an audiobook at Audible! If you are looking for a text of the Book of 1 Enoch to follow our monthly study, you can try these sources: Parallel translations by R. H. Charles (1917) and Richard Laurence (1821)Modern English translation by George W. E. Nickelsburg and James VanderKam (link to book at Amazon)Book of 1 Enoch - Standard English Version by Dr. Jay Winter (link opens free PDF)Book of 1 Enoch - R. H. Charles translation (link opens free PDF) The SkyWatchTV store has a special offer on Dr. Michael Heiser's two-volume set A Companion to the Book of Enoch. Get both books, the R. H. Charles translation of 1 Enoch, and a DVD interview with Mike and Steven Bancarz for a donation of $35 plus shipping and handling. Link: https://bit.ly/heiser-enoch JOIN US IN ISRAEL (NOTE NEW DATES)! We will tour the Holy Land Oct. 25–Nov. 6, 2027 with an optional three-day extension to Jordan. For more information, log on to GilbertHouse.org/travel. Follow us!• X: @gilberthouse_tv | @sharonkgilbert | @derekgilbert• Substack: GilbertHouse.substacdk.com | SharonKGilbert.substack.com• Telegram: t.me/gilberthouse | t.me/sharonsroom | t.me/viewfromthebunker• YouTube: @GilbertHouse | @UnravelingRevelation | @thebiblesgreatestmysteries• Facebook.com/GilbertHouseFellowship Thank you for making our Build Barn Better project a reality! We truly appreciate your support. If you are so led, you can help out at GilbertHouse.org/donate. Get our free app! It connects you to these studies plus our weekly video programs Unraveling Revelation and A View from the Bunker, and the podcast that started this journey in 2005, P.I.D. Radio. Best of all, it bypasses the gatekeepers of Big Tech! The app is available for iOS, Android, Roku, and Apple TV. Links to the app stores are at www.gilberthouse.org/app/. Gilbert House T-shirts and mugs! New to our store is a line of GHTV and Redwing Saga merch! Check it out at GilbertHouse.org/store! Think better, feel better! Our partners at Simply Clean Foods offer freeze-dried, 100% GMO-free food and delicious, vacuum-packed fair trade coffee from Honduras. Find out more at GilbertHouse.org/store. Our favorite Bible study tools! Check the links in the left-hand column at www.GilbertHouse.org.

After several chapters of prophecies of destruction at the hands of the Assyrians, Micah concludes his book with a promise of restoration for the people of Israel. Although there are some differences between the Masoretic text on which the old Testament of our English Bibles is based and the Septuagint, which was translated from Hebrew into Greek by about 200 BC, the overall message is the same: God will chastise His people for their behavior, but He will bless the remnant who repent and return to Him. 

In this episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb bring their extended series on the parables of Matthew to a powerful climax with the passage most listeners have been waiting for: the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31–46). Far from a checklist of works required for salvation, this text is unpacked as the master parable of Christ's entire parabolic ministry — a sovereign declaration of divine election, not a merit-based audit of individual performance. Tony and Jesse explore why this passage has been chronically misread as a call to works righteousness, why the language of inheritance and predestination is front and center, and how a Reformed reading liberates rather than burdens the conscience. Along the way, they weigh in on Herman Bavinck's prescient warning about media distraction, and Jesse recommends a Puritan gem on anxiety worth picking up immediately. Key Takeaways The Sheep and Goats is best understood as a parable, or at minimum parable-adjacent. The Greek construction in verse 31 mirrors the same comparative language Christ uses throughout his parabolic ministry, placing this text firmly within that tradition rather than outside it. The kingdom was prepared before any works were done — this is election language. The phrase "inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (v. 34) is not a reward for performance; it is the language of sovereign predestination preceding all human action. The works of the sheep are diagnostic, not causative. What the righteous did reveals who they already were — sheep — rather than being the mechanism by which they became sheep. The beak doesn't make the bird. Both groups are surprised, and that surprise is the parabolic punchline. Neither the sheep nor the goats anticipated the verdict they received, which undermines any reading that frames this text as an encouragement to accumulate saving merit. This passage is a recapitulation of the wheat and tares parable. Sheep and goats co-mingled until the moment of final separation, just as wheat and tares grow together until the harvest — the judgment reveals what was always true. Any theology that requires a human contribution to activate or complete salvation misreads this text.Whether Roman Catholic, Arminian, or Mormon in flavor, every view that makes God's preparation of the kingdom contingent on foreseen human merit fundamentally inverts the logic of the passage. The scope of judgment — "all nations" (ta ethnos) — would have been scandalous to first-century Jewish ears. This language deliberately expands the kingdom beyond ethnic Israel, fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant promise and confounding the assumptions of the religious elite. Key Concepts The Kingdom Prepared Before Your Works: Sovereign Election, Not Merit When the King says to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34), the theological weight of that single sentence is staggering. The kingdom was not prepared in response to anything the sheep did. It was prepared before time, before works, before choice — which means the works that follow in the passage cannot be the grounds of that inheritance. Only a Calvinistic understanding of election can sustain this logic without remainder. Arminian views require God to foresee a qualifying human response; Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views require some degree of meritorious participation; even certain Lutheran frameworks lean on non-resistance to grace. Reformed theology alone places the entire cause within God's sovereign, unconditional decree — and this passage, read plainly, says exactly that. Works as Evidence, Not Ground: The Diagnostic Function of This Parable The great pastoral error in preaching this passage is treating it as a performance rubric — a list of charitable acts that, if completed, qualify a person for eternal life. But Christ does not separate the sheep from the goats because of what they did or failed to do. He separates them, and then describes the activity that characterized each group. The works are revelatory. They surface what was already true of each person's nature, just as a bird's beak reveals its species rather than constituting it. This reframing is liberating precisely because it means assurance does not rest on tallying acts of charity. It rests on the sovereign act of a Father who prepared a kingdom and the regenerating work of the Spirit who produces, in those He has claimed, a life that looks like the one described here. "All Nations": The Scandal of an Ethnically Inclusive Kingdom The Greek phrase ta ethnē — translated "all nations" in most English Bibles — would have landed very differently on first-century Jewish ears, particularly those of the Pharisees and Sadducees who comprised a significant portion of Christ's audience throughout Matthew 24–25. To them, ta ethnē meant the Gentiles, the peoples out there, those outside the covenant. The implicit effect of Christ's language is to place every people group — including Israel — within a single undifferentiated mass standing before his throne, with no ethnic group receiving preferential standing at the bar of judgment. This is entirely consistent with the Abrahamic promise of blessing to all families of the earth (Genesis 12:3), the vision of Psalm 2, and the missionary thrust of the Great Commission. The scandal is not incidental — it is the point. The kingdom Christ is ushering in is not the ethnic-nationalist kingdom the religious establishment expected. Memorable Quotes The kingdom of heaven was prepared for those whom Christ has elected before the foundation of the world, and it was the preparation of that kingdom that brought you through this such that you did the good works that you did... That is caused by the fact that God prepared a kingdom for you in advance, not that you somehow caused this kingdom to be prepared for you. - Tony It's not the beak that makes it the sparrow, it's the sparrow that makes it the kind of beak it is. That's the kind of classification we're talking about in this parable. - Tony The best freedom is the one that turns over all things to God and takes him at his word when he says, 'In love you were predestined to inherit this as sons and daughters of the kingdom,' so that he does all the work, because we do not want to have any of that work our own. - Jesse Full Transcript [00:01:11] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 498 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse  [00:01:19] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony, and this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey, brother.  [00:01:24] Jesse Schwamb: Hey, brother. They said it couldn't be done. They said we couldn't come back. We wouldn't come back and continue in Matthew 25. But here we are, and we're ending this chapter in this whole section about sheep and goats. Everybody was clamoring for it. Everybody wanted to know, what about the sheep and the goats? And I think the last time we all chatted together, we prefaced it by saying it's parable adjacent. Or let's just say- Yes ... we just stacked up these three other parables, lots of things going on, and then Jesus resolves this or brings all these parables to a culmination by speaking about the end times, the end of all things, and the sheep and the goats. Yeah. And so we gotta go there  [00:02:06] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I'm stoked.  [00:02:07] What Counts Parable [00:02:07] Tony Arsenal: And y- you know, I, I was talking with a brother at, um, at church yesterday on the Lord's day, and he was asking how the podcast's going and what we're doing. And, you know, I was kind of thinking, like, I was talking about the parables and how we're kind of moving forward, and we were gonna do some of the I am sayings in John. And, and I was thinking, like, what is a parable anyways? And who decides what a parable is and what a parable isn't? Right. Um, some of the parables Christ calls a parable, others he doesn't. Uh, we'll probably talk a little bit about that when we get to, uh, some of the back half of Luke. But this, this episode I think is gonna be really, really the payoff and really the culmination of not just these, like, this trio of or trilogy of parables that we've talked about, but I think really, like, the payout of all of the parables in Matthew. It's really, like, the summary of all of Christ's parabolic teachings. So it's, it's a good place for us to round out Matthew, and then we'll, we'll dip into the parables in the other gospels, probably have a couple more months of, of, uh, parable talk before we move on to the next thing. But, uh, it's been great, and I'm super, super stoked for this. This is one of my favorite passages, actually, and there's so much to dig into. I, I, I'm just gonna say now, we probably won't make it through the whole thing- Right ... uh, because there's a lot there. But we'll see. We'll see how we do. Maybe Jesse and I will be super efficient tonight, uh, but we usually aren't, so. [00:03:27] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's never happened. We, we take it low and slow. Not only that- ... it was reminding me as you spoke about that kind of proverb generally of if you wanna go build a wall, you assess what you need, how many stones, and then you go gather those stones. Yeah. You should double it, or if you're gonna go out and fight an army, take stock of that army. That's basically what we do, but in reverse. Anytime, like, you just... I just heard you say- ... like, "It'll probably take us a couple more months," you should double that. That's probably how long- Yeah ... it's actually gonna take us.  [00:03:50] Faith Works Assurance [00:03:50] Jesse Schwamb: Even in this- Yeah ... conversation, I think we're gonna get stuck in the best way possible speaking about things like faith, works, and assurance because there's a lot of language here- Yeah that could seem on the surface to sit in this tension with justification by faith alone. And I think the key to resolving all that tension, as I hopefully think we'll see, lies in the readings of works as the evidence of living faith rather than its ground, and I think that's what- Yes ... Christ is leading us through all of these parables, actually, whether it goes back. And you should listen to all those episodes. In fact, I gotta ask. Th- I mean, this brother you were talking to, it just strikes me as that question had already be answered for him if you were listening to the podcast. So-  [00:04:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I don't think he does. No, I don't think he does- ... listen to the podcast. Uh, he knows that I do the podcast, and he's very gracious to ask me about it. Tom. And I think he's probably listened to the podcast before. Got it. Um, and he's, he's just a very kind, gracious brother who, who is concerned and wants to know what I'm doing. And, um, he has, he has his own sort of, like, production stuff that he does that he enjoys that I'm, I'm not super keyed into. But, uh, it was just nice. But, but it did get me thinking, like, I was trying to explain to him where we were in the progress of the parables, and I was like, "I can't really... I don't really know," because, like, it's hard to even understand and fully... There's no, like, full comprehensive universal list of what is a parable- Right ... and what's not. And I think what we've found as we've been going through this is sometimes, sometimes you come up against a portion of a text that is often taught sort of separate from the, the rest of it. Parables get taught discreet from other parables. But then you have these sort of, like, intervening texts, or this one's kind of a summary text, that's so integrated to what the parable means you really can't do a series on these parables without also treating this text. Which is gonna be interesting, 'cause I've never, I've never encountered somebody who really roots this teaching here of Christ in the context of the parables, despite its proximity. So it'll be fun. We're gonna figure it out in real time, and, and it'll be good.  [00:05:47] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's gonna be fun.  [00:05:48] Deny Doomscrolling Bavinck [00:05:48] Jesse Schwamb: And speaking of fun, we're so glad that you're listening, and we know that you're waiting with bated breath to hear about affirmations or denials. It's of course that part of the conversation where we either affirm with something that we think is fantastic, maybe by way of recommendation, or conversely, we deny against something that isn't that great. So Tony, as is our custom in the liturgy of the Reformed Brotherhood podcast, I ask you once again, are you affirming with or deny against? [00:06:15] Tony Arsenal: I am denying against something, and I'm gonna do that by affirming a Herman Bavinck quote. Uh, so I'm gonna read it for you. This, uh... Some of the guys in the Facebook group have put... or the Facebook group, the Telegram chat, have put together a, uh, like, a reading group to work through Bavinck's, uh, Wonderful Works of God, which is great, and I'm loving it. I haven't been able to participate in the conversation as much as I would like to, but just being part of a reading group, uh, sort of keeps you on schedule, which is great. So I've been reading through Wonderful Works of God, and on the Kindle edition, on page 34, uh, which I think is still the, I think is still the, uh, introduction, he says, quote, "The reading of daily and weekly newspapers, of magazines and brochures, devours our every blink. There's a lack of desire and opportunity for the investigation of scripture and the study of old theological works," end quote. And when I read that, it just really struck me as like- If that was true like 70 years ago, 80 years ago when Bavinck was writing this, right? And all there was was hard, hard copy media. There was no, uh, there was no digital media. There was radio, but there wasn't a lot of programming. Uh, I don't think that there was much in the way of television broadcasting. If there was, it was, it was very, very limited and very rudimentary. Um, even then he was saying the daily news cycle and all of this extra stuff that is out there is consuming our, quote, "Every blink," which I thought was a really interesting phrase. Um, it's basically like it's so ingrained in us, we're so invested and obsessed with the news cycle. Uh, or you might translate that to like to our Twitter feed or our Facebook feed or our Instagram reels or whatever it might be, and dare I say it, the podcasts we listen to.  [00:08:05] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:08:05] Tony Arsenal: Um, that we don't save time for scripture and other theological works. And I think it's funny too is that the, the eternal, uh, the eternal contemporary statement of the Reformed world is like we don't read enough old theological works. Even Bavinck, who I'm reading as one of the old... I mean, not like super old, but like one of the old theological works, is saying, "Hey, we don't read enough old theological works." So I'm denying this sort of like obsession we have with the daily news cycle and with constantly being up to date and like constantly consuming all of that. Um, we've talked about how like our modern global news cycle sort of, uh, is built around the deception that we can be sort of pseudo omnipotent and know all things about everything. And, um- There's a lot of work that's been done to show that, like, the world's not really that much, not that much more of a violent place than it was 100 years ago. We just know a lot more about what's going on- Right ... in other parts of the world. And there's pros and cons to that. But I think the main con is, like, we, we feel suddenly that we have to be, you know, deeply involved in the goings on of a church on the other side of the country that we never would've even known existed otherwise. It- there's just a, there's a sense of omnipotence and omnipresence that's just not becoming for the creature that I think we try to take on. So Bavinck knew it. Uh, we've talked about it. Lots and lots of people have talked about it. This isn't new. I'm not, I'm not e- engineering anything new on this. But that quote really struck me when I was reading. I was like, "Dang, man, he, he got it right 100 years ago or, or 80 years ago, and we're still struggling with it." And I think probably, like, if you go back and you look at the, I don't know, more occasional writings of people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, um, as they're interacting with, like, people in the Reformed community or the Protestant community, I bet you would find statements like this too about how, like, we really spend a lot of time reading, like, silly things and not spending- Right our time studying the scripture or studying, um, theological works. So that's my denial. I'm sticking to it, and if that means you feel like you need to turn this podcast off and go read some John Calvin or some Herman Bavinck, then by all means. Uh, I think you're probably going to be edified by what we have to talk about. But, uh, th- the Bible's better, so if you gotta go do it, if you only got- That's true ... an hour today to study scripture or listen to this podcast, please go study scripture. Yeah. Uh, hopefully we can do a little bit of both with this podcast. But Herman Bavinck said it best. Our every blink is consumed with pamphlets and newspapers and it just is- It's true it's pretty silly.  [00:10:41] Jesse Schwamb: It's true.  [00:10:42] Meme Detour Reading Groups [00:10:42] Jesse Schwamb: I gotta take us all the way back to where you started there, and I'm going to betray, to nobody's surprise, my really strong naivete when it comes- ... to social media, and memes in particular. But this is what occurred to me, and I'm gonna try it. This is, like, what classically makes really good podcasting. Let me try to describe a meme to you that I'm not even sure I actually understand or know. So this will be great. I think, you tell me, Tony, 'cause you may have seen this. It's an old meme too, so I'm not even, like, on the cutting edge here. I think it's a meme of two panels showing, like, two pictures of Drake. In know one he's kinda, like, pushing away as if to say, like, "Get that outta here," and the other one's like, "Oh yeah, that's the stuff." Do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah. Is that accurate?  [00:11:21] Tony Arsenal: I do. I think you're gonna use it wrong, but yeah.  [00:11:23] Jesse Schwamb: Is that Drake? Okay, all  [00:11:24] Tony Arsenal: right. Yeah, that's, that's the meme.  [00:11:25] Jesse Schwamb: Okay, okay. And usually, if I understand it correctly, it's kind of like a faux juxtaposition of two things, right? Like, okay. So like here, let me try it. Uh, uh, let me just try it on everybody. Here we go. I'm gonna describe to you how I just interpret this based on what you said, 'cause something cracked me up that you said, Tony. If I were gonna make this meme just based on how you opened that up, the first panel would be like Drake pushing away the idea or being like, "That's no good," book club. The second one would be reading group, as in like, like the reading group is like the new cool way of like just kind of... Did I use it properly? Am I close?  [00:11:59] Tony Arsenal: I think the problem with this is that there's like a, there's like an ironic way to use it, and then there's like a more direct way to use it. Mm. Yeah. The direct way would be like some- like Drake's pushing away something that's bad, and he's- Yeah ... like accepting something that's good. That'd be like the direct way. Yes. The more ironic one is where like Drake is pushing away something that's actually pretty, actually pretty good, and he's- Yeah ... accepting the one that's pretty silly. Oh, okay. Um, there's a lot of memes that have that basic format. Never mind. There's one with like Jordi LaForge. I think there's a Michael Scott one. I tried. I tried. But yeah, no, I, I think yours is valid, it's just, I think it's an older usage of the meme. That's like the, that's like the middle English version of that meme. The Shakespearean use of that meme.  [00:12:36] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. I'll take that. It's the old English style. I love a good book club or a reading group. A, a reading group just, it does have that sound like maybe somebody in the group has a monocle, or you guys have tea. Either way- Yeah ... I absolutely love it. And yes, what are our beautiful quotes. You kind of hear that general conception recapitulated among like theologians almost in every era. But it does make you think, what would Bavinck say about, like doom scrolling on the smartphone? Like- Yeah ... he's beside himself, right? It would just be beside himself. So I'm with you. I, it, there's gonna be a condemnation in every generation. Maybe I say this with some degree of like chronological snobbery, especially in ours, when it comes to not, like you said, I think kind of like not carving out or not prioritizing time in the scriptures. Yeah. There's not gonna be any excuse of like, "Well, I just didn't have time." Right. Or, "There were too many things to read." It's just, it's not gonna cut it. So I'm with you. I think you and I have talked about this at length, even just like the news media like you and I consume, like just s- set aside social media for a second. Just like how i- how much value is there in a lot of like what we cons- used to consider to be like well-informed reporting? How valuable is that to us? Yeah. And I'm certainly not saying like that everybody should be like unconcerned and uninterested in the world, but I think it's to what degree and what fascination we have with that, and how it fits into our priority as we consume information each day. That's the thing that's tricky, and there's no really-  [00:14:02] Tony Arsenal: Yeah ...  [00:14:02] Jesse Schwamb: good answer except to weigh out with the spiritual discernment- Yeah ... how we ought to consume that stuff. But certainly I think, without question, we need to be prioritizing time in prayer, time in the scriptures. I imagine if we were all doing that with a great deal of attention, that all of the other things would kind of find their way into the right place. Or let's say they would just find their way out of our lives in a significant way- Yeah ... that would remove us from distraction and anxiety, instead bring us back into the providence of God.  [00:14:31] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And I'm not, I'm not gonna be the guy that tells you you can never s- you can never scroll Instagram or TikTok or whatever. Um, I, I think that's a decision that's between you and the Holy Spirit as far as how you spend your time. But I, I do think, um, I think you're right- We are accountable for the decisions we make and how- Right ... we choose to divide up our time. And I- God, I mean, God is the inventor of fun. He's the inventor of leisure, and he is, uh, I think he's pleased and honored when we, we make good use of our time f- for things that are restful and rejuvenating. Um, he doesn't expect us to just slavishly read scripture all day, every day, like every minute. That's not, that's not the biblical expectation. Um, and so I think it's fine if you wanna sit down and watch a fun show, or if you wanna watch some YouTube videos, or listen to a silly podcast, or listen to a serious podcast. Um, but I do, I agree. Like, we, we really need to be thoughtful. And I think where, where Bavinck's quote, uh, is strong is it's not so much about, "Don't read these things." Right. He, he's talking about these things consume our every blink. Like, m- he's treating blink... He's using the word blink as sort of a fill-in for like our, our finite resource of time and attention, and these things have consumed all of them. There's a very strong use of that word consume. Uh, and I, I think that's really the, the point that I'm trying to make is we often allow, either intentionally or unintentionally, we, we just let our time get all sucked up, uh, on things that maybe are good but are not pr- properly proportioned. Um- Like I said, it's, it's fine to spend some time on Twitter and to get into a debate once in a while, or to check in on your friends on Facebook, your old high school, college buddies or whatever, but we can definitely take it too far. So I think it's a good corrective for all of us to at least make a stop and think about how we're spending our time, and whether we are affording the appropriate amount of time to things like scripture, theological study, catechesis of our children, um, family worship, all of those good things. So we don't have to go much more into that. I think the point has been made. Uh, so Jesse, what are you affirming and/or denying tonight?  [00:16:43] Affirm Puritan Anxiety Cure [00:16:43] Jesse Schwamb: Perfect segue, because speaking of reading old things, you know me, I've always got some kind of Puritan work in the rotation, and the one I just finished is the one I'm affirming, which is called Special Providence for Anxious Souls by Obadiah Sedgwick, who I think is kinda... Like, people are sleeping on Sedgwick, you know? Mm-hmm. He's, he's kinda like, he's there in the wings, but we need to take him off the bench. And I came across this book and I thought, "Who doesn't want a title like that in their lives?" Like, we got some anxiety in all of our souls. And I'm affirming this because, uh, hi- his definitions, his writing is, are on point. But here's what I thought. I was embarrassed that I picked this up expecting one thing, and then in typical puritanical fashion, was delivered something else that was far better. And I was thinking about this title as you might see it, like, in your modern bookstore today, whether it's, like, in Barnes & Nobles or at any of the periodicals we were just kind of mentioning or implying that are out there. And I was expecting to get some kind of, I don't know, six or seven things, I mean, that's Puritan style, but six or seven things that would really help you diagnose the psychology, and then going back to the scripture in ways, all, all the ways we'd expect about how God loves us and cares for us, and all those things are true. And yet the only way I could describe how this book ministered to me is, like, how you might go to a physical therapist for some kind of ailment, which I have many as I get older, and have recently been to one. And the ailment I had was, um, basically like tarsal tunnel, which is like carpal tunnel for your foot. And so there was some nerves that were inflamed and causing some pain and some weirdness in my feet. And here's what I do know about physical therapy now that I think the Puritans also do for our souls, and that is the physical therapist gave me this full workup. They prodded me and poked me and rubbed things and made things hurt- And in the course of doing that, they clearly could figure out what was wrong with my foot. And so when he gave me the diagnosis, after, again, rubbing that part and, like, doing one of those things where he's like, you know, they tap on your hard and they're like, "Does that hurt?" I'm like, "Yes, it does hurt." And I presume that's because you know anatomy. And, you know, he's, he's ta- tapping on my ankle and it's causing my foot underneath to hurt. And after all that, you know, I run on a treadmill. He d- takes all this video, and this is what he says to me. He goes, "Yeah, so this is actually pretty straightforward." And I was like, "Great, so what are we talking about? Like exercises, uh, splints, like massage?" He's like, "You have a weak butt." And I was like- "I'm sorry, let's talk about that for a second." And this is what I've learned about physical therapy, is it's rarely about the thing that's actually bothering you or the thing that's hurt, right? It's something- Yeah ... far different. It's something almost seemingly, like, disjointed or removed or divorced from the very thing, maybe even non-contiguous, if only in our minds, maybe even logically. And so what I love about this is the first half of the book is just speaking about the province of God before it even gets into this idea of anxiety. And then the treatment on anxiety and worry is, he goes through, like, six or seven things in particular, are just absolutely glorious. So good that I want you to read it. I don't even want to talk about it. Uh, that, that's my admonishment to you, is that you should just go pick it up. So I'm affirming again that the Puritans in particular do this thing where there's, there's no cheap advice here. It's not even hide advice. It's really good advice, but it's the kind that says, "You have a weak butt" when you're concerned that your ankle- is messed up. Yeah. And that's sometimes what you need to hear. And in my case, after... Let's make this super weirdly spiritual. After doing a bunch of squats, I don't know what the spiritual equivalent is of that. After doing a bunch of squats, my ankle and my foot was so much better. And it, because I had somebody who cared enough for me to go through and actually diagnose the root of it, that was the reason that inevitably there was healing. So I've, this has given me so much to think about, this tiny little treatise. So much to put into practice. It's so rich, so good, so practical, and yet I think you'll find in many ways joyfully unexpected. So I highly affirm to everybody listening, and even those who aren't, Special Providence for Anxious Souls, Obadiah Sedgwick. You'll, you'll love it  [00:20:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:49] Physical Therapy Spiritual Practice [00:20:49] Tony Arsenal: So two thoughts. Uh, one, uh, I can confirm Jesse has a weak butt, um, flat as a board. So it's probably, probably better after, after doing some squats. Wow. Uh, two- Wow. ... uh, I can say I also am in some physical therapy right now, and I've been a little bit of a slacker. And what I will contribute to the conversation is just like in physical therapy, they can give you all of the exercises- Yeah uh, that you want. If you don't do the work, you're not going to get better. Yeah. And so whether it's Jesse doing squats or me not finding time to stretch and to do some, like, arm exercises with a, with a s- uh, like a TheraBand, uh, the same holds true. And, and maybe to unify our, uh, affir- our denials/affirmations into one mega, mega recommendation, um, the same holds true in that, one, we can take a book like this from, uh, Sedgwick, and we can turn it into the same thing we do with media where we're just... it's just devouring our blinks. Right. And we're just using it as a way to sort of, like, feed our eye hole Get better. You won't improve. Um, and that's actually the same with scripture. Like y-you can- Right ... turn scripture into, uh, into a snack food that you, you don't actually use to be nutritious. Um, I think there's probably more benefit to reading scripture sort of rote and, and almost mechanically than there is to reading anything else. But, um, but at the end of the day, you can also consume your blinks with scripture and not get a lot out of it if all you're doing is passing your eyes over text. So get in there. I think that's great. I haven't read that one. I mean, I think there's... I think there are probably many, I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many, many Puritan treaties that- treatises that are similar in theme and tone and have the same kind of like spiritual antidote or spiritual medicine, um, prescribed by these guys that is good and wholesome. And again, like, like you're saying, like it's not that complicated. It's not that hard. Right. It just takes- Right ... you just actually have to do the work. Um, it's funny, my physical therapy thing is my, my shoulder has been really ba- really messed up, and I went in, I expected him to give me all these, all these shoulder exercises, and he's like, "Uh Really what you need to do is you fix your neck, uh, 'cause your shoulder is, is being in- injured because you're sleeping- Okay on that side because you're trying to stay off the other side. So, like, you really gotta fix your neck so you can sleep on the other side of your body. And I was like, "So I'm just, like, sleeping wrong?" Like, it's funny, there's a joke, it's like in your 20s you can do anything you want, in your 30s, like, you gotta be a little bit careful, and in your 40s, like, you hurt yourself just sleeping. Right. Just getting out of bed is dangerous.  [00:23:46] Jesse Schwamb: It's  [00:23:46] Tony Arsenal: true.  [00:23:47] Jesse Schwamb: It's true. So. It's a tough world. But  [00:23:48] Tony Arsenal: it's true. I feel like a really old man saying that.  [00:23:51] Read Matthew 25 Aloud [00:23:51] Jesse Schwamb: You know, it strikes me that you're right, of course, that there's so much here we always have to put into practice. There's so much here that we have to trust with God. There's a faith that works. And so I think actually that is the most lovely inroad into this final passage of Matthew, because there's a lot here for us to talk about with all of those things, and to understand it in this proper context. So as you've already set us up, Tony, the best part of our podcast is the scripture, for sure, 100%. So let's go there. So we're in Matthew 25 in case you're just joining us. And for some reason I went into, like, a full radio mode, as if this, like, this is being broadcast live, and you just came into the program. We're in Matthew 25, uh, starting in verse 31, and I'm gonna read until the end of the chapter. There's so much here that of course we're not gonna get to all of it, but in the spirit of literally having the full context of the scripture in front of us, and to hear it all, I think it's important. It w- b- better yet, you should go back and read the entire chapter and then tune in right now. But let me start at verse 31. "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me in, naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me.  [00:25:32] Judgment Scene Read [00:25:32] Jesse Schwamb: I was in prison, and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and come to you?" And the King will answer and say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me." Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angers-- angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they will themselves also answer saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?" Then he will answer them saying, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life  [00:26:47] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:26:49] Parable Not Fear [00:26:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, it's, it's, um, it's a sobering passage. And just as I think we've seen in a lot of the other parables, um These eschatological parables and these eschatological sayings of Christ, uh, as you kind of alluded to earlier, I, I think they are really, really, um... They are not prone to being misinterpreted. Right. The church has been prone to misinterpreting and misapplying these, um, in a, in a way that's used to make, make the Christian fearful and to, uh, undermine their assurance rather than to call them to action or to accountability.  [00:27:33] Why It's A Parable [00:27:33] Tony Arsenal: Um, and I think a- as I've been reading through this and I've been sort of glancing at the Greek as we're reading, I actually think I'm on... I, I stumbled on much more better ground to treat this as a parable than I even originally thought I did. You know, I, I had this whole lead-up that this isn't technically a parable, but when you read here, when it says, in verse 31, it says, "When the Son of Man comes in glory and the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates- Right ... the sheep from the goats." If you go back to verse 14, when it says, "For it will be like a man," uh, that, that first word of verse 14 in the Greek is the same word as is used when it says, um, uh, "He separates people one from another as a shepherd." That same word is used as there, it's just translated differently because of where it comes in the, um, in the text. So Christ is still making this comparison, so it would be as though he said, um, you know, like the common, most common, at least so far, most common kind of parabolic introduction is like, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like." Um, this is the same basic language he's using here to introduce what the eschaton will be like. Right? The ga- the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them. It says people in the ESV, but will separate them one from another. You could also say the, the nations or the peoples will be gathered before him. Right. He will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep. So the parable here is the s- the shepherd separating the sheep from the goats, this whole process of the separation and this, this, um, frankly, like it's, it feels and smells like a parable, right? It does. This, this, um, figure, this shepherd in the parable or the shepherd in the saying is saying these sort of like parabolic statements. He's using this language that's kind of like shocking punchline statement. Like we've talked about how in parables there's often this sort of unexpected turn of events, or there's this unexpected kind of shocking language, and this whole like twist at the end in both, sort of both s- chunks here, where like the sheep don't really understand, like they didn't really recognize that they were doing sheepy things, and the goats didn't really understand that they were being goats. That's like the parabolic twist or the parabolic punchline here. So the, the kingdom of heaven is like, basically it's like the Son of Man will come in his glory and it will be like this. It will be like a shepherd separating the sheep from the goats. That's the parabolic connection here. Mm-hmm. So I actually think that, that linguistically we're on, we're on pretty solid ground not just to treat this as a summary of all the parables, um- I think of for sure these three parables, but it, it really is like the master parable, and I think probably the master parable that kinda governs and constrains and explains all of the parabolic ministry of Christ. So I'm, I'm stoked for us to really dig into the details a little bit, but I think linguistically we're on super good ground to, to treat this as a parable. I agree. At the very least, it's stronger than just parable adjacent.  [00:30:44] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:30:44] Tony Arsenal: It- but even if we aren't saying it's a parable proper, it's stronger than that. It still is using this kinda comparative ministry, comparative language that Christ has used throughout the parabolic, um, sayings of Christ.  [00:30:57] Jesse Schwamb: The construction seems a little bit less veiled because here we have Jesus implanting himself directly into the account.  [00:31:03] Tony Arsenal: Mm-hmm.  [00:31:04] Shepherd Imagery Stakes [00:31:04] Jesse Schwamb: At the same time, though, he's drawing on all the things you just said he does, especially with this allusion to shepherding, which would've been, of course, common throughout. So it seems to me a lovely bridge to all of the overt parables he's just told, but now he's bringing them all together and placing himself clearly as, like, the interpreter, as the identifier of all the things, as the one to seal up all of the edges, as it were. So it's clear that this is about the end times. All of these were all about the end times and about Jesus' role in them. And so of course here he identifies himself as the eschatological judge just to make it clear. He's the one who sits on his glorious throne, and that's significant, and that's why I think we sometimes feel like, well, this is not a parable because he's, he's being very, like, Christologically certain and direct here. You know, throughout scripture the final judgment is God's prerogative alone, but the Father has committed all that judgment to the Son, and here's Jesus affirming that. And so again, like Reformed theology, in all our conversations we've consistently emphasized that this text is in many ways, like, proof of Christ's full deity and his role as mediatorial king, and he's exercising his office as the judge at his return in glory. And though, like you said, at the same time, here's the cool parable kind of scent or flavor is you get all these nations, every person who has ever lived, not merely Israel or merely the church. And how does Jesus describe this? He goes back into parabolic language. And we got the shepherd imagery that- Yeah is, like, similar to Ezekiel 34 where God himself is judging between the sheep of his flock. And that separation, the shockingness of it, it's immediate, it's binary. There's no third category. There's only two eternal destinies. There's no purgatory, no middle ground, no post-mortem opportunity for repentance. So all that's at stake. And then again, the beauty of the language itself or the setup of the construction of the story as it unfolds is that both groups- Get the same speech with a change in do or do not, but they both ask the same question from, like, wildly different perspectives and standings. And that's the beautiful- Yeah thing to make reconciliation over is what does all this mean then? How is all this established and how is this final judgment come to be such that there are sheep and goats if, in fact, they're both doing the same things theoretically, or they're at least both asking the same questions of, well, when did this ever actually occur? That, that's what's for us to unpack either way.  [00:33:29] All Nations Gathered [00:33:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and b- before we jump into, um, into the parable itself and start to unpack that, the other element that I think is worth, uh, and this just came to me so hopefully I'm not on too far of a, of a limb here. But the other element that I think is worth at least commenting on, um, we've, we've remarked, especially in these last three eschatological, um, parables, how much these are directed at the religious leaders, right? Right. The, the, the people are, um, the, the- the parables are told, um, in the context and sort of following up on these, this real directed, um, assault against the religious leaders who thought they were the ones, right? They're the ones that have a claim to the Kingdom of Heaven, they're the ones that, um, are the, you know, they're the ones that think they're doing the right thing, they're the ones that are ushering in God's kingdom. This little phrase here, "gathered all the nations," would also have really stuck in the craw of the religious leaders, right? Because the word for nations that's translated here is the same word that would el- elsewhere get translated as Gentiles, right? And the word people, when it says, "He will separate the people," that, that word people doesn't actually exist in the Greek. So if you translate this very literally, it'd say, "Before him will, will be gathered all nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Now, I don't wanna go the route of saying, like, this is a parable about, like, which pe- people group will be brought into the kingdom and which won't, and I've read some that go that direction. I don't wanna go there. But this idea that, like, even in the final judgment, the people who are in view here are the Gentiles, right? Right. I think most Jewish, particularly the, the Pharisees and the Sadducees hearing this, would've, would've read this and would've read ta ethnos, and would not have thought nations the way we do. Certainly would not have thought of, like, modern nation states. They might have been thinking maybe, like, people groups in general, but they would be thinking more along the lines of, like, Psalm, Psalm 2, like, "Why do the nations rage?" kind of nations. Why do the Gentiles rage? Why do the peoples plot in vain? They would've been thinking th- this, this, uh, judgment almost, at least on the face of it, almost excludes the Jews entirely when you think about it this way. It's really now sort of, like, zooming out where at the very least, at the minimal least, the Jews are just another people group within this broader judgment of the people group. Right. So again, like, we've seen this theme that Christ is continually expanding the scope of what is considered to be the Kingdom of Heaven to include not just the Jewish people, um, but all nations, all people groups, all Gentiles and Jews alike. And in a very real sense, um, and I wanna be careful how I've said this, I know I've commented this in the past, there's a very real sense of anti-Semitism that is prominent in- reform, quote-unquote reformed circles right now that is just vile and disgusting and sinful, and has no place in any sort of Biblical Christianity. But there is a reality that the Jewish people, broadly speaking, um, rejected the Messiah, at least while he was here on Earth. Um, relatively speaking, very few Jewish people, especially in the Jewish elite, like the leadership class, accepted Christ for who he was while he was here. Many Jews came to faith through the ministry of Peter, uh, and, and even through the ministry of Paul, even though he was an apostle to the Gentiles. So it's not as though it remained the case, but at this point in Christ's ministry, the Jewish people were by and large were rejecting him as Messiah. And so this idea and, and sort of this like final culmination now saying like he gathered all the, all the Gentiles, all of the peoples, all of the nations. In Jewish, in Jewish language and, and when you look in the Old Testament, and even in some of the New Testament literature, the nations were those people out there. So even if we don't translate this as Gentiles, we don't, we don't take that more like restrictive sense, even then it still implies that Christ is talking about people out there, the non-Jewish nations- Right are being gathered before his throne. And so that's not to say, absolutely not to say that the Jewish people, that, that the Jewish people of his day or the, the... This is where it gets tricky too, 'cause like we think about modern Israel and we, we import our understandings of like nation states. That's not what was in view here. The, the idea of a modern nation state was not a concept that existed in the first century. Um, you might have something like city states, but even that is kind of like a little bit ethereal. The idea here is that all people groups, and maybe, maybe we conceptualize Israel now as one of these people groups, the Israeli Jewish people as one of these people groups. All of those people groups, Jews, Gentiles, Scythians, Athenians, Spartans, like, uh, Ethiopians, you know, all of these different people- Right ... groups that are mentioned in the, the New Testament, all of those peoples, all of those nations are gathered before the throne, and then he will separate them one from another in the same way that a shepherd sep- separates the goats. [00:38:35] Group Judgment Assurance [00:38:35] Tony Arsenal: And yes, I think there is an individualistic, um, judgment element, and this is where I think, um... And, and then I'll, I'll pause for a second. This is where I think we can go wrong reading this as a parable about the individual judgment of individuals in the future That's not really what the language here is supporting. This is supporting sort of a broader group-based judgment, and the grouping is there are those who are sheep and there are those who are goats. But it doesn't appear as though Christ is saying like, "I'm evaluating each individual person, and this person is a sheep, this person is a goat." It's, it's a broader picture that, yes, has some implications for individual personal judgment, but when we read too much of that individual personal judgment into this parable that doesn't seem to be there, that's where we start to, like, rob individual Christians of their assurance. We start to say, like, "Did you do enough? Did you feed enough poor people or did you not?" That's not really, not really what's at stake here, I don't think.  [00:39:40] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's definitely not. It's, it's important to remember just the beauty of, like, the consistent theological thread that runs all the way through the Old Testament, and then that we might expect, of course, to be manifest in Christ's teachings, which happen exactly here. So he is going all the way back to that covenantal promise seed through Abraham, single seed, many people groups, many ethnicities. In this way, the gospel is ethnic inclusive. And so it is, why wouldn't he say that in this way to express that this is exactly from all time what God wanted to do is gather all people groups to himself? Which means then by the time we get to the end of this chapter in verse 46, and there is this righteousness that... or the righteous that lead or go into eternal life, then of course we're led to believe here either directly or implicitly that that means that there would be some for whom the Pharisees would find it's, like, anathema to receive that kind of righteousness and eternal life are the ones in fact who are getting it. And so even that is scandalous. So the, the whole thing is very much a setup, and I think it's the confusion again of this is Jesus saying again to the Sadducees, like, "You are confused. You do not know the power of God. You, you search for it everywhere else but do not find it in front of you. It, it's he who speak to you. I am he. You think you search the scriptures, but you do not know." Everywhere it feels like he's saying that, and here also he's saying that again, but it's in the setup. And I'm with you. I think that there would've been a lot here that would've, like, just come right off his lips that would've been like, "Say what?" Uh, that would've been, like, offensive right off- Yeah ... the top.  [00:41:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:41:17] Sovereign Separation [00:41:17] Tony Arsenal: And the other, the other theme that plays out really loud and clear here, um, as we start to dig into this is, um, there's a sovereignty to this separation that is baked into, um, the king's right to decide who to keep and who to cast away. Right. So I think we, we, um, understandably read into this an assessment of the productivity or the profitability or somehow the, like, merit or worth of the sheep as contrasted to the worth of the goats. Um, and we read into it like the sheep have utility and the goats don't, so the goats get cast into the- Right outer darkness. That's not really, that's not really what's going on here, right? In a, in an agrarian society, like sheep and goats both have utility. It's not as though, like, sheep are worthless and goats aren't. There's a reason people have goats. Um, th- the, the issue here is that the king has decided that there are those on his right and there are those on his left, and the ones on his right he's gonna keep, and the ones on his left he's gonna cast away. And, and so, um, there's this sovereign election and determination that precedes the rest of this, right? It's not as though he's ... And this is where the personal, sort of personal assessment part comes in. He doesn't look at a person and go, "All right, you did a g- enough good works to qualify as a sheep, so you go ahead and go over-" Right and be a sheep. And you didn't do quite enough, so you're actually a goat, so you go over and you be a goat." He looks at, he says, "Y- sheep, goat. Goat, sheep." You know, he, he's separating them out, and then he describes what sheep do versus what goats do. And I, I, like I'm even drawing some of this language out. The sheep goats part of this is actually only, like, a verse and a half. He then flips out of this parabolic language to now go back to the sort of strictly predictive eschatological ex- like explanatory language. So this is what it's like when the Son of Man is on, on his kingdom. He separates sheep and goats. We read into, and maybe with some good reason, but we read into Uh, we read into the fact that the sheeps go to one side, the goats go to another. Then we sort of like attribute the characteristics of those who go to his right to sheep, and we attribute the characteristics... And I think we do this the wrong way. How many sermons have you heard where the whole sermon is about how sheep are obedient, and they're, they're affable, and they listen, and they, they, they are sweet and kind, and goats are stubborn, and they, they just wreck everything, and they don't listen, right? And how many s- how many sermons have you heard where they talk about, like, well, sheep and goats really look the same in the Middle Eastern context, and the only way you can tell them apart is what, by what they do? I think there's probably some, uh, benefit to thinking through those elements, but Christ does not make that point in this parable- Mm ... at least not directly, right? He said, "This is the activity. Imagine a man who has sheep and he has goats. He takes the sheep, he puts them on one side. He takes the goats on another side." That's what the separation at the end of the time, at the end of time will be like. Then he goes straight back out of the parable language into saying, "This is how the king will actually make the distinction.  [00:44:29] Predestination Before Works [00:44:29] Tony Arsenal: The ones on his left, or on his right, he will say, 'Come, you're blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'" Right? This is predestination language, not eschatological judgment language. The sheep were guaranteed a kingdom from before the foundation of the world. Before they did anything bad or didn't do anything good, they were guaranteed a kingdom from before the foundation of the world. Then he says, he explains to them, like the context that, as you said before, that reveals that they were sheep all along. [00:45:02] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:45:02] Tony Arsenal: It shows them that they were already... Man, I just, just made this connection in my head. This is the parable of the wheat and of the tares- Yep ... coming to fruition- Exactly ... at the end of time. Right. Right? The sheep and the goats were allowed to mingle until the time came when they would be separated, just as the wheat and the tares were allowed to grow up until the time when they would be reaped and separated. This is what's going on. The sheep did things that sheep do. Those on the right did the things that the people on the right would do because they were part of God's blessed kingdom all along.  [00:45:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:45:35] Tony Arsenal: And then he goes on to explain what the people on the left did not do, not because now they've been put on the left because they didn't do it, but they were shown to have always been a part of that, part of that population. They were always goats because of these things. This shows that they were goats all along, and they did these things or failed to do these things because they were goats all along.  [00:45:58] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:45:59] Works Righteousness Trap [00:45:59] Jesse Schwamb: Let me read another verse. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children and also our brethren to believe in Christ and to be reconciled to God. For we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do." My guess is everybody was with me- ... sounded kind of okay until that last part. And if you had that, like, as we say, like, that theological muscle memory that just made you flex or bristle there, or you had the Spidey Sense, as you say, Tony, good, because that's from 2 Nephi 25:23 from the Book of Mormon. And here's what I wanna say that's shocking, is if we read this passage of scripture that we're talking about as if there's something there that we need to do that proves that we've done enough and that somehow God will be pleased with that, even at the end of time in some small way, some modicum, then we're actually acting way more like Mormons than we are like Christians. That's just the bottom line. Yeah. Because Mormons, if you ask about this verse, rather than try to qualify that last statement by saying, "Well, that's misunderstood," or, "It's really not after all you can do," because of course it begs the question how do you know that you've done enough? How you don't- you've done all the things and that you're, you're exhausted. Their explanation of this is to double down on it and say, "Well, the context of that verse is following verse 23 actually does emphasize salvation only coming through Christ, but it also encourages continued observance of the law of Moses in order to be reconciled to God." Because that's all they could do until Christ fulfilled the law through his atonement. Even that is nonsense. So all of this to say, we have to be careful with this because I, I think you're right. We're aligning, we're running right up on this, and that is I would submit to you that we just get distracted because we always, of course, want to bring something to the party here. The, the salvation cake. We wanna, I don't know, we wanna make it, we wanna do. But God is doing all the things on our behalf. And so as a result of that, I think this parable is actually, it's about the divine prerogative and the agency of Christ in judgment at the end which belongs to him and him alone, and not about these actions. But we get caught up in the actions and we're missing this thri- divine prerogative. I also think that Christ gives this to us to reverse it on us and to show us that he sets about all things. It is in fact his foreordination and his providence. By grace we have been saved through faith, and that in providence being predestined is an act of his great love. And so this shows the extent of that love because those whom he has chosen himself are asking in disbelief as if to say, "When did I do the good works that you required?" And he said, "Well, you didn't because you could never do them apart from me."  [00:48:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:48:38] Jesse Schwamb: And so really that's the whole point. It's just so easy for us to get it twisted and say, "Well, doesn't it make sense that there are two groups?" Well, certainly there are in this passage. And doesn't it make good sense that because he said they did things or they didn't do things, then I just need to be about doing those things. And I think that is unfortunately the adventure in missing the point in this passage.  [00:48:58] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I, I agree 100%. And it's funny 'cause you were reading that and I was like What translation of J- of First John is it? It sound, I mean, it sounds like, it sounds like something you'd read in First John It sounds okay  [00:49:09] Jesse Schwamb: until  [00:49:10] Tony Arsenal: the end. Yeah. No, I mean, like, it literally sounds like First John until- Yeah ... you get to that last part.  [00:49:14] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.  [00:49:15] Tony Arsenal: And, and I think you're right that, um, we'll, we'll explore this more next week, but what has always struck me about this passage is that the, the p- the, the people on His right, I've gotta stop saying sheep, because that's... I just made the point that that's not really what's going on. The people on His right who are called into the kingdom because it was prepared for them before the foundation, because they were elected unto that kingdom. The people on His right, they're surprised at the fact that they did these things. And it, I, I think the works righteousness way of reading this is like, "You better earn your salvation. You better get at it because if you haven't fed Jesus in disguise, then you just aren't gonna make it. At the end of the day- Mm ... He's gonna say, 'I never knew you.'" And it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, sometimes I think intentionally, it implies that we, uh, that Jesus comes to know us because we've done good works, right? When we say, "If you don't do these things, then Jesus will say, 'I never knew you,'" then what you're saying is Jesus doesn't know you apart from your good works. Right. And what the Bible says, what this passage says, just right on the face of it, is that the Kingdom of Heaven was prepared for those whom Christ has elected before the foundation of the world, or who the Father has elected, who are blessed by the Father before the foundation of the world. Now, obviously the Father had to know those people in some sense-  [00:50:43] Jesse Schwamb: That's  [00:50:43] Tony Arsenal: right ... before the foundation of the world in order for them to be blessed by Him and for Him to prepare a kingdom. So then to come back to the end of it and say, "Well, there are some of those, uh, who the Father never knew because they didn't do enough work," well, the problem is that those who did the good work, the Father knew before they did the good works. They didn't merit the good works. I mean- Right ... it's funny you, you bring up the, the Mormons, and that's certainly true, but, like, you could substitute in, at least on this regard, right? There are meaningful, important differences between the groups I'm about to say and Mormons, that would be the dividing line between those who are possibly saved and those who are y- definitely not saved, right? You could substitute Arminians, who wanna say God looks down the corridor of time, and the reason He prepared a kingdom in advance for them from the foundation of the world is 'cause He saw that they would do these things that would merit salvation, or He saw that they would make the proper decision to receive His grace, right? Or Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxes in a different sense, but similarly who would say like, "Well, yeah, God knows in advance that you're gonna merit salvation, so He prepared- Right ... this kingdom anticipating your merit that you would contribute or your participation or, or whatever." I think in a certain sense, um, you could even apply this to some Lutheran theology, right? Which would say, like, "Well, God prepared this kingdom for you from the foundation of the world because he looked down the corridor of time and he understood that you were not going to resist the grace he gave," right? You were not gonna reject his grace. Um, it really truly only is Reformed theology that can say, "No, God prepared this kingdom in advance for you, and it was the preparation of that kingdom that brought you through this such that you did the good works that you did, such that you made the wise decision to follow Christ that you did. That is caused by the fact that God prepared a kingdom for you in advance, not that you somehow caused this kingdom to be prepared for you." A- and aga- again, again, like, this is dicey. It gets into, like, logical ordering, but fundamentally, a- as far as I can understand it, every competing view besides sort of a Calvinistic understanding of predestination election has to say that in some sense God prepares the kingdom for you as a response to something you have done, or chose- Right to do or chose not to do. The reality is that this passage is saying, "No To those who are on the right. He didn't separate them based on the fact that they did these things. He just said, "You are on the right, and now to those who are on the right, I say to you, come into the kingdom that is blessed. You're blessed by my Father. Come into this kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world." So I think, you know, we're c

Which Bible translation does GotQuestions.org think is best? Which Bible translations does GotQuestions.org and BibleRef.com use? What are the different Bible translation methodologies?

This week's Torah portion covers Numbers 25:10–30:1, and it is titled Pinchas. Phinehas is the name used in English Bibles, so that's the name I will use in this podcast. Phinehas was a prominent biblical priest whose leadership started in the wilderness wanderings and continued into the early period of the Judges. He was the grandson of Aaron and the eventual High Priest of Israel. Phinehas is most famous for a violent moment of righteous rage. However, the Bible offers a much longer testament to the fullness of his character, telling a bigger story of his faithful obedience to God.Support the showConsider donating (one-time or recurring) to www.TheJerusalemConnection.us so we can continue to bring valuable content via podcasts free to the public. Help us increase our audience reach and improve production quality. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible to our non-profit organization. Bible Fiber and The Red Alert Report are available via YouTube and all major podcast platforms. The Jerusalem Connection also engages in additional educational and advocacy programs. Check our "Projects" tab for all the endeavors we invite YOU to be part of.

Text the Show⭐️ Affiliate item of the week: The Lexham English Septuagint (LES) is a new translation of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament writings used during New Testament times and in the early church. Retaining the familiar forms of personal names and places, the LES gives readers the ability to read it alongside their favored English Bible. Translated directly from Swete's edition of the Septuagint, the LES maintains the meaning of the original text, making the Septuagint accessible to readers today. https://amzn.to/44wwLLUNo guest tonight so we will be going on a few journey's with you all back in time and looking ahead to a future that is taking shape right in front of us today. Join us live in the chats, phone line will be open for you to call in 248-238-8155.The Secret History of Lyme Disease and Biological Weapons article."Are modern alien-hybrid stories like Raechel's Eyes simply the latest version of an ancient narrative that once appeared as Watchers, Nephilim, fae, changelings, demigods, and hidden bloodlines? Have the entities changed—or just the names we've given them?"What if the world ended... and nobody noticed? What if history changed, but only some people remembered the way it used to be? SUPPORTBuy Me A Coffee http://buymeacoffee.com/DangerousinfopodcastSubscribeStar http://bit.ly/42Y0qM8Super Chat Tip https://bit.ly/42W7iZHBuzzsprout https://bit.ly/3m50hFTPaypal http://bit.ly/3Gv3ZjpPatreon http://bit.ly/3G3 SMART is the acronym that was created by technocrats that have setup the "internet of things" that will eventually enslave humanity to their needs. Support the showLeave Voicemail: https://www.speakpipe.com/DangerousInfoWebsite https://www.dangerousinfopodcast.com/Discord chatroom: https://discord.gg/8feGHQQmwgEmail the show dangerousinfopodcast@protonmail.comJoin mailing list http://bit.ly/3Kku5YtWatch LiveYouTube https://www.youtube.com/@DANGEROUSINFOPODCASTRumble https://bit.ly/4q1Mg7Z Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/dangerousinfopodcastPilled.net https://pilled.net/profile/144176  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DangerousInfoPodcast/SocialsInstagram https://www.instagram.com/dangerousinfo/TwitterX https://twitter.com/jaymz_jesseYouTube https://bit.ly/436VExnFacebook https://bit.ly/4gZbjVa

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week was part one of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union, and he explained to us a bit about who the Gnostic Union is and what they believe in. At the beginning of that episode, I read from the Gnostic Union website their history and mission statement. And my brother Billy called me up and said, “Oh, but there’s a point of their theology that’s all wrong. I know they’re ecumenical and all, but we mustn’t fall into the error of wrong teaching.” And, you know, I totally agree with that concept, not teaching anything that is incorrect or that doesn’t make sense, according to the Gnosticism that I share with you here. And it created a very large discussion between my brother and me. And I don’t even have enough time in this short introduction to go into the point that Bill brought up out of their statement of beliefs. So we’ll wait and we’ll do that when these interviews are all over and that way we can go into depth and give the topic the attention it deserves. You see, the Gnosticism that I share with you here mostly comes from the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi. And the Tripartite Tractate is a very unusual book. It is not a book of mythology. It is not a book of ancient myths concerning angels and demigods and great battles in heaven and so forth. It’s not that kind of book. We think of it as physics. It’s literally a book that describes the cosmology and the cosmogony, that is, how consciousness came to be transmitted from the base state of consciousness that we call the Father or the Source, and all the way downstream into, ultimately, us. We’re sitting here talking and thinking about it. This is pure consciousness we’re talking about. It’s not particularities. You understand? Gnosis itself we think of as that river of consciousness. That’s what gnosis is. So, I often say, if my dog can’t understand the gnosis, it’s not really gnosis—it's a knowledge claim. If a blade of grass or a tree in the forest can’t bask in the gnosis, then it’s not really gnosis. It’s a human knowledge claim. This is the reason why here at Gnostic Insights and on the Gnostic Reformation, we do not dwell in the history of things. We dwell in the understanding or the gnosis itself. The cosmogony and cosmology of Gnosticism that I share with you here is a logical step-by-step rollout of the consciousness of the Father or the Source. It doesn’t really matter what you call it. It’s the base state. It’s the matrix of consciousness itself and how it flows down to us. There are necessary steps described in the Tripartite Tractate for how that consciousness is differentiated and particularized and then rolled down. And how it is that we material beings are different than the ethereal beings. How could that have possibly happened? It’s like that. It’s a logical progression that necessarily comes out of an a priori statement of consciousness as the ground state. That’s quite a bit different than mythologies of how these angels fit in with these gods and goddesses down here on earth and so forth. Because those particularities definitely come out of the mind of humans. They can be inspired. Okay, I’ll give you that. But they are knowledge claims. They’re not necessarily gnosis and because of that they can go wrong. They can be wrong. Whereas starting with this a priori notion of consciousness ending up in us and how does that occur? By what means does that possibly happen? And how is it that we earthlings plug into that illimitable consciousness? That’s a different thing. That’s a description of process. That’s an understanding or a gnosis of what it is that we are part of. 15 steps in Gnostic Cosmology So I’m not knocking the history or the particularities that Bishop Wilson shares with us. But the gnosis that leads you to enlightenment is simply this: We come from the Father [El Elyon] or from the Source or from the Mother-Father or from the Great Mother—whatever you want to call it. We come from that Source, that unlimited well of consciousness and life and power and might and love. And then we will return to that. That’s all you have to know. We come from Above and we return to Above. And with that knowledge, that’s your base state. That’s what the blades of grass and the dogs and the trees all understand. All the rest of the particularities of who and why and how, those are just details being filled in. Some of them out of gnosis, but most of them out of tradition or history. So we’ll be proceeding now into part two of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. And later on, we’re going to talk some more about the difference between mythology and the process of gnosis. That is what this podcast specializes in. That’s what my brother Bill and I have parsed out and discovered out of direct mining of the Tripartite Tractate. Our gnosis comes from that and it proceeds in an orderly fashion that doesn’t require any extra research. It’s all about gnosis and what must be. But here, let’s go back to this interview with Brother Wilson. **************************************************************** Cyd: Well, tell me more about your Bible that you wrote. What do you call it? You call it… Bishop Nathan Wilson: I call it The Gnostic Christian Truth Bible. I actually asked one of the older bishops that trained me, Bishop Jason, and he started that. So, I like the name. So, I thought, okay, I want to put Gnostic Christian in there. So, I was going to call it first the Truth Bible. He requested that, but I thought, well, Gnostic Christian makes it less likely for the Catholics to come after me as well, and the Protestants. Many do not like my translations. They are quite upset that I’ve done this, but they don’t put too much light on me. So, it’s best not to give me too much attention, basically. So, the less attention I have, the less people know about this, but which is something unique about mine. I don’t just offer my translations. I offer the original Koine Greek with it, so they can look at the actual text. So, even if my translation, say, could be wrong, they could look straight at that text and go argue with the text that they see, which I also wanted to include for their own reason, and when I included the alternative English, it’s so I might read it one way, but someone else is going to read it another way, and that can teach me something new. I feel, oh, I didn’t understand it like that. So, that’s why I wanted to keep that in there too, and a couple of words I kept in there were Greek. So, I kept Logos. I kept Kosmos, Zoe, Sophia, Archon. Magus. I kept all these words. So, very, very Gnostic, and you won’t find these in the English translations. They have gone out of their ways to censor them. I also kept the word daemon or daimon, daemon, so I did not put that down as demon because that’s not what it means. So, I kept the original Greek context of use, and I also add a Greek, Koine Greek, index in my translation so people can actually look at little snippets of what these words mean. So, I have some things in here. So, this is just on one page on basically all Greek with English meaning. So, there’s Logos, which I explained means God’s word, God’s authority, God’s reasoning, song, and speech, and utterance. So, when you see Christians speak that Jesus is speaking the Word, or in the beginning there was Word, they are doing a disservice to what’s being implied. This is the word of God. Very different, and even the word God we use is very English. I did keep up, but for the English sake of things. So, English people wouldn’t freak out too much on me, and another thing is also a safer mouthful, because this Word means supreme deity, deity of deities, which is very interesting. Otherwise, we would go into a god, which is lesser gods as well. So, we have a pantheon. So, it was very different, like even monotheism would evolve into what we think it is today, but in the ancient past with ancient Jewish people, they did believe in other gods, it’s just they chose to worship one god. So, this would be not the same as monotheism now, where you completely reject them as non-existent. This wasn’t that case. So, they had a very different mind. So I kept Sophia being wisdom. I mentioned this is how this is feminine wisdom, God’s feminine wisdom, coming from the Hebrew word Chokmah. Sometimes those are called Chokmah. So, I kept that in there as Sophia. Zoe, I kept too, meaning basically when you see eternal Zoe, that’s eternal life. So, that’s implying the feminine wisdom again, but also the spiritual benefits one receives with a spiritual relationship with God, or what’s with mine. So, I kept that in there. So, it’s very feminine, and that’s being removed. They would not want you to know that life is Zoe, and there’s other words they could have used for life or soul, but they chose to use the word Zoe, and that’s important. So, I kept that in there. And I’ve also got Megas. I’ve already mentioned that, but Magus comes from—here’s two words that are entwined, but the thing was the church has used a later translation, which would be terrible, but that’s kind of wrong, and this is because the language would evolve over time. It came to words Megus and Magos, which basically would be Magi, and then great and powerful, larger than life. So, Jesus was also called Iesous Magos. So, Jesus the Great, Jesus the Wise, has been censored because of Magus, and they don’t want you to know about Simon Magus. They don’t want you to know anything about Gnosticism. So, this has been censored, and I’ve also put some passages where find this. I kept Daemon in here, or Diamon. Gehenna, I also translated in here. I kept Gehenna. I did not use hell because hell is German. It’s realm of light in German, so it’s a Germanic word. So, I kept the word Gehenna, which is ultimately what we would kind of call hell, but it’s not what people think it is. That’s an evolved tradition. So, Gehenna or even Abaddon, these are two different words, but the same thing. Gehenna was the place where the soul was destroyed or purified. So, the text can translate to eternal punishment, but that’s not strictly bound to it. That’s more would be a later theology bound to that translation where it means period of time. So, it doesn’t necessarily mean all these different things. It’s like the word soma where it’s all about Jesus’ body. It can be living body, dead body, or a carcass, or even the living body of the church, which is more symbolic, but fascinating. I also kept in here a couple words, such as I explained Hades, which is mentioned with Sheol and how that’s separate from Gehenna. I’ve kept Helios, Selene, Astron, or Asterios, as well as Aletheia. These words are very interesting because they are all gods. They’re all Greco-Roman gods. So, the scholars or, I really should say, a Christian apologist, that state there’s no pagan gods in the New Testament—they are entirely wrong. It’s just that they have looked at it in a modern Greek eye instead of looking at an ancient past—they would have seen the gods being mentioned. So that’s very interesting. So when Jesus says that the stars and the sun is falling, he’s not speaking about the sun and stars. He’s speaking about the Helios, the Roman sun god is falling, and the stars and goddesses falling, as well as Selene, the moon, so the moon goddess. That’s the falling of the pagan Roman gods that was subjecting the Jewish people. So very different theology. So theology matters. So we have to look at how people believed back these times. [Jesus speaks of the stars, moon, and sun in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Luke 21:25. Assigning them as gods and goddesses is Bishop Wilson's interpretation.] The Jewish people did not like the Romans. Not saying that all of them did not. We had some that were pro-Roman. One of the Romans that was involved in the Jewish revolt, fighting against the Jewish people, was Jewish, which is cool. And he was related to Philo of Alexandria. So very interesting. I think he might be his grandson. Cyd: Let me jump in for a second as we’re speaking about gods and the God Above All Gods versus lesser gods. Is it your thought that the God of the Jews of the Old Testament, Jehovah, is a lesser god as opposed to the God Above All Gods? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes. Cyd: Okay, so Jehovah is the tribal god of the Old Testament? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes, a bit of a mix. So there’s two gods. Well, there’s a couple, if you’ve got to go every single god being mentioned. But what they’re describing is, say, Deuteronomy 32:8, you have El Elyon dividing up the nations according to the Elohim being children of El, and Yahweh received his inheritance from the most high God. So Yahweh was more like a guardian deity, basically. He was a brother of Baal. But some Canaanites believed that Yahweh was Baal. So Yahweh kind of came later after Baal. But the first to worship Yahweh were the Sashu of Yahweh. So they were Canaanite raiders. Hebrew was also a Canaanite language.  [The earliest trace of Yahweh isn't Israelite—it's desert-born. Egyptian inscriptions speak of the “Shasu of YHW,” nomadic peoples on the edges of Canaan, sometimes regarded as raiders. It suggests the name of Yahweh may have emerged out of the wilderness before it was ever claimed by Israel. Even Hebrew itself comes out of the same Canaanite linguistic world.] So I see the views—the ones that were worshipping El would be the ones that would become the Essenes or Jewish mystics. So the Essenes worshipped El. They didn’t worship Yahweh. They viewed Yahweh as a lesser god, which is one reason they challenged the temple, because they viewed, you guys aren’t worshipping God, you’re worshipping the lesser deity, you’re worshipping an angel. And so they rejected the temple. And the priesthood was corrupt. So then you also had the Magharians or Magarites. They were first century BC era Jews. They were proto-Gnostic, so that’s a scholar term. So they were Jewish mystics. They believed that Yahweh was a demiurge and that he was a lieutenant. So not an evil demiurge, but he was ignorant of the most high Father El Elyon, but that’s not a name to them. That was just a title meaning most high God. So they didn’t believe in God with a name, the unknowable Father, they believed was beyond sex as well. So Mother-Father, basically. So beyond all things. Too perfect to interfere with matter. And they believed that the Torah had been corrupted. So that’s fascinating. So that’s a group that we want to talk about. So we had about 25 different versions of Judaism during that time with all different beliefs. So what type of Jew was Jesus? This makes a big, big difference. So not all Jews worshipped Yahweh. Some viewed him as a lesser God and some viewed him as the devil, which is whack. So the only Gnostics or proto-Gnostics would use that word devil at that time. So we have the wisdom of Solomon, which is the first text adored by Christians that they would say, look, this is our Messiah mentioning he’s a dying and rising Messiah calling himself the Son of God and he’s been crucified. So this means that just like our text, he would die a shameful death. But this text mentions that through death, the devil enters the world. So the Pharisees didn’t believe in the devil. The Sadducees didn’t either. But what’s interesting about the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Herodians, which kind of made up both these groups, they were a part of both, just the Herodians mostly supported King Herod. They believed that either King Herod was the Messiah or his family would be, or they belonged to the Sadducees and didn’t believe in a Messiah. So the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels. They didn’t believe in an afterlife. They believed once you were dead, the soul turned to dust. God was too perfect to interfere with humans. So that’s an interesting belief. But we had different subsects of Sadducees that had a different opinion to that. They believed that God did interfere with humans, but we had total free will. So they could interfere with some things, but there was no Messiah. There was no angels. So they believed that a human could be a messenger of God. That was about it. So like Moses. Then you had the Pharisees. They believed that Satan served Yahweh. His job was to test humanity or seduce humanity away from God. So that way mankind had free will. But some Pharisees didn’t believe that. They believed that Satan, Hasatan, was just symbolic for mankind’s inclination towards evil. So they didn’t believe in an evil being. So their belief was that God ordained good and evil, basically, would use evil for his own will. So that’s trippy, very trippy. So the Pharisees had a very different belief. They didn’t believe in the adversary against God. They didn’t believe in fallen angels. Later on, they would take on this belief, borrowing it from mystics and zealots. So funny enough, they would be influenced by Jesus’ teachings, such as saving a life on the Sabbath. The Pharisees would not do that. But to be fair, some Essenes wouldn’t do that either. Some Essenes were very warlike, wanting to join God’s angelic army fighting at the Armageddon of the last days of the world. But these mystics, they are the only groups that believed in fallen angels and believed in a place of punishment. The only groups. And that’s fascinating. So they believed in a physical adversary against God. And these beliefs are carried on in the Christianity with the Armageddon day, or even the belief that God basically allows Satan to do what he wants, but he’s going to conquer over him. That was an Essene belief. They believed that Belial was the adversary against God, a fallen angel, leader of the fallen angels, and God would allow him the sin because he would destroy him in the end. So that was an Essene belief, but not all that belief. Some believed that basically fallen angels chose to rebel against God, so they had free will and that God would overcome them in the end. So that’s different. So we have to look at those beliefs because that makes a big difference in theology as well. And one reason I chose to keep daemon or daimon in the text is because this doesn’t mean Jesus is casting out evil demons, but rather, well, the ghost of the mystic belief of pagan gods were fallen angels. So he’s casting out pagan gods, or he’s just casting out unclean spirits, depending on what the definition of word is, because that daimon or unclean spirit, for instance, isn’t always referenced to a pagan god. It’s just someone who’s died vengeful or angry at God, and is now just a ghost causing haunting. So it depends on how it’s being used. So I kept those words in there. So if the word said unclean spirit, I kept that as unclean spirit. But if it was going into a daimon for a pagan god, basically I’ll keep it as that daimon, so they could choose how they’re going to read it. Because sometimes you’re dealing with two things at once. Sometimes you’re dealing with an unclean spirit, then a pagan god’s being mentioned too. So this archon ruler’s having little other minions subject under him. So we even have an archon ruler being mentioned. So an archon of the daemons, ruler of pagan gods. So other gods had dominions, basically. So they viewed these other gods having their own realms of power, which we also see in the Gnostic text. So I kept all that. I also kept the archon of the synagogue, which is a ruler of the synagogue. So it’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s just political rulers that are mentioned. So an archon of the Gentiles, for instance, is just a ruler of Gentiles, just a politician. I have kept archons in the sense of Yahweh somewhat, I believe, as being the devil. Because in John 8:44, we have Jesus going up to the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians who made up the high priesthood. He says, You are of your father, the devil. But if only these Gnostic Jews believed in the devil and their God is Yahweh, who’s he calling devil? And then when the daemons are calling him Son of the most high God, they’re calling him huios, which means son. Huios tou theou tou hypsistou, which is Greek for Son of the most high God. But if you put this in the Hebrew, it’s Son of El Elyon. So this is what the pagan gods are calling him. So the lesser gods. And then he’s also saying that we’re all the children of El Elyon, which is also fascinating. And also the word for son they’re using just means child. It can be male or female. But again, they’re wanting a male audience. So they restricted it, which is a shame. Cyd: How about the word aeon? A E O N. What do you do with that word? You know, in my work with the Tripartite Tractate, it seems to me that most references of aeon in the New Testament translate it as time, a period of time, or the end of the ages, the ages. Whereas I tend to see it always as eternal beings from the ethereal plane. What do you think about that? Bishop Nathan Wilson: I love that. I think that too. I think it’s a mixture of all these things, which is also, I keep, it depends on the context of use. But a lot of times you do see the text that is referring to a higher being, which is beautiful to mention, especially when you’re looking at Gnostic works. But you do see this in the New Testament as well. So you see one text mentioning, for instance, who is this Sophia and this higher power? And that’s how the text can translate too, which is fascinating. So that means who’s this unknown higher power. And then it mentions about the Aeon. And so you see all this sort of stuff being mentioned. Yes, it means an eternal being or an angelic being, but it can also mean eternity or a period of time. So depending on the context of use. So words have power as well. So that’s interesting. So again, how it’s used can make a world of a difference. And it’s interesting when they’re using certain words because there are some times that they could have chosen to use a different word. So when they’ve used a certain word like that, that can change the entire context of meaning. Cyd: Right. Like saying there’s some reference to judgment at the end of the age. And I’m always thinking that it’s judgment from the Aeons when I see that. But I’m not translating from scratch, I’m taking biblical translation, so what do I know? Bishop Nathan Wilson: You’re spot on though. So you’re correct. So it can translate that as well. And we have to realize that we have different versions of Christianity. So that’s certainly appropriate for a first century understanding. Most people are looking at from fourth century. So you’re looking at it from a first century point of view. And so you’re ahead of others in that sort of case, which is beautiful to see. So that’s rare. And I chose to keep that for that reason. So people can have their own conclusions, not having it forced onto them. Cyd: You are very much into the history of things. You’re an historian. I am not at all interested in history per se. I’m always talking about what other people believed in other times. That is not pertinent to our gnosis here and now. So what do you view the purpose of this deep historical knowledge that you have concerning the Jews and the Essenes and whatnot? And is it necessary to go into all of that? Bishop Nathan Wilson: If you want to, I guess, teach from a historical perspective as well as a spiritual one, then yes. But if you want to go for spiritual, you can just go by the heart. There were plenty of spiritual teachers that were illiterate, that could not read, that could not write, and they had a beautiful message. So there’s something more powerful that we can receive within that you won’t obtain from books. But ultimately, you can also have wisdom gained from books. It can be a form of worship or a form of connecting with the divine as well. We have many forms of worship or many forms of experience what’s divine or having that intimate moment with what’s divine to reflect and to deepen our purpose. I wanted to know the historical man we call Jesus and ultimately put into practice what he put into practice. So I wanted to look at the history side of things and especially also, what’s another word I would like to use, decondition myself, decondition past beliefs that were harmful, that did not serve me and ultimately not serving others, and also find out that I was wrong about many things, which I wanted to know as well. So what brought me to this was to know the man we call Jesus, Yeshua, or Yehoshua, whichever term you like, whichever name you want to use. So I want to know not just that, but I want to know his practices, what he did with his life, how his first followers lived, how the first Christians lived, and what I could use for my own spiritual path and how I could put that into practice. So that’s why I want to look at the history side of things. I think if you want to put into practice the different techniques of all the many different Gnostics, then you’re going to have to look at some of the history side of things to find those practices. That doesn’t mean that every single practice is necessary for you. So what works for me might not work for others. What works for others might not work for me. So double-edged sword. Cyd: What sort of practices are you referring to? Are these rituals? What’s the practices? Bishop Nathan Wilson: I go into some of the ancient rituals as well. Some of them I might look at the prayers that they would use, the diet they would take, or means of worship. So how they would go about their forms of private practice. So that sort of stuff. And then I might apply it into my own life and see how I can go. There’s still more I’d like to go and check out more. So I’m still studying a couple of some of the ancient practices as well. So from different or religious perspectives as well. And then I can see how I can put it to my own form of use. So I looked at a lot of Jewish Christians, they would do the shema for instance, before their meditations. And I’ll do that as well. [“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one… You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength…”] They also did breath works back then, which would also induce a sense of intoxication if you want to use, or light headness. And in turn that can also open a new state of reality. So entering the spiritual realm can be a vehicle, if you will, to get there. So to open the mind. And that’s also a practice that’s been used in ancient past. And we can certainly use that today. We have modern practices, say like Wim Hof, that teach breath work in meditation. That’s also useful. So sometimes looking at the past, we do see stuff in today’s world that’s not really new. It’s just being basically reentering this world again, from past knowledge gained of old. And I find that in a lot of Gnostic stuff. When you look at history, you kind of see that Gnostics kind of did a lot of things first, that what we’re doing now that we think is modern, but it’s not. It’s ancient. Cyd: That’s why conventional Christians who read my books, they say, oh, you’re just all new age. And I’m like, no, it’s not new age at all. It’s ancient. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Which is a shame that Christians have been shut off into their own world, which is kind of funny. I actually tell most Christians that they are, in fact, new age, because these beliefs are ancient. And what they are going by is, depending on what version of Christianity, if you’re Protestant, that’s 16th century, I believe. Non-denominal, 18th century. Protestant, 16th century. Catholicism, late second century. Orthodoxy, as we know it now, would be about 14th century. But older Orthodoxy, which would be the split from the Catholic church, is fourth century. So it’s when you go to Gnostic Christians, first century, and we’re really the only groups that are surviving, the Jewish Christians got killed. They ultimately were wiped out or would convert to mainstream Judaism or would become Christian or Islam, they would follow as well. So some would be converted to Muslims, which is also interesting as well. We as Gnostics were also harmed by these other groups, by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims as well. At one point Zoroastrians, but that was only one particular era. And we’ve basically arisen from all that, from that underground, and we’ve still survived, which is fascinating. It’s beautiful that we have. And also the texts that have been rediscovered, this is not accidental. This is all happening for a reason. What’s divine is experiencing itself where it can experience itself and express itself again safely in today’s world. In ancient past, it was dangerous to have diversion after the fourth century, which is a shame because the Catholics would kill those who came before them. They didn’t like that. And they even knew that some of the Gnostics, they had older writings, but they still denied them, which is funny. So it’s why such the hate, which is such a shame. So it goes back to that control of power, my way or the highway, basically. And it was never meant to be like that. It was meant to be very universal. It was meant to be very diverse. The first Christians were Gnostics and Jewish Christians, a mixture between strict law observing Jews and a mixture of Gentiles. And then you had the Jewish mystics that became the Christian mystics, which is fascinating. That was the original groups. And the original groups would argue amongst each other. The strict law observing Jews wanted circumcision, where the mystics said, no, no circumcision of the hearts, let the Gentiles come. That’s fine. So even when we look at the word, say, ethnos, for instance, in the Gospels, when you see kingdom against kingdom, nation against nation, these are the same things. So what they’re actually talking about is Gentile against Gentile and kingdom against kingdom. So the Jewish people didn’t have a kingdom at this stage. It was a mixture of Judea, Galilee and Samaria. So we’re the Samaritans. So that’s also something to take into account, too. So they didn’t like that. They were looking for a messiah to reunify the Jewish people, restore the Jewish faith and make Israel a kingdom again. And so some of them didn’t like the fact that Jesus wasn’t after this, for instance. So they didn’t like some of these teachings. It was a bit different. But if you look at the mystics, they had a very different interpretations. They did believe in a renewal of the Jewish faith, but a renewal back to El Elyon and a rejection of Yahweh. So that’s very different. So when you look at repentance, for Israel to repent, meaning for all of Israel to return back to El Elyon. And if you look at for the Gentiles conversion, that would be referring to not converting to any religion, but converting to God. So God outside religion. So fascinating. So you see all this in the original text. Cyd: And why do you suppose, this might be an unanswerable question, but why do you suppose conventional modern Christians are so, you know, extremely antagonistic towards Gnostic Christians? Is it fear or what? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Well, they’ve been told you're the enemy, basically. And yes, some of it is fear. Fear as well of the unknown. And also because of the need of an opponent. So they believe that they are doing a good thing. And if they don’t do this, they can be punished. So it’s the case of where a victim becomes an abuser. So most Christians have never even heard about Gnostics. It’s only the real ones who are into spiritual warfare, basically, and really full on extremist dogmatic ones that are familiar with, and apologetics. But they are now feeling like they’re losing the battle because more people were interested in Gnosticism and especially interested in other Jewish groups and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Nag Hammadi. So they’re realizing their other texts and there’s other options now. And that’s great. And regarding even my translations, one reason I chose to do it that I did, I found out that no modern English Bible translates from one source material. They’re all a mixture of different sources. So we have the Codex Sinaiticus mixed with the Latin Vulgate, mixing with Germanic copies, and then mixing ancient Koine Greek into modern Hebrew, putting it back into Greek. And that’s not good at all. So we’re just changing—we’re swapping chapters because we feel uncomfortable with them. So I was mortified when I was looking at that. And so I realized I couldn’t trust basically my Bible anymore. So I thought, well, I’m making this myself. And then I thought, well, I’m going to release it. Let’s go and share it too and do what they will with it. And it opened a lot of doorways to me, actually. So that’s one reason I wanted to give that out so people can have their own faith in their own interpretation and also believe in the message of Yeshua, bringing people back to the Most High God, to the Unknowable God, the Living Father, the Mother-Father. And we also see the Mother being mentioned in other texts too. It’s just mostly blocked out by mainstream Christianity, which is unfair, unfair to women and unfair to humanity with their approaches. It’s been very violent. So we need to remove that violence because that’s nothing to do with Yeshua’s teachings. He didn’t teach us to go around fighting each other. He said, Those who are for me are with me. They don’t understand his message. They very much follow the Catholic teachings of Paul that they’ve been given. And so they can look at the Gnostic teachings of Paul as well, which are also in there. Paul’s letters, we now know they’re mostly all forgeries. We don’t have any original copies either. They’re all later fourth century and we have some second century fragments. But the oldest reference to Paul is from the Ten Letters of Marcion. And he’s the man who compiled the first Christian Bible. And some people can argue, some people don’t believe he was a Gnostic. Others think he was a Gnostic. I think he was a type of Gnostic because he believed in a demiurge. So he believed that the God of the Jews was Yahweh and not the Supreme God of Jesus. That is a very Gnostic belief. But the thing is, the word Gnostic was given to us by the Catholic church, was a way of separating us and identifying us. But we wear it as a badge of honor because we understand they’re just calling us knowledgeable Christians, which is kind of funny. So language is powerful and the Catholic church certainly forgot it. So because of them, we now use daimon as demon. So they’ve basically demonized Jesus. They’ve demonized the Holy Spirit, which is their greatest sin. And they’ve demonized God and every other God. So they don’t know what damage they’ve done. And that’s not good. So I wanted to reverse that damage and bring people back to what I believe is the message of Yeshua, of Jesus, and to have their own spiritual relationship with God, an individual relationship, which is something that I want to see more of. That’s a very beautiful thing. You can’t define that intimate experience without living it. Cyd: Right, right. Well, that's all we have time for in this episode. We'll pick it up again next week for part three of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union Church.  I like the way he talks, huh? Until next week, onward and upward and God bless us all.

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week was part one of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union, and he explained to us a bit about who the Gnostic Union is and what they believe in. At the beginning of that episode, I read from the Gnostic Union website their history and mission statement. And my brother Billy called me up and said, “Oh, but there’s a point of their theology that’s all wrong. I know they’re ecumenical and all, but we mustn’t fall into the error of wrong teaching.” And, you know, I totally agree with that concept, not teaching anything that is incorrect or that doesn’t make sense, according to the Gnosticism that I share with you here. And it created a very large discussion between my brother and me. And I don’t even have enough time in this short introduction to go into the point that Bill brought up out of their statement of beliefs. So we’ll wait and we’ll do that when these interviews are all over and that way we can go into depth and give the topic the attention it deserves. You see, the Gnosticism that I share with you here mostly comes from the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi. And the Tripartite Tractate is a very unusual book. It is not a book of mythology. It is not a book of ancient myths concerning angels and demigods and great battles in heaven and so forth. It’s not that kind of book. We think of it as physics. It’s literally a book that describes the cosmology and the cosmogony, that is, how consciousness came to be transmitted from the base state of consciousness that we call the Father or the Source, and all the way downstream into, ultimately, us. We’re sitting here talking and thinking about it. This is pure consciousness we’re talking about. It’s not particularities. You understand? Gnosis itself we think of as that river of consciousness. That’s what gnosis is. So, I often say, if my dog can’t understand the gnosis, it’s not really gnosis—it's a knowledge claim. If a blade of grass or a tree in the forest can’t bask in the gnosis, then it’s not really gnosis. It’s a human knowledge claim. This is the reason why here at Gnostic Insights and on the Gnostic Reformation, we do not dwell in the history of things. We dwell in the understanding or the gnosis itself. The cosmogony and cosmology of Gnosticism that I share with you here is a logical step-by-step rollout of the consciousness of the Father or the Source. It doesn’t really matter what you call it. It’s the base state. It’s the matrix of consciousness itself and how it flows down to us. There are necessary steps described in the Tripartite Tractate for how that consciousness is differentiated and particularized and then rolled down. And how it is that we material beings are different than the ethereal beings. How could that have possibly happened? It’s like that. It’s a logical progression that necessarily comes out of an a priori statement of consciousness as the ground state. That’s quite a bit different than mythologies of how these angels fit in with these gods and goddesses down here on earth and so forth. Because those particularities definitely come out of the mind of humans. They can be inspired. Okay, I’ll give you that. But they are knowledge claims. They’re not necessarily gnosis and because of that they can go wrong. They can be wrong. Whereas starting with this a priori notion of consciousness ending up in us and how does that occur? By what means does that possibly happen? And how is it that we earthlings plug into that illimitable consciousness? That’s a different thing. That’s a description of process. That’s an understanding or a gnosis of what it is that we are part of. 15 steps in Gnostic Cosmology So I’m not knocking the history or the particularities that Bishop Wilson shares with us. But the gnosis that leads you to enlightenment is simply this: We come from the Father [El Elyon] or from the Source or from the Mother-Father or from the Great Mother—whatever you want to call it. We come from that Source, that unlimited well of consciousness and life and power and might and love. And then we will return to that. That’s all you have to know. We come from Above and we return to Above. And with that knowledge, that’s your base state. That’s what the blades of grass and the dogs and the trees all understand. All the rest of the particularities of who and why and how, those are just details being filled in. Some of them out of gnosis, but most of them out of tradition or history. So we’ll be proceeding now into part two of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of the Gnostic Union. And later on, we’re going to talk some more about the difference between mythology and the process of gnosis. That is what this podcast specializes in. That’s what my brother Bill and I have parsed out and discovered out of direct mining of the Tripartite Tractate. Our gnosis comes from that and it proceeds in an orderly fashion that doesn’t require any extra research. It’s all about gnosis and what must be. But here, let’s go back to this interview with Brother Wilson. **************************************************************** Cyd: Well, tell me more about your Bible that you wrote. What do you call it? You call it… Bishop Nathan Wilson: I call it The Gnostic Christian Truth Bible. I actually asked one of the older bishops that trained me, Bishop Jason, and he started that. So, I like the name. So, I thought, okay, I want to put Gnostic Christian in there. So, I was going to call it first the Truth Bible. He requested that, but I thought, well, Gnostic Christian makes it less likely for the Catholics to come after me as well, and the Protestants. Many do not like my translations. They are quite upset that I’ve done this, but they don’t put too much light on me. So, it’s best not to give me too much attention, basically. So, the less attention I have, the less people know about this, but which is something unique about mine. I don’t just offer my translations. I offer the original Koine Greek with it, so they can look at the actual text. So, even if my translation, say, could be wrong, they could look straight at that text and go argue with the text that they see, which I also wanted to include for their own reason, and when I included the alternative English, it’s so I might read it one way, but someone else is going to read it another way, and that can teach me something new. I feel, oh, I didn’t understand it like that. So, that’s why I wanted to keep that in there too, and a couple of words I kept in there were Greek. So, I kept Logos. I kept Kosmos, Zoe, Sophia, Archon. Magus. I kept all these words. So, very, very Gnostic, and you won’t find these in the English translations. They have gone out of their ways to censor them. I also kept the word daemon or daimon, daemon, so I did not put that down as demon because that’s not what it means. So, I kept the original Greek context of use, and I also add a Greek, Koine Greek, index in my translation so people can actually look at little snippets of what these words mean. So, I have some things in here. So, this is just on one page on basically all Greek with English meaning. So, there’s Logos, which I explained means God’s word, God’s authority, God’s reasoning, song, and speech, and utterance. So, when you see Christians speak that Jesus is speaking the Word, or in the beginning there was Word, they are doing a disservice to what’s being implied. This is the word of God. Very different, and even the word God we use is very English. I did keep up, but for the English sake of things. So, English people wouldn’t freak out too much on me, and another thing is also a safer mouthful, because this Word means supreme deity, deity of deities, which is very interesting. Otherwise, we would go into a god, which is lesser gods as well. So, we have a pantheon. So, it was very different, like even monotheism would evolve into what we think it is today, but in the ancient past with ancient Jewish people, they did believe in other gods, it’s just they chose to worship one god. So, this would be not the same as monotheism now, where you completely reject them as non-existent. This wasn’t that case. So, they had a very different mind. So I kept Sophia being wisdom. I mentioned this is how this is feminine wisdom, God’s feminine wisdom, coming from the Hebrew word Chokmah. Sometimes those are called Chokmah. So, I kept that in there as Sophia. Zoe, I kept too, meaning basically when you see eternal Zoe, that’s eternal life. So, that’s implying the feminine wisdom again, but also the spiritual benefits one receives with a spiritual relationship with God, or what’s with mine. So, I kept that in there. So, it’s very feminine, and that’s being removed. They would not want you to know that life is Zoe, and there’s other words they could have used for life or soul, but they chose to use the word Zoe, and that’s important. So, I kept that in there. And I’ve also got Megas. I’ve already mentioned that, but Magus comes from—here’s two words that are entwined, but the thing was the church has used a later translation, which would be terrible, but that’s kind of wrong, and this is because the language would evolve over time. It came to words Megus and Magos, which basically would be Magi, and then great and powerful, larger than life. So, Jesus was also called Iesous Magos. So, Jesus the Great, Jesus the Wise, has been censored because of Magus, and they don’t want you to know about Simon Magus. They don’t want you to know anything about Gnosticism. So, this has been censored, and I’ve also put some passages where find this. I kept Daemon in here, or Diamon. Gehenna, I also translated in here. I kept Gehenna. I did not use hell because hell is German. It’s realm of light in German, so it’s a Germanic word. So, I kept the word Gehenna, which is ultimately what we would kind of call hell, but it’s not what people think it is. That’s an evolved tradition. So, Gehenna or even Abaddon, these are two different words, but the same thing. Gehenna was the place where the soul was destroyed or purified. So, the text can translate to eternal punishment, but that’s not strictly bound to it. That’s more would be a later theology bound to that translation where it means period of time. So, it doesn’t necessarily mean all these different things. It’s like the word soma where it’s all about Jesus’ body. It can be living body, dead body, or a carcass, or even the living body of the church, which is more symbolic, but fascinating. I also kept in here a couple words, such as I explained Hades, which is mentioned with Sheol and how that’s separate from Gehenna. I’ve kept Helios, Selene, Astron, or Asterios, as well as Aletheia. These words are very interesting because they are all gods. They’re all Greco-Roman gods. So, the scholars or, I really should say, a Christian apologist, that state there’s no pagan gods in the New Testament—they are entirely wrong. It’s just that they have looked at it in a modern Greek eye instead of looking at an ancient past—they would have seen the gods being mentioned. So that’s very interesting. So when Jesus says that the stars and the sun is falling, he’s not speaking about the sun and stars. He’s speaking about the Helios, the Roman sun god is falling, and the stars and goddesses falling, as well as Selene, the moon, so the moon goddess. That’s the falling of the pagan Roman gods that was subjecting the Jewish people. So very different theology. So theology matters. So we have to look at how people believed back these times. [Jesus speaks of the stars, moon, and sun in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Luke 21:25. Assigning them as gods and goddesses is Bishop Wilson's interpretation.] The Jewish people did not like the Romans. Not saying that all of them did not. We had some that were pro-Roman. One of the Romans that was involved in the Jewish revolt, fighting against the Jewish people, was Jewish, which is cool. And he was related to Philo of Alexandria. So very interesting. I think he might be his grandson. Cyd: Let me jump in for a second as we’re speaking about gods and the God Above All Gods versus lesser gods. Is it your thought that the God of the Jews of the Old Testament, Jehovah, is a lesser god as opposed to the God Above All Gods? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes. Cyd: Okay, so Jehovah is the tribal god of the Old Testament? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Yes, a bit of a mix. So there’s two gods. Well, there’s a couple, if you’ve got to go every single god being mentioned. But what they’re describing is, say, Deuteronomy 32:8, you have El Elyon dividing up the nations according to the Elohim being children of El, and Yahweh received his inheritance from the most high God. So Yahweh was more like a guardian deity, basically. He was a brother of Baal. But some Canaanites believed that Yahweh was Baal. So Yahweh kind of came later after Baal. But the first to worship Yahweh were the Sashu of Yahweh. So they were Canaanite raiders. Hebrew was also a Canaanite language.  [The earliest trace of Yahweh isn't Israelite—it's desert-born. Egyptian inscriptions speak of the “Shasu of YHW,” nomadic peoples on the edges of Canaan, sometimes regarded as raiders. It suggests the name of Yahweh may have emerged out of the wilderness before it was ever claimed by Israel. Even Hebrew itself comes out of the same Canaanite linguistic world.] So I see the views—the ones that were worshipping El would be the ones that would become the Essenes or Jewish mystics. So the Essenes worshipped El. They didn’t worship Yahweh. They viewed Yahweh as a lesser god, which is one reason they challenged the temple, because they viewed, you guys aren’t worshipping God, you’re worshipping the lesser deity, you’re worshipping an angel. And so they rejected the temple. And the priesthood was corrupt. So then you also had the Magharians or Magarites. They were first century BC era Jews. They were proto-Gnostic, so that’s a scholar term. So they were Jewish mystics. They believed that Yahweh was a demiurge and that he was a lieutenant. So not an evil demiurge, but he was ignorant of the most high Father El Elyon, but that’s not a name to them. That was just a title meaning most high God. So they didn’t believe in God with a name, the unknowable Father, they believed was beyond sex as well. So Mother-Father, basically. So beyond all things. Too perfect to interfere with matter. And they believed that the Torah had been corrupted. So that’s fascinating. So that’s a group that we want to talk about. So we had about 25 different versions of Judaism during that time with all different beliefs. So what type of Jew was Jesus? This makes a big, big difference. So not all Jews worshipped Yahweh. Some viewed him as a lesser God and some viewed him as the devil, which is whack. So the only Gnostics or proto-Gnostics would use that word devil at that time. So we have the wisdom of Solomon, which is the first text adored by Christians that they would say, look, this is our Messiah mentioning he’s a dying and rising Messiah calling himself the Son of God and he’s been crucified. So this means that just like our text, he would die a shameful death. But this text mentions that through death, the devil enters the world. So the Pharisees didn’t believe in the devil. The Sadducees didn’t either. But what’s interesting about the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Herodians, which kind of made up both these groups, they were a part of both, just the Herodians mostly supported King Herod. They believed that either King Herod was the Messiah or his family would be, or they belonged to the Sadducees and didn’t believe in a Messiah. So the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels. They didn’t believe in an afterlife. They believed once you were dead, the soul turned to dust. God was too perfect to interfere with humans. So that’s an interesting belief. But we had different subsects of Sadducees that had a different opinion to that. They believed that God did interfere with humans, but we had total free will. So they could interfere with some things, but there was no Messiah. There was no angels. So they believed that a human could be a messenger of God. That was about it. So like Moses. Then you had the Pharisees. They believed that Satan served Yahweh. His job was to test humanity or seduce humanity away from God. So that way mankind had free will. But some Pharisees didn’t believe that. They believed that Satan, Hasatan, was just symbolic for mankind’s inclination towards evil. So they didn’t believe in an evil being. So their belief was that God ordained good and evil, basically, would use evil for his own will. So that’s trippy, very trippy. So the Pharisees had a very different belief. They didn’t believe in the adversary against God. They didn’t believe in fallen angels. Later on, they would take on this belief, borrowing it from mystics and zealots. So funny enough, they would be influenced by Jesus’ teachings, such as saving a life on the Sabbath. The Pharisees would not do that. But to be fair, some Essenes wouldn’t do that either. Some Essenes were very warlike, wanting to join God’s angelic army fighting at the Armageddon of the last days of the world. But these mystics, they are the only groups that believed in fallen angels and believed in a place of punishment. The only groups. And that’s fascinating. So they believed in a physical adversary against God. And these beliefs are carried on in the Christianity with the Armageddon day, or even the belief that God basically allows Satan to do what he wants, but he’s going to conquer over him. That was an Essene belief. They believed that Belial was the adversary against God, a fallen angel, leader of the fallen angels, and God would allow him the sin because he would destroy him in the end. So that was an Essene belief, but not all that belief. Some believed that basically fallen angels chose to rebel against God, so they had free will and that God would overcome them in the end. So that’s different. So we have to look at those beliefs because that makes a big difference in theology as well. And one reason I chose to keep daemon or daimon in the text is because this doesn’t mean Jesus is casting out evil demons, but rather, well, the ghost of the mystic belief of pagan gods were fallen angels. So he’s casting out pagan gods, or he’s just casting out unclean spirits, depending on what the definition of word is, because that daimon or unclean spirit, for instance, isn’t always referenced to a pagan god. It’s just someone who’s died vengeful or angry at God, and is now just a ghost causing haunting. So it depends on how it’s being used. So I kept those words in there. So if the word said unclean spirit, I kept that as unclean spirit. But if it was going into a daimon for a pagan god, basically I’ll keep it as that daimon, so they could choose how they’re going to read it. Because sometimes you’re dealing with two things at once. Sometimes you’re dealing with an unclean spirit, then a pagan god’s being mentioned too. So this archon ruler’s having little other minions subject under him. So we even have an archon ruler being mentioned. So an archon of the daemons, ruler of pagan gods. So other gods had dominions, basically. So they viewed these other gods having their own realms of power, which we also see in the Gnostic text. So I kept all that. I also kept the archon of the synagogue, which is a ruler of the synagogue. So it’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s just political rulers that are mentioned. So an archon of the Gentiles, for instance, is just a ruler of Gentiles, just a politician. I have kept archons in the sense of Yahweh somewhat, I believe, as being the devil. Because in John 8:44, we have Jesus going up to the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians who made up the high priesthood. He says, You are of your father, the devil. But if only these Gnostic Jews believed in the devil and their God is Yahweh, who’s he calling devil? And then when the daemons are calling him Son of the most high God, they’re calling him huios, which means son. Huios tou theou tou hypsistou, which is Greek for Son of the most high God. But if you put this in the Hebrew, it’s Son of El Elyon. So this is what the pagan gods are calling him. So the lesser gods. And then he’s also saying that we’re all the children of El Elyon, which is also fascinating. And also the word for son they’re using just means child. It can be male or female. But again, they’re wanting a male audience. So they restricted it, which is a shame. Cyd: How about the word aeon? A E O N. What do you do with that word? You know, in my work with the Tripartite Tractate, it seems to me that most references of aeon in the New Testament translate it as time, a period of time, or the end of the ages, the ages. Whereas I tend to see it always as eternal beings from the ethereal plane. What do you think about that? Bishop Nathan Wilson: I love that. I think that too. I think it’s a mixture of all these things, which is also, I keep, it depends on the context of use. But a lot of times you do see the text that is referring to a higher being, which is beautiful to mention, especially when you’re looking at Gnostic works. But you do see this in the New Testament as well. So you see one text mentioning, for instance, who is this Sophia and this higher power? And that’s how the text can translate too, which is fascinating. So that means who’s this unknown higher power. And then it mentions about the Aeon. And so you see all this sort of stuff being mentioned. Yes, it means an eternal being or an angelic being, but it can also mean eternity or a period of time. So depending on the context of use. So words have power as well. So that’s interesting. So again, how it’s used can make a world of a difference. And it’s interesting when they’re using certain words because there are some times that they could have chosen to use a different word. So when they’ve used a certain word like that, that can change the entire context of meaning. Cyd: Right. Like saying there’s some reference to judgment at the end of the age. And I’m always thinking that it’s judgment from the Aeons when I see that. But I’m not translating from scratch, I’m taking biblical translation, so what do I know? Bishop Nathan Wilson: You’re spot on though. So you’re correct. So it can translate that as well. And we have to realize that we have different versions of Christianity. So that’s certainly appropriate for a first century understanding. Most people are looking at from fourth century. So you’re looking at it from a first century point of view. And so you’re ahead of others in that sort of case, which is beautiful to see. So that’s rare. And I chose to keep that for that reason. So people can have their own conclusions, not having it forced onto them. Cyd: You are very much into the history of things. You’re an historian. I am not at all interested in history per se. I’m always talking about what other people believed in other times. That is not pertinent to our gnosis here and now. So what do you view the purpose of this deep historical knowledge that you have concerning the Jews and the Essenes and whatnot? And is it necessary to go into all of that? Bishop Nathan Wilson: If you want to, I guess, teach from a historical perspective as well as a spiritual one, then yes. But if you want to go for spiritual, you can just go by the heart. There were plenty of spiritual teachers that were illiterate, that could not read, that could not write, and they had a beautiful message. So there’s something more powerful that we can receive within that you won’t obtain from books. But ultimately, you can also have wisdom gained from books. It can be a form of worship or a form of connecting with the divine as well. We have many forms of worship or many forms of experience what’s divine or having that intimate moment with what’s divine to reflect and to deepen our purpose. I wanted to know the historical man we call Jesus and ultimately put into practice what he put into practice. So I wanted to look at the history side of things and especially also, what’s another word I would like to use, decondition myself, decondition past beliefs that were harmful, that did not serve me and ultimately not serving others, and also find out that I was wrong about many things, which I wanted to know as well. So what brought me to this was to know the man we call Jesus, Yeshua, or Yehoshua, whichever term you like, whichever name you want to use. So I want to know not just that, but I want to know his practices, what he did with his life, how his first followers lived, how the first Christians lived, and what I could use for my own spiritual path and how I could put that into practice. So that’s why I want to look at the history side of things. I think if you want to put into practice the different techniques of all the many different Gnostics, then you’re going to have to look at some of the history side of things to find those practices. That doesn’t mean that every single practice is necessary for you. So what works for me might not work for others. What works for others might not work for me. So double-edged sword. Cyd: What sort of practices are you referring to? Are these rituals? What’s the practices? Bishop Nathan Wilson: I go into some of the ancient rituals as well. Some of them I might look at the prayers that they would use, the diet they would take, or means of worship. So how they would go about their forms of private practice. So that sort of stuff. And then I might apply it into my own life and see how I can go. There’s still more I’d like to go and check out more. So I’m still studying a couple of some of the ancient practices as well. So from different or religious perspectives as well. And then I can see how I can put it to my own form of use. So I looked at a lot of Jewish Christians, they would do the shema for instance, before their meditations. And I’ll do that as well. [“Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one… You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength…”] They also did breath works back then, which would also induce a sense of intoxication if you want to use, or light headness. And in turn that can also open a new state of reality. So entering the spiritual realm can be a vehicle, if you will, to get there. So to open the mind. And that’s also a practice that’s been used in ancient past. And we can certainly use that today. We have modern practices, say like Wim Hof, that teach breath work in meditation. That’s also useful. So sometimes looking at the past, we do see stuff in today’s world that’s not really new. It’s just being basically reentering this world again, from past knowledge gained of old. And I find that in a lot of Gnostic stuff. When you look at history, you kind of see that Gnostics kind of did a lot of things first, that what we’re doing now that we think is modern, but it’s not. It’s ancient. Cyd: That’s why conventional Christians who read my books, they say, oh, you’re just all new age. And I’m like, no, it’s not new age at all. It’s ancient. Bishop Nathan Wilson: Which is a shame that Christians have been shut off into their own world, which is kind of funny. I actually tell most Christians that they are, in fact, new age, because these beliefs are ancient. And what they are going by is, depending on what version of Christianity, if you’re Protestant, that’s 16th century, I believe. Non-denominal, 18th century. Protestant, 16th century. Catholicism, late second century. Orthodoxy, as we know it now, would be about 14th century. But older Orthodoxy, which would be the split from the Catholic church, is fourth century. So it’s when you go to Gnostic Christians, first century, and we’re really the only groups that are surviving, the Jewish Christians got killed. They ultimately were wiped out or would convert to mainstream Judaism or would become Christian or Islam, they would follow as well. So some would be converted to Muslims, which is also interesting as well. We as Gnostics were also harmed by these other groups, by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims as well. At one point Zoroastrians, but that was only one particular era. And we’ve basically arisen from all that, from that underground, and we’ve still survived, which is fascinating. It’s beautiful that we have. And also the texts that have been rediscovered, this is not accidental. This is all happening for a reason. What’s divine is experiencing itself where it can experience itself and express itself again safely in today’s world. In ancient past, it was dangerous to have diversion after the fourth century, which is a shame because the Catholics would kill those who came before them. They didn’t like that. And they even knew that some of the Gnostics, they had older writings, but they still denied them, which is funny. So it’s why such the hate, which is such a shame. So it goes back to that control of power, my way or the highway, basically. And it was never meant to be like that. It was meant to be very universal. It was meant to be very diverse. The first Christians were Gnostics and Jewish Christians, a mixture between strict law observing Jews and a mixture of Gentiles. And then you had the Jewish mystics that became the Christian mystics, which is fascinating. That was the original groups. And the original groups would argue amongst each other. The strict law observing Jews wanted circumcision, where the mystics said, no, no circumcision of the hearts, let the Gentiles come. That’s fine. So even when we look at the word, say, ethnos, for instance, in the Gospels, when you see kingdom against kingdom, nation against nation, these are the same things. So what they’re actually talking about is Gentile against Gentile and kingdom against kingdom. So the Jewish people didn’t have a kingdom at this stage. It was a mixture of Judea, Galilee and Samaria. So we’re the Samaritans. So that’s also something to take into account, too. So they didn’t like that. They were looking for a messiah to reunify the Jewish people, restore the Jewish faith and make Israel a kingdom again. And so some of them didn’t like the fact that Jesus wasn’t after this, for instance. So they didn’t like some of these teachings. It was a bit different. But if you look at the mystics, they had a very different interpretations. They did believe in a renewal of the Jewish faith, but a renewal back to El Elyon and a rejection of Yahweh. So that’s very different. So when you look at repentance, for Israel to repent, meaning for all of Israel to return back to El Elyon. And if you look at for the Gentiles conversion, that would be referring to not converting to any religion, but converting to God. So God outside religion. So fascinating. So you see all this in the original text. Cyd: And why do you suppose, this might be an unanswerable question, but why do you suppose conventional modern Christians are so, you know, extremely antagonistic towards Gnostic Christians? Is it fear or what? Bishop Nathan Wilson: Well, they’ve been told you're the enemy, basically. And yes, some of it is fear. Fear as well of the unknown. And also because of the need of an opponent. So they believe that they are doing a good thing. And if they don’t do this, they can be punished. So it’s the case of where a victim becomes an abuser. So most Christians have never even heard about Gnostics. It’s only the real ones who are into spiritual warfare, basically, and really full on extremist dogmatic ones that are familiar with, and apologetics. But they are now feeling like they’re losing the battle because more people were interested in Gnosticism and especially interested in other Jewish groups and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Nag Hammadi. So they’re realizing their other texts and there’s other options now. And that’s great. And regarding even my translations, one reason I chose to do it that I did, I found out that no modern English Bible translates from one source material. They’re all a mixture of different sources. So we have the Codex Sinaiticus mixed with the Latin Vulgate, mixing with Germanic copies, and then mixing ancient Koine Greek into modern Hebrew, putting it back into Greek. And that’s not good at all. So we’re just changing—we’re swapping chapters because we feel uncomfortable with them. So I was mortified when I was looking at that. And so I realized I couldn’t trust basically my Bible anymore. So I thought, well, I’m making this myself. And then I thought, well, I’m going to release it. Let’s go and share it too and do what they will with it. And it opened a lot of doorways to me, actually. So that’s one reason I wanted to give that out so people can have their own faith in their own interpretation and also believe in the message of Yeshua, bringing people back to the Most High God, to the Unknowable God, the Living Father, the Mother-Father. And we also see the Mother being mentioned in other texts too. It’s just mostly blocked out by mainstream Christianity, which is unfair, unfair to women and unfair to humanity with their approaches. It’s been very violent. So we need to remove that violence because that’s nothing to do with Yeshua’s teachings. He didn’t teach us to go around fighting each other. He said, Those who are for me are with me. They don’t understand his message. They very much follow the Catholic teachings of Paul that they’ve been given. And so they can look at the Gnostic teachings of Paul as well, which are also in there. Paul’s letters, we now know they’re mostly all forgeries. We don’t have any original copies either. They’re all later fourth century and we have some second century fragments. But the oldest reference to Paul is from the Ten Letters of Marcion. And he’s the man who compiled the first Christian Bible. And some people can argue, some people don’t believe he was a Gnostic. Others think he was a Gnostic. I think he was a type of Gnostic because he believed in a demiurge. So he believed that the God of the Jews was Yahweh and not the Supreme God of Jesus. That is a very Gnostic belief. But the thing is, the word Gnostic was given to us by the Catholic church, was a way of separating us and identifying us. But we wear it as a badge of honor because we understand they’re just calling us knowledgeable Christians, which is kind of funny. So language is powerful and the Catholic church certainly forgot it. So because of them, we now use daimon as demon. So they’ve basically demonized Jesus. They’ve demonized the Holy Spirit, which is their greatest sin. And they’ve demonized God and every other God. So they don’t know what damage they’ve done. And that’s not good. So I wanted to reverse that damage and bring people back to what I believe is the message of Yeshua, of Jesus, and to have their own spiritual relationship with God, an individual relationship, which is something that I want to see more of. That’s a very beautiful thing. You can’t define that intimate experience without living it. Cyd: Right, right. Well, that's all we have time for in this episode. We'll pick it up again next week for part three of my interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union Church.  I like the way he talks, huh? Until next week, onward and upward and God bless us all.

Happy 250th Anniversary of 'Murica. You're in for a treat . This is part 2 of multiple on the Second Chapter "The English and American Public Culture." This episode broaches the English Bible's profound role on American Literacy Education, discussing pp. 29-34. "The American Founders read the Bible," Oxford University Rhodes Scholar Daniel Dreisbach says in his first sentence of his Oxford University Press book. "They knew the Bible from cover to cover." "Its ideas shaped their habits of mind." "The Bible left its mark on the political culture of the era." Dreisbach's first sentence in his chapter 2 is: Ready ? "Anglo-Americans are people of the Book, and that Book is the Bible." WOW ! We had the author, Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach, D.Phil. (Oxford), JD (University of Virginia Law School) on the podcast for Thanksgiving, Fall 2022. We're going to make a fair use, do a transformative reading of the book. We'd like to thank Dr. Dreisbach for writing this, and thank Oxford University Press for making it available. Support publishers when they make something worth reading. Support the publisher and throw some bidness their way. Support your brick and mortar book dealer. This episode was filmed Thursday 28 May 2026 years after Jesus in the backyard of my long-time (nearly a quarter of a century) Epistemology mentor Dr. Doug Geivett (PhD, USC under Dallas Willard), a student himself of the famous late-great Republican professor, the late-great Dallas Willard of USC's Philosophy Department. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-and-adequately-articulating-the-Bible's-appropriate-influence-on-American-politics podcast. Therefore, welcome again, through his writing, Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach, D.Phil., J.D. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

What is God's personal name? Is it Yahweh? Jehovah? Why do most English Bibles use the word LORD instead? In Part 2 of The Names of God series, Pastor Roger Pettay examines God's personal covenant name as revealed in Exodus 3:13-15. Discover the meaning behind the divine name YHWH, why it appears thousands of times throughout the Old Testament, and how Jewish and Christian traditions have handled this sacred name through the centuries. In this message you will learn: • The three primary names used for God in the Old Testament • The meaning of "I AM WHO I AM" • Why LORD appears in all capital letters in many English Bibles • The difference between Elohim, Adonai, and Yahweh • How God's name is embedded in words like Hallelujah • The connection between Yahweh, Joshua, and Jesus • What Jesus meant when He declared, "Before Abraham was, I AM" Whether you are new to studying Scripture or have walked with Christ for many years, this message will help you better understand the character of God and deepen your appreciation for the God who desires to be known by His people. #Yahweh #Jehovah #NamesOfGod #Exodus3 #IAM #BiblicalTruth #BibleStudy #KnowGod #SermonPodcast #ChristianPodcast #ExaltChurch #ExaltChurchVA

SouthCrest Church Sunday message, 5/31/26. We're kicking off our summer series, Foundations, on eight principles to help us live out our faith. Senior Pastor Matt McFadden introduces Principle #1: Jesus is Lord. Teaching from Mark 1:1-11, we explore the meanings of the term “lord” in the English Bible and what it truly means to declare Jesus as Lord.

Happy 250th Anniversary of 'Murica. You're in for a treat . This is part 1 of multiple on the Second Chapter "The English and American Public Culture." "The American Founders read the Bible," Oxford University Rhodes Scholar Daniel Dreisbach says in his first sentence of his Oxford University Press book. "They knew the Bible from cover to cover." "Its ideas shaped their habits of mind." "The Bible left its mark on the political culture of the era." Dreisbach's first sentence in his chapter 2 is: Ready ? "Anglo-Americans are people of the Book, and that Book is the Bible." WOW ! We had the author, Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach, D.Phil. (Oxford), JD (University of Virginia Law School) on the podcast for Thanksgiving, Fall 2022. We're going to make a fair use, do a transformative reading of the book. We'd like to thank Dr. Dreisbach for writing this, and thank Oxford University Press for making it available. Support publishers when they make something worth reading. Support the publisher and throw some bidness their way. Support your brick and mortar book dealer. This episode was filmed Thursday 28 May 2026 years after Jesus in the backyard of my long-time (nearly a quarter of a century) Epistemology mentor Dr. Doug Geivett (PhD, USC under Dallas Willard), a student himself of the famous late-great Republican professor, the late-great Dallas Willard of USC's Philosophy Department. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-and-adequately-articulating-the-Bible's-appropriate-influence-on-American-politics podcast. Therefore, welcome again, through his writing, Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach, D.Phil., J.D. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

On today's episode, we discuss big “ten‑gallon” theology words as the crew dives into premillennialism, amillennialism, and how to read key end‑times passages without splitting churches over them. Pastor Jimmy Williams lays out the two main views: premillennialism, where Christ returns to establish an intermediate kingdom before the final judgment, and amillennialism, where the present church age itself is the “millennial” reign with Christ already ruling from heaven. From there, they walk slowly through 1 Corinthians 15, unpacking Greek terms, temporal markers like “then” and “after that,” and how the sequence—Christ as “firstfruits,” then the resurrection of those who belong to Him, then “the end”—can be read to support an intermediate kingdom before final restoration. Along the way, they explain concepts such as “firstfruits,” telos (the ultimate “end” or goal), and the Parousia, while also showing how punctuation and translation choices in English Bibles can muddy who “he” refers to or where a sentence really ends. The episode stays irenic and practical, emphasizing that Christians should major on the shared essentials—the return of Jesus, resurrection of the dead, and restoration of creation—while treating rapture timing and millennial charts as important but secondary topics to wrestle with humbly together. Don't miss it!

The Hebrew poets didn't write safe words. They stacked image on top of image, layered metaphor on metaphor, and built texts designed to hit you in the chest. But when those words crossed into English, something got lost. The raw emotional power. The vivid word pictures. The sounds, the rhythms, the physicality of a language that was built to be felt, not just read.In this episode, Dr. Alison Gray, Director of Studies in Old Testament Language, Literature, and Theology at Westminster College, Cambridge, pulls back the curtain on what your English Bible simply cannot deliver. From the spatial drama of Psalm 18, where height means safety and narrowness means despair, to the stunning revelation that the Hebrew word for compassion literally means "wombs," this conversation exposes an entire dimension of Scripture that most believers have never encountered.In this episode you will learn:- How metaphor functions as the backbone of Hebrew poetry, not decoration but the primary vehicle of meaning- Why the spatial imagery in Psalm 18 (high vs. low, wide vs. narrow) unlocks the entire emotional architecture of the poem- What "metaphor clusters" are and how Hebrew poets deliberately piled images to overwhelm the reader- The specific emotional and theological losses that occur every time Hebrew poetry is translated into English- How the Hebrew accent marks called "taste marks" shaped the oral performance of the Psalms- Why reading Job through the lens of trauma literature makes sense of its contradictions and fragmented voices- The dangerous church tradition of sanitizing lament and why the Psalms of agony were never meant to be resolved quickly- What the British Sign Language Bible Translation Project reveals about the physicality already embedded in Hebrew Scripture- How the Hebrew word for compassion (rachmayim) literally comes from the word for womb- Why "slow to anger" in Hebrew actually means "long of nose" and what that tells us about how the ancient world pictured emotionDr. Gray's Book:Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading Through Metaphor (Brill, 2014)https://brill.com/display/title/23722?language=enWestminster College:https://www.westminster.cam.ac.uk/academic-staff/dr-alison-grayWinter School in Ancient and Biblical Languages:https://www.westminster.cam.ac.uk/biblical-languagesBSL Bible Translation Project:https://bslbible.org.uk/Stay Connected:Website: Johnnyova.comSubscribe on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@thejohnnyovaThe Revelation Reset: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DKSLQXWQ

Natalie Grueninger interviews Martha Tatarnic about her new book on Anne Boleyn, exploring how Anne shaped the English Reformation, championed the English Bible, and influenced church leadership through key appointments. The conversation also examines how Anne's reputation has been distorted over time, why the stories we tell about historical women matter today, and how recovering silenced voices reshapes our understanding of the past and present. Visit Martha Tatarnic's website https://marthatatarnic.ca/ JOIN 365 DAYS IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND https://www.nataliegrueninger.com/2026/05/17/365-days-in-elizabethan-england/ Learn more about your host: https://www.nataliegrueninger.com Support Talking Tudors on Patreon!

Audio taken from the live teaching "What Is China's Role In Final Prophecy?" - https://youtu.be/JoEO3J-f1C8There are approximately 15 nations mentioned specifically in final Bible prophecy, many of which have modern names that differ from their ancient names. You will not find the specific word “China” in any of the accurate modern English Bible translations, however, there are several passages in the Bible that provide a theological position that strongly suggest that China will be involved prophetically as a major “eastern” power.In today's study I would like to answer 3 critical questions about China and Bible prophecy that are often asked by our audience.1 - Is China Found In Bible Prophecy?2 - Is China the “200 Million Man Army” In Revelation?3 - Is China Involved In The Battle Of Armageddon?Key Scriptures used in today's teaching: Revelation 9:13-19Other Scriptures referenced: Isaiah 49:12; Revelation 16:12-21If you prayed with Tiff, click here https://lostlamb.org/ and let him know!  Be sure to check out the playlist “New Beginnings” - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsX8E19Azl58_FjxELPxjnsL8CAtmama4Thank you for listening, and subscribe for new content each week. 
Connect with Tiff Shuttlesworth:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LostLambAssociation/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tiffshuttlesworth/ X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/tiffshuttleswor Learn more about my ministry: https://lostlamb.org/ Learn more about my ministry in Canada: https://www.lostlamb.ca

What if the story we've been told about Anne Boleyn is missing the most important part? In this episode, Loren Richmond Jr. talks with Martha Tatarnic—priest, author, and co-host of the podcast—about her new book Anne Boleyn: Reputation, Revolution, Religion, and the Queen Who Changed History and the overlooked role Anne played in shaping the English Reformation. Drawing from historical research and theological reflection, Martha challenges the familiar narrative that reduces Anne to a pawn in Henry VIII's story. Instead, she presents Anne as a deeply formed, intellectually engaged, and theologically motivated leader whose influence helped shape the future of the Anglican Church. The conversation explores how Anne's faith informed her convictions, her advocacy for an English Bible, and her support of key reformers whose impact is still felt today. They also examine how history has often distorted Anne's story—especially through gendered narratives that diminish strong women—and why those patterns still matter for leadership in the church today. They discuss the ongoing challenges women face in ministry, the temptation toward self-congratulation in church systems, and the work still needed to create environments where all leaders can truly flourish. Together they explore: Why Anne Boleyn's story has been misunderstood or misrepresented Her role as a reformer, not just a historical figure How her faith shaped her influence on the English Reformation How gendered narratives distort history and leadership Ongoing challenges for women in church leadership today Why the church must move beyond self-congratulation toward real change How Anne's legacy still shapes Anglican identity and practice Martha Tatarnic is a contributor to Christian Century, a blogger on Medium, and co-host of the Future Christian podcast. She is the author of Why Gather? The Hope and Promise of the Church. She is a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada and rector at St. George's Anglican Church in St. Catherines, Ontario. She lives in Catherines, Ontario, Canada. Mentioned Resources:

Makrothumia. The Greek compound from Hebrews 6:12 that the English Bible translates as patience. Makros: long. Thumos: passion. Long-tempered. The quality of a man whose spiritual fire does not die down with time, whose fervour does not decrease the longer the answer is delayed, whose passion for the promise grows stronger with every year it has not yet arrived. In this Sunday sermon, Pastor Olubi Johnson opens the legal and prophetic framework of intercession and then walks through five biblical portraits of the makrothumia that inherits the promise. The legal case is established first: God gave man dominion over the earth in Genesis 1:26, a constitutional act that He will not unilaterally override. When Adam surrendered it and the cross recovered it, prayer became a legal instrument, not a devotional exercise: enforcing in the earth what has already been established in heaven. Then Daniel, reading the prophetic clock in Babylon and setting his face in prayer while the angelic answer was opposed for twenty-one days in the heavenly places. Then Abraham, Joseph, and the four-hundred-year promise carried through dying hands until the groaning of four centuries tipped the bowl and the bush began to burn. Then Esther, who led three days of corporate fasting and walked into the throne room unsummoned, trusting that the intercession had already prepared the atmosphere for the golden sceptre to go out. Then Anna, who gave sixty years to one prayer in a temple court, and was there on the morning the answer walked through the gate. We are in 2026, at the threshold of the third prophetic day from the maturity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The morning Anna spent sixty years waiting for is our morning. The eight landmarks of the Path of Life are the daily architecture of the intercession that prepares the vessel to receive it.

The Bible we hold is a translation of ancient manuscripts. But does that gap between the original autographs and our English Bibles introduce error we should be worried about? In Lesson 27 of Christian Ethics and the Old Testament, Dave Rich works through the transmission and translation of Scripture—and makes the case that we have every reason for confidence.Rich opens with the logic: reliable manuscripts plus faithful translation equals God's Word in English. Either piece can fail, and he walks through what happens when it does. From there he examines the manuscript evidence for the Old Testament—the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint—showing that agreement across those sources is remarkably stable. The one significant variant, Psalm 22:16, turns out to have strong textual support for "they pierced my hands and feet," consistent with its unmistakably messianic context.New Testament transmission is even more extensively attested—over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, with 99.5% of the text determinable from existing evidence. Rich walks through the nature of the variants honestly, showing that the most significant ones are well known, clearly marked in modern translations, and doctrinally non-threatening.The lesson closes with a survey of English translations across a spectrum from highly literal to outright corrupt: the YLT, NASB, LSB, ESV, NIV, New Living, and then the Message, the New World Translation, the Passion Translation, and several others that distort the text to serve a theological agenda.God had a purpose in giving His Word, Rich argues, and that same providence extends to its transmission and translation into every language. ★ Support this podcast ★

Have you ever heard the expression “a smoking gun”? It comes from an earlier era of guns when black powder produced a good cloud of smoke each time someone fired the weapon. Originally a smoking gun referred to a situation when someone was caught with the weapon in hand, still emitting smoke. The implication of this is not just that the smoking gun is evidence of the person’s guilt, but that such is conclusive and undeniable evidence. Today were going to consider the topic of bias in our English Bible translations. I’m going to present to you four independent grammatical smoking guns of Trinitarian mischief in evangelical translations. In each case, rather than rendering the source language into the target language, we’ll see how translators tweak the translation to support the personality of the holy spirit.   Listen on Spotify   Listen on Apple Podcasts This talk was originally presented at a Unitarian Christian Alliance (UCA) event held at the Cantebury Christadelphian Ecclesia in Melbourne, Australia on March 21, 2026. Thanks to the Christadelphians for providing a venue and giving me access to the recording. —— Links —— Download the slides from this presentation Read the article that inspired this presentation Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Facebook group, follow on X @RestitutioSF or Instagram @Sean.P.Finnegan or Threads @sean.p.finnegan Leave a 90 second voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play it out on the air Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Get Finnegan’s book, Kingdom Journey to learn about God’s kingdom coming on earth as well as the story of how Christianity lost this pearl of great price. Get the transcript of this episode Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library.

This is Christian Meditation for A Bigger Life – a time for you to relax your body and refocus your mind to experience the reality of God's presence. I'm Dave Cover. I want to help you with Christian meditation where you can break through all the distractions and experience God's presence through biblically guided imagination.  Psalm 9:10 ESV “And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.” “LORD” in all uppercase letters in our English Bibles indicates that in Hebrew God's name, Yahweh, is used (Exodus 3:14-15; Isaiah 42:8). Yahweh is the ancient Hebrew verb form for “HE IS.” God's name, Yahweh, is used more than any other term for God by far in the Hebrew scriptures. Well over 5,000 times — far more than “God” is used.  When we look at all the various truths associated with God's name, HE IS, in the Hebrew scriptures (what we call the Old Testament), five powerful truths of Yahweh are emphasized.  HE IS the Creator and Sustainer of ALL that exists, including this entire universe (Ps 33:6; Isa 40:25-28; Isa 42:5; Isa 44:24). HE IS the Giver and Sustainer of ALL life everywhere always (Num 27:16; Job 12:10; Neh 9:6). HE IS eternal and forever God – he inhabits eternity (Isa 57:15; Isa 40:28). HE IS ALWAYS infinitely 100% present with you and in control of everything in your life at every moment (Ps 31:14-15; Psalm 139:1-8; without being any less present or any less focused anywhere else in the universe, because HE IS infinite). See Jesus's words in Matthew 10:29-31.“ HE IS good and his steadfast love endures forever.” (Most repeated phrase in the OT.) So imagine – envision – this reality. He is the Creator of this entire universe; he is the Source of all being; he is the Giver of your life and sustains your life at every moment; he is the one who “inhabits eternity” (Isaiah 57:15), and so has the eternal perspective in all your life's circumstances; and he is infinitely, intimately, 100% present with you at every moment and in control of every circumstance in your life. And he is good and his steadfast love for you endures forever. Who can you share this podcast with? If you found this episode helpful, consider sharing it on social media or texting it to a friend you think might benefit from it. Follow Dave Cover on X (Twitter) @davecover Follow A Bigger Life on X @ABiggerLifePod Our audio engineer is Matthew Matlack. This podcast is a ministry of The Crossing, a church in Columbia, Missouri, a college town where the flagship campus of the University of Missouri is located.

Calvary Live is an outreach ministry of GraceFM at Calvary Church in Aurora, Colorado.If you like what you hear on Calvary Live – don't forget tofollow us, and share it with your friends and family!

Various Scriptures - The Bible has a long, complex and very human story of how it came be (and how it came to us). In this message, we examine what it means that the Bible was co-produced by a number of people, some known and some unknown. Using only the Bible itself, we explore some of it what it means for the Bible to be a collection of texts that were composed, canonized, transmitted, and translated in history. In doing so, we learn that the Bible being a human word does not diminish the fact that it is also a divine Word. A sermon by Cameron Heger and Kyle Sunderland. [Part 3 of our series "The Very Words of God: Answering, trembling & delighting before the Holy Scriptures"] Questions for reflection: 1) What have you been taught up to this point about where the Bible came from? 2) Was there anything new, exciting, or challenging in what Cameron shared about the overall picture? 3) Why do you think the human side of the Bible's production is sometimes viewed as scandalous? 4) Why do you think we can have confidence in our modern English Bible translations? 5) What relevance does the divinity/humanity of Jesus have for how we think the Bible?

QUOTES FOR REFLECTION“Reality is too heavy for most people to carry. So they borrow illusions, soft dreams, sweet lies, and call it happiness.”~Franz Kafka (1883-1924), Jewish Czech writer of German literature, known for his works marked by surreal and bizarre storylines “The Holy Scriptures were not given to us that we should enclose them in books, but that we should engrave them upon our hearts.”~John Chrysostom (died 407 AD), church leader in ancient Constantinople The Letter to the Romans “is the principal and most excellent part of the New Testament. It is the light and way into the whole Scripture. No man can read it too often or study too well.”~William Tyndale (c.1494-1536), scholar and linguist, considered the father of the English Bible “This epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament and the very purest gospel and is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word by heart, but occupy himself with it every day as the daily bread of the soul. It can never be read or pondered too much.”~Martin Luther (1483-1546), German reformer, in his commentary on Romans “Because faith alone justifies… publicans and prostitutes will be first in the kingdom of heaven”~Hilary of Poitiers (c.310-c.367), Gallic-Roman church leader “God justifies the believer—not because of the worthiness of his belief, but because of his [Christ's] worthiness who is believed.”~Richard Hooker (1554-1600) in his Ecclesiastical Polity (1593) “Of whatever virtue you may declare that the ancient righteous people were possessed, nothing saved them but the belief in the Mediator who shed his blood for the remission of their sins.”~Augustine (354-430), North African theologian in Against Two Letters of the Pelagians “God's righteousness compels him...to have to judge the guilty. But then he offers forgiveness and says ‘I will not judge you according to your works.' So...he sends his Son...so that now when he calls you his own...he has not compromised his righteousness.”~Jackie Hill Perry, poet, writer, and hip-hop artistSERMON PASSAGE Romans 1:16-17 & 3:21-26 (Dr. Robert Gagnon's translation of the original Greek)Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for effecting salvation to everyone who is believing it, both to the Jew first and to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is being revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written, “And the righteous one from faith will live.” Romans 3:21-26 But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, though it is attested by the law and the prophets; that is, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all sinned and are lacking in the glory of God, with the result that they are being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption that is available in Christ Jesus, whom God set before himself as an amends-making offering by means of his blood, through that faith, for an indicator of his righteousness, because of the letting go of the sins that occurred previously in the time of God's holding back his wrath, with a view toward that indicator of his righteousness in the ‘now' time, in order that he himself might be righteous and justifier of the person whose identity is derived from faith in Jesus.

He started growing tropical flowers in the Netherlands. Then he walked away from it all to chase a lifelong obsession with the Bible. Dr. Dirk Jongkind is the Academic Vice Principal at Tyndale House in Cambridge, England, and the lead editor behind the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, the first completely new critical edition of the Greek New Testament in over 40 years. He holds a PhD from Cambridge, helped digitize Codex Sinaiticus at the British Library, and spent over a decade rebuilding the Greek text behind your English Bible from the ground up.From the origins of Tyndale House during World War II to the ancient scribes who copied Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century, this episode covers ground most Christians have never explored. Dr. Jongkind walks us through what it was like to work with one of the oldest complete New Testaments in existence, how scribes made errors and stretched their letters to fill miscalculated page space, and why the book of James follows Acts in the earliest manuscripts instead of Romans. He tackles the ending of Mark head on and unpacks one of the most provocative statements you will hear on this podcast: that God inspiring Scripture does not mean God was obligated to preserve every last detail of it.In this episode you will learn:- How Dr. Jongkind went from growing tropical flowers to becoming one of the leading New Testament textual scholars in the world- What Tyndale House is and how it was born out of a crisis of faith during World War II- What a critical edition of the Greek New Testament actually is and why it matters for every English Bible translation- Why his team felt the standard Greek text used by scholars for decades needed to be rebuilt from the ground up- How three ancient scribes with very different skill levels copied Codex Sinaiticus and what their habits reveal about biblical transmission- Why the long-held dictation theory for how Sinaiticus was produced is likely wrong- How the scribes miscalculated page space and made desperate attempts to fill columns- Why the book of James follows Acts in the earliest manuscripts instead of Romans- How Dr. Jongkind's team handled the ending of Mark and why he sits 55/45 on whether those verses are original- What the story of King Josiah rediscovering the Book of the Law teaches us about inspiration vs. preservation- How the tiniest details of the Greek text beautifully reinforce the biggest truths of ScriptureCheck out Dr. Jongkind's work:An Introduction to the Greek New Testament (Crossway): https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Produced-Tyndale-Cambridge/dp/1433564092Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (Gorgias Press): https://www.amazon.com/Scribal-Habits-Codex-Sinaiticus-Studies/dp/1593334222Tyndale House: https://tyndalehouse.comStay Connected:Website: https://johnnyova.comSubscribe on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@thejohnnyovaThe Revelation Reset: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DKVY3FB2

Join us at https://www.crisisinvesting.com The hosts revive a "day in history" segment highlighting William Tyndale's 1523 English Bible translation and argue that Sir Thomas More, though revered as a saint, used authorities to hunt down and execute Tyndale. They then discuss the speaker's recent luncheon talk in Argentina for Rand Paul during his visit, where he said Javier Milei's election is historically important but criticized Milei for not acting like an anarcho-capitalist, citing failures such as not abolishing the central bank, moving Argentina's gold abroad, buying used F-16s, seeking NATO/Ukraine/Israel ties, and keeping foreign exchange controls. They note a $96 homemade MANPADS prototype as evidence of democratized warfare, then assess the US-Iran conflict's changing warfare dynamics, vulnerability of carriers, and risks from Strait of Hormuz disruptions, UAE and Houthi escalation, and attacks on Russian facilities, warning of recession/depression amid rising rates, private credit stress, an AI/data-center bubble, and overvalued markets, while remaining bullish but cautious on gold, gold stocks, and select oil stocks. 00:00 This Day in History Returns 00:24 Tyndale and English Bible 02:48 Saint Thomas More Exposed 04:35 Speech for Rand Paul 05:31 Milei Not Walking Talk 06:45 Gold and Central Bank 08:11 F-16s and NATO Drift 10:52 DIY Manpad and Weapons 12:44 Iran War Lessons 14:21 Carriers and Tankers Vulnerable 15:06 Trump Hegseth and War Spin 19:54 Why War Won't End 20:43 War Versus Energy Shock 22:03 UAE Escalation Risks 23:24 Houthis and Red Sea Chokepoints 24:31 Ukraine Strikes and Blowback 25:48 Iranian Resolve and Retaliation 27:15 Israel and Nuclear Escalation 29:32 Oil Flow and Debt Spiral 31:28 Private Credit and AI Bubble 35:40 Markets in Denial 38:54 Gold and Oil Positioning 40:33 Democratized Warfare Ahead 41:28 Wrap Up and Next Episode

"Jesus wept" is the shortest verse in the English Bible, but it contains a lot of depth. Listen to Fr. Ivan's homily today to find out why.

This episode brings to a close part one of our series exploring William Tyndale's life, Bible translation and legacy. In this third episode, we explore the continuing legacy of William Tyndale's work of Bible translation with the help of experts in the sixteenth century and the history of Christianity.We're very grateful for contributions from:• Bruce Gordon, the Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale Divinity School, and author of The Bible a Global History (Basic Books, 2024)• Alec Ryrie, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Durham, and the author of The World's Reformation: How Protestantism Became a Global Religion (Yale University Press, to be published in 2026)• Simon Burton, John Laing Senior Lecturer in Reformation History at the School of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, and author of ‌ Participation & Covenant in Puritan Theology (Davenant Press, 2025)• Karl Gunther, historian of the Reformation from the Hamilton School for Classical and Civic Education in the University of Florida, and author of ‌ Participation & Covenant in Puritan Theology Reformation Unbound: Protestant Visions of Reform in England, 1525–1590 (Cambridge University Press, 2014)• Harry Spillane, Bye-Fellow in History at Downing College, Cambridge. He is currently completing his Munby Fellowship research project entitled ‘Collecting and Correcting: Histories of the English Bible and the Bible Society Collections'Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

In this week's episode, I take a historical digression to look at the four major Thomases of the English Reformation - Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cranmer. This coupon code will get you 25% off the ebooks in the Dragonskull series at my Payhip store: QUEST25 The coupon code is valid through March 9 2026. So if you need a new ebook this winter, we've got you covered! TRANSCRIPT 00:00:00 Introduction and Writing Updates Hello, everyone. Welcome to Episode 292 of The Pulp Writer Show. My name is Jonathan Moeller. Today is February 27th, 2026. Today we are taking a digression into history by looking at the four Thomases of the English Reformation (with one bonus Thomas). We'll also have Coupon of the Week and a progress update on my current writing and publishing projects. First up, let's do Coupon of the Week. This week's coupon code will get you 25% off the ebooks in the Dragonskull series at my Payhip store. That coupon code is QUEST25 and as always, the links to the store and the coupon code will be available in the show notes of this episode. This coupon code is valid through March 9th, 2026. So if you need a new ebook this winter, we have got you covered. Now for an update on my current writing, publishing, and audiobook projects. I am very nearly done with Cloak of Summoning. As of this recording, I am 35% of the way through the final editing pass. This episode should be coming out on, let's see, March the 2nd. I'm hoping Cloak of Summoning will be available a few days (hopefully like one or two days) after this episode goes live, but we'll see how things go. In any event, it should be out in very early March, which is not far away at this point. I'm also 14,000 words into Blade of Wraiths, the fourth book in my Blades of Ruin epic fantasy series. Hopefully that will be out in April, if all goes well. That's my secondary project right now, but once it gets promoted to primary project once Cloak of Summoning is available, my new secondary project will be Dragon Mage, which will be the sixth book in the Rivah Half-Elven Thief series. I'm looking forward to that since it is going to bring to an end a lot of ongoing plot threads. So it should be quite a fun book to write and hopefully to read. That should hopefully be out in May or possibly June, depending on how things go. In audiobook news, Cloak of Titans, the audiobook narrated by Hollis McCarthy, should be available in more audiobook stores than it was this time last week, though it's still not on Amazon, Audible, or Apple. Brad Wills is working on recording Blade of Storms and I think the first six chapters are done. Hopefully we should have those audiobooks available to you before too much longer. So that is where I'm at with my current writing, publishing, and audiobook projects. 00:02:18 Main Topic: The Four Thomases of the English Reformation Now without further ado, let's get to our main topic and it's time for another of my favorite topics overall, a digression into obscure points of history. I've mentioned before that Wolf Hall (both the TV show and the book) is a lot easier to understand if you are at least passingly familiar with the key figures of the English Reformation, which happened during the reign of King Henry VIII. But who were these key figures? I had a history professor who said that to understand the English Reformation, you need to know about the four Thomases of the English Reformation: Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cranmer, since each one of them altered events in a major way. Fun fact: only one of the four died from natural causes and right before he was about to go on trial for treason, which would have likely ended with his execution. The English Reformation was a tumultuous time and the Tudor court was not a place for the faint of heart or the morally scrupulous. So let's talk about the four Thomases and one bonus Thomas today. But first to understand them, we should look at three background trends that converged and boiled over during their lifetimes. #1: Henry VIII needs an heir. King Henry VIII was quite famously married six times and executed two of his wives in his quest for a male heir. To the modern era, this sounds odd and chauvinistic, but one of the errors of studying history is assuming that the residents of the past had any interest in 21st century standards of behavior. By the standards of Henry's time, having a male heir to assume the kingdom after his death was absolutely vital. In fact, an argument could be made that Henry was attempting to act responsibly by going to such lengths to father a male heir, though naturally he went about it in a spectacularly destructive and self-absorbed way. Remember, Henry's father, Henry VII, came to the throne after a 30-year civil war, and there were noble families that thought they had a better claim to the throne than Tudors and would be happy to exercise it. A good comparison is that the lack of a male heir for Henry VIII was as serious a crisis as a disputed presidential election in 21st century America would be. You can see evidence for this in Henry's famous jousting accident in 1536. For a few hours, people were certain that he was dead or was about to die, and this incident caused a brief constitutional crisis. If Henry died, who would rule? His daughter, Mary, who he had just declared a bastard? His young daughter Elizabeth from Anne Boleyn? His bastard son, Henry FitzRoy? A regent? One of the old families who thought they had a claim to the throne? Now, these are the sort of questions that tend to get decided by civil wars, which nobody wanted. So Henry needed a male heir and it weighed on him as a personal failure that he had been unable to produce one, which was undoubtedly one of the reasons he concluded that several of his marriages had been cursed by God and needed to be annulled. Though, of course, one of Henry's defining traits was that his self-absorption was such that nothing was ever his fault, but a failing of those around him. #2: The Reformation is here. At the same time Henry was beginning to have his difficulties, the Protestant Reformation exploded across Europe. The reasons for the Reformation were manifold. There was a growing feeling across all levels of society that the church was corrupt and more concerned about money than tending to Christ's flock, a feeling not helped by the fact that several of the 15th and 16th century popes were essentially Renaissance princelings more interested in luxury, money, and expanding the power of the papal states than in anything spiritual. Many bishops, archbishops, abbots, and other high prelates acted the same way. The situation the early 16th century church found itself in was similar to American higher education today. Many modern professors and administrators go about their jobs quietly, competently, and diligently, but if you want to find examples of corruption, folly, and egregious waste in American higher education, you don't have to try very hard. Reformers could easily find manifold examples of clerical and papal corruption to reinforce their arguments. Additionally, nationalism was beginning to develop as a concept, as was the idea of the nation state. People in England, Scotland, Germany, and other countries began to wonder why they were paying tithes to the church that went to build beautiful buildings in Rome and support the lavish lifestyle of the papal court when that money might be better spent at home. For that matter, the anti-clericalism of the Reformation was not new and had time to mature. At the end of the 14th century, Lollardy was a proto-Protestant movement in England that challenged clerical power. In the early 15th century, the Hussite wars in Bohemia following the teachings of Jan Hus were a preview of the greater Reformation to come. Papal authority had been severely damaged by the Great Schism at the end of the 14th and the start of the 15th century when two competing popes (later expanded to three) all tried to excommunicate each other and claim control of the church. In the aftermath, Renaissance Humanists had begun suggesting that only the Bible was the proper source and guide for Christianity, and that papal authority and many of the church's practices were merely human traditions that had been added later and were not ordained by God. A lot of the arguments of the Reformation had their earliest form from the writers of the 15th century. Essentially, the central argument of the Reformation was that the believer's personal relationship with God is the important part of Christianity and doesn't need to be mediated through ordained priests in the official sacraments of the church, though such things were still important. Of course, all the various reformers disagreed with each other about just how important and what the nature of that relationship was, how many sacraments there should be, and what the precise relationship between the individual, the church, and the state should be (and that argument got entangled with many other issues like nationalism), but that was a central crux of the Reformation. So all these competing pressures have been building up, and when Martin Luther posted his statements for debate on church reform in October of 1517, it was the equivalent of lighting a match in a barn that had been stuffed full of sawdust and was suffering from a natural gas leak. #3: The printing press. So why did Luther's action kick off the Reformation as we know it and not the other proto-Protestant movements we mentioned? I think the big part of that is the printing pass, perhaps the biggest part. The printing press did not exist during the early proto-Protestant movements, which meant it was a lot harder for the ideas of reform to spread quickly. The Lollards in particular wanted to translate the Bible into English instead of Latin, but the Bible is a big book and that is a lot of copying to do by hand. In 1539, after a lot of encouragement from Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII decreed that an English Bible should be placed at every church in England. In 1339, that would have been an impossible amount of copying by scribes. In 1539, thanks to the printing press, it was essentially on the scale of the government embarking on a mid-sized industrial project, perhaps a bit of a logistical and organizational challenge and you have to deal with contractors, but by no means impossible. The printing press made it possible for the various arguments and pamphlets of the Reformers to spread quickly throughout Europe. Luther published tracts on a variety of religious and political topics for the rest of his life, and those tracks were copied, printed, and sold throughout Europe. In fact, he had something of a flame war with Thomas More over Henry VIII's "Defense of the Seven Sacraments". Kings and governments frequently tried to suppress printers they didn't like, but the cat was out of the bag and the printing press helped drive the Reformation by spreading its ideas faster than had previously been possible. AI bros occasionally compare modern large language model AIs to the printing press as an irreversible technological advancement, but one should note that the printing press of the 16th century did not require an entire US state's worth of electricity and an unlimited supply of water. So those were some of the undercurrents and trends leading up to the English Reformation. With that in mind, let's take a look at our four Thomases. #1: Thomas Wolsey. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey was Henry's right hand man during the first 20 years of his reign and essentially the practical ruler of England during that time. He started his career in Henry's reign as the almoner, essentially in charge of charity, and it ended up becoming the Lord Chancellor of England. Since Henry was not super interested in actually doing the hard work of government, Wolsey ended up essentially running the country while Henry turned his full enthusiasm towards the more ceremonial aspects of kingship. Wolsey was an example of the kind of early 16th Century church prelate we mentioned above, more of a Renaissance princeling than a priest. However, as Renaissance princelings went, you could do worse than to have been ruled by someone like Wolsey. And if you were a king, you would be blessed to have a lieutenant as diligent in his work as the Cardinal. Granted, Wolsey did amass a large fortune for himself, but he frequently patronized the arts, education and the poor, pursued some governmental reforms, and deftly maintained England's position in the turbulent diplomacy of the time. He was also much more forgiving in questions of religious dissent than someone like Thomas More. Wolsey was the most powerful man in England at his apex, and the nobility hated it for him because his origins were common. So long as he had Henry's favor, Wolsey was untouchable and the nobility couldn't move against him. But the royal favor came to an end as Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was unable to produce a son. Since Catherine had previously (and briefly) been married to his older brother Arthur before Arthur's death, Henry became convinced (or succeeded in convincing himself) that his marriage was cursed by God for violating the prohibition against sleeping with your brother's wife in the book of Leviticus. His eye had already fallen on Anne Boleyn and Henry wanted an annulment and not a divorce in his marriage with Catherine. In the eyes of God, he would never have been married at all, and then he could marry Anne Boleyn with a clear conscience. Here, Wolsey's gift for diplomacy failed him, but perhaps it was an impossible task. Catherine of Aragon was the aunt of Emperor Charles V, who at the time was the most powerful man in Christendom. All of Wolseley's efforts to persuade the pope to annul the marriage failed, partly because the pope had already given Henry VIII dispensation to marry his brother's widow. Wolsey's failure eroded his support with the king. Anne Boleyn likewise hated Wolsey partly because she believed he was hindering the annulment, and partly because he had blocked her from marrying the Earl of Northumberland years before she had her eyes set upon Henry. Finally, Henry stripped Wolsey of his office of Lord Chancellor, and Wolsey retired to York to take up his role as archbishop there. Wolsey's popularity threatened Henry and Anne, so Henry summoned him back to London to face treason charges. Perhaps fortunately for Wolsey, he died of natural causes on the journey back to London. His replacement as Lord Chancellor was Thomas More, the next of our major for Thomases. #2: Thomas More. More was an interesting contrast-a Renaissance Humanist who remained a staunch Catholic, even though Renaissance Humanists in general tended towards proto-Protestantism or actual Protestantism. He was also in some ways oddly progressive for his time. He insisted on educating his daughters at a time was considered pointless to educate women about anything other than the practical business of household management. Anyway, More's training as a lawyer and a scholar led him to a career in government. He held a variety of posts under Henry VIII, finally rising to become the Lord Chancellor after Wolsey. In the first decades of his brain, Henry was staunchly Catholic and despised Protestantism, in particular, Lutheranism in general and Martin Luther in particular. In 1521, Henry published "Defense of the Seven Sacraments" against Luther, and More helped him write it to an unknown degree. In their dislike for all forms of Protestantism, More and Henry were in harmony at this point. More was involved in hunting down heretics (i.e. Protestants) and trying to convince them to recant. During his time as the Lord Chancellor, More ended up sending six people to be burned at the stake for heresy, along with the arrest and interrogations of numerous others. This rather clashes with his "humanist man of letters" aspect, but More was undoubtedly convinced he was doing the right thing. And while he might have believed in education, he most definitely did not believe in freedom of conscience in several areas. To be fair to More, in the view of many at the time, Protestants, especially Anabaptists, were dangerous radicals. Likely More viewed hunting heretics in the same way as some modern politicians view hunting down covert terrorist cells or surveilling potential domestic terrorists. Harsh measures true, but harsh measures allegedly necessary for the greater good of the nation. However, the concord between More and Henry would not last. Henry wanted to set aside Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, which More staunchly opposed. More especially opposed Henry breaking away from Rome and becoming head of an independent English Church. At first, More was able to save himself by maintaining his silence, but eventually Henry required all of his subjects take an oath affirming his status as head of the church. Thomas Cromwell famously led a deputation to try and change More's mind, but he failed. More refused, he was tried on specious treason charges, and beheaded in 1535. Later, the Catholic church declared him the patron saint of politicians. This might seem odd given that he oversaw executions and essentially did thought police stuff against Protestants, but let's be honest-it's rare to see a politician even mildly inconvenience himself over a point of principle, let alone maintain it until death when he was given every possible chance to change his mind. Probably the most famous fictional portrayals of More are A Man For All Seasons and Wolf Hall. I would say that A Man For All Seasons was far too generous to More, but Wolf Hall was too harsh. #3: Now for the third of our four Thomases, Thomas Cromwell. After Wolsey's fall and More's refusal to support Henry's desire to either annul his marriage to Catherine or to make himself head with the church so he couldn't annul the marriage, Thomas Cromwell rose become Henry's new chief lieutenant. Cromwell is both a fascinating but divisive figure. For a long time, he was cast as the villain in Thomas More's saga, but Hillary Mantel's Wolf Hall really triggered a popular reevaluation of him. Like A Man For All Seasons was too generous to More, I would say Wolf Hall was too generous to Cromwell. Nonetheless, I suspect Cromwell was and remained so divisive because he was so effective. He got things done on a scale that the other three Thomases of the English Reformation never quite managed. Cromwell's origins are a bit obscure. It seems he was either of non-noble birth or very low gentry birth and his father Walter Cromwell was a local prosperous tradesman in a jack of all trades with a reputation for litigiousness. For reasons that are unclear, Cromwell fled his birthplace and spent some time in continental Europe, possibly as a mercenary soldier. He eventually made his way to Italy and started working for the merchant families there, gaining knowledge of trade in the law, and then traveled to the Low Countries. When he returned to England, he became Cardinal Wolsey's right hand man. After Wolsey's fall, Cromwell went into Parliament and defended his master whenever possible. This loyalty combined with his significant talent for law and administration caught the eye of Henry and he swiftly became Henry's right-hand man. Amusingly, Cromwell never became Lord Chancellor like More or Wolsey, but instead accumulated many lesser offices that essentially allowed him to carry out Henry's directives as he saw a fit. Unlike More and Wolsey, Cromwell had strong Protestant leanings and he encouraged the king to break away from the Catholic Church and take control of the English Church as its supreme head. Henry did so. His marriage to Catherine of Aragon was nulled. The rest of Europe never accepted this until Catherine died of illness and it became a moot point. In 1533, he married Anne Boleyn. Like Cromwell, Anne had a strong Protestant bent and began encouraging reformers to take various offices and began pushing Henley to make more reforms than he was really comfortable doing. For example, Cromwell was one of the chief drivers behind the English Bible of 1539. This, combined with Anne's inability to give Henry a son, contributed to Anne's downfall. Unlike Catherine, she was willing to argue with Henry to his face and was unwilling to look the other way when he wanted a mistress, and this eventually got on Henry's nerves. Events are a bit murky, but it seems that Henry ordered Cromwell to find a way he could set aside Anne and Cromwell complied. Various men, including her own brother, were coerced and confessing to adultery with Anne on charges that were most likely fabricated and Anne's "lovers" and Anne herself were executed for treason in 1536. Cromwell had successfully used a technique that many modern secret police organizations and dictatorships employ- if you want to get rid of someone for whatever reason, accuse them of a serious crime, coerce them to a confession, and then have them executed. Joseph Stalin did basically the same thing when he purged the Old Bolsheviks after Lenin's death. Henry married Jane Seymour shortly after Anne's execution, and she finally gave Henry his long-waited son, though she died soon afterwards of postpartum complications. Cromwell also oversaw the dissolution of the English monasteries in the 1530s. Monasticism had become quite unpopular even before the Reformation, especially among humanist writers. The concentration of property in the hands of monasteries made for a ripe target. Using Parliament and with Henry's approval, the monasteries of England were dissolved, the monks and nuns pensioned off, and the various rich properties held by the monasteries were given to the king and his friends. Cromwell himself profited handsomely. This was essentially legalized theft, but there was nothing the monasteries could do about it. Cromwell pushed for more religious reforms, but that combined with the dissolution of the monasteries caused "The Pilgrimage of Grace" in 1537, a rebellion that Henry was able to put down through a combination of lies, stalling, outright bribery, and brutal repression under the Duke of Norfolk (more about him later). Cromwell was at the zenith of his power and influence, but his reformist bent and made him a lot of enemies. For that matter, Henry was increasingly uncomfortable with further religious changes. He wanted to be head of his own church, but essentially his own Catholic Church, not his own Reformed or Lutheran one. Cromwell's alignment with the reform cause gave his more traditionalist enemies a tool to use against him. Cromwell's foes had their chance in 1540 when Henry married his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves. Cromwell had heavily pushed for the match, hoping to make an alliance with the Protestant princes of Germany against the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor. For whatever reason, Henry took an immediate dislike to Anne and never consummated the marriage, which was swiftly annulled and Anne pensioned off. Henry blamed Cromwell for the failed marriage and Cromwell's enemies, particularly Duke of Norfolk and Bishop Gardiner of Winchester, were able to convince Henry to move against him. Cromwell was arrested, stripped of all the titles and property he had amassed, and executed in July of 1540. The sort of legal railroading process he had born against Anne Boleyn's alleged lovers and numerous other enemies of Henry's was used against him. This was one of the very few executions Henry ever regretted. Within a year, the French ambassador reported that Henry was raging that his counselors had misled him into putting to death the most faithful servant he had ever had. Once again, nothing was ever Henry's fault in his own mind. The fact that Henry allowed Cromwell's son Gregory to become a baron and inherit some of his father's land shows that he likely changed his mind about the execution. For once in his life, Henry was dead on accurate when he called Cromwell his "most faithful servant". He never again found a lieutenant with Cromwell's loyalty and skill. The remaining seven years of Henry's reign blundered from setback to setback and all the money Henry obtained from the dissolution of the monasteries was squandered in indecisive wars with France and Scotland. I think it's fair to say that the English Reformation would not have taken the course it did, if not for Cromwell. As ruthless and as unscrupulous as he could be, he nonetheless did seem to really believe in the principles of religious reform and push such policies whenever he could do so without drawing Henry's ire. #4: Now the fourth of our four major Thomases, Thomas Cranmer. If Thomas Cromwell did a lot of the political work of the English Reformation, then Thomas Cranmer wrote a lot of its theory. Cranmer was a scholar and something of a gentle-minded man, but not a very skillful politician. He seemed happy to leave the politicking to Cromwell. I think Cranmer would have been a lot happier as a Lutheran pastor in say, 1950s rural Nebraska. He could have married a farmer's daughter, had a bunch of kids, and presided at weddings, funerals, and baptisms where he could talk earnestly about Jesus and Christian virtues, and he probably would have written a few books on obscure theological points. But instead, Cranmer was destined to play a significant part in the English Reformation. He started as a priest and a scholar who got in trouble for marrying, but when his wife died in childbirth, he went back to the priesthood. Later, he became part of the team of scholars and priests working to get Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. While he was at university and later in the priesthood, he became fascinated by Lutheran ideas and became a proponent of reform. As with Cromwell, Henry's desire to marry Anne Boleyn gave Cranmer his great opportunity. Anne's family were also in favor of reform, and they arranged for Cranmer to become the new Archbishop of Canterbury. The new archbishop and the like- minded clerics and scholars laid the legal and theological groundwork for Henry to break with Rome and become head of the English church with Cranmer and the rest of the reform faction wanted to be used to push for additional church reforms. He survived the tumults of Henry's reign by total loyalty to the king – he mourned Anne Boleyn, but didn't oppose her execution (though he was one of the few who mourned for her publicly), did much the same when Cromwell was executed, and personally sent news of Catherine Howard's adultery to the king. Because of that, Cranmer had a great chance to pursue the cause of reform when Henry died and his 12-year-old son Edward VI became King. Edward's uncle Edward Seymour acted as the head of the King's regency council, and Seymour and his allies were in favor of reform. Cranmer was at last able to steer the English church in the direction of serious reform, and he was directly responsible for writing the Book of Common Prayer and several other key documents of the early Anglican church. But Cranmer's of luck ran out in 1553 when Edward VI died. Cranmer was part of the group that tried to put the Protestant Lady Jane Grey on the throne, but Henry's daughter Mary instead took the crown. Mary had never really wavered from her Catholicism despite immense pressure to do so, and she had last had a chance to do something about it. She immediately brought England back to Rome and started prosecuting prominent reform leaders, Cranmer among them. Cranmer was tried for treason and heresy and sentenced to be burned, but that was to be commuted if he recanted his views in public during a sermon, which he did. However, at the last minute, he thunderously denounced his previous recantation, asserted his reformist faith, and vowed that he would thrust the hand that signed the recantation into the flames first. Cranmer was immediately taken to be burned at the stake, and just as he promised, he thrust his hand into the flames, and his last word is that he saw heaven opening and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Cranmer had spent much of his life trying to appease Henry while pushing as much reform as possible, but in his final moments, he had finally found his defiance. When Mary died and Elizabeth took the throne, she returned England to Protestantism. Elizabeth was much more pragmatic than her half siblings and her father ever were, so she chose the most expedient choice of simply rolling the English church back to as it was during Edward VI's time. Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer and religious articles, lightly edited for Elizabeth's sensibilities, became the foundational documents of the Anglican church. So these four Thomases, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cranmer were central to the events of the English Reformation. However, we have one bonus Thomas yet. Bonus Thomas: Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk. Thomas Howard was a powerful nobleman during the reign of Henry, and the Duke of Norfolk was frequently Henry's lieutenant in waging various wars and putting down rebellions. He was also the uncle of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, Henry's second and fifth queens. He was also involved in nearly every major event of Henry's reign. So with all that, why isn't Norfolk as remembered as well as the other four Thomases of the English Reformation? Sometimes a man would be considered virtuous by the standards of the medieval or early modern age, yet reprehensible in ours. For example, for much of the Middle Ages, crusading was considered an inherently virtuous act for a knight, whereas in the modern age, it would be condemned as war mongering with a religious veneer. However, by both modern standards and Tudor standards, Thomas Howard was a fairly odious character. For all their flaws and the morally questionable things they did, Wolsey, More, Cromwell, and Cranmer were all men of conviction in their own ways. More and Cranmer explicitly died with their faith. Cromwell's devotion to the Protestant cause got him killed since he insisted on the Anne of Cleves match. Even Wolsey, for all that he enriched himself, was a devoted servant of Henry after his downfall never betrayed the king. By contrast, Norfolk was out for Norfolk. This wasn't unusual for Tudor nobleman, but Norfolk took it to a new level of grasping venality. He made sure that his daughter was married to Henry's bastard son, Henry FitzRoy, just in case FitzRoy ended up becoming king. He used both his nieces, Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, to gain power and lands for himself, and then immediately turned against him once he became politically expedient. In fact, he presided over the trial where Anne Boleyn was sentenced to death. After the failure of the Anne of Cleve's marriage, Norfolk made sure to bring his young niece Catherine Howard to court to catch Henry's eye, and to use the Anne of Cleve's annulment as a lever to get rid of Thomas Cromwell. Both stratagems worked, and he attempted to leverage being the new Queen's uncle to bring himself to new power and riches, as he had with Anne Boleyn. Once Henry turned on Catherine Howard, Norfolk characteristically and swiftly threw his niece under the bus. However, as Henry aged, he grew increasingly paranoid and vindictive, and he had Norfolk arrested and sentenced to death on suspicion of treason. Before the execution could be carried out, Henry died, and Norfolk spent the six years of Edward VI's reign as a prisoner in the Tower of London. When Edward died and Mary took the throne, she released Norfolk since she was Catholic and Norfolk had always been a religious traditionalist suspicious of reform. He spent the remaining year of his life as one of Mary's chief advisors before finally dying of old age. As I often say, history can be a rich source of inspiration for fantasy writers, and the English Reformation is full of such inspiration. Wolsey, More, Cromwell, and Cranmer can all make excellent inspirations for morally ambiguous characters. For that matter, you can see why the reign of Henry VIII has inspired so many movies, TV shows, and historical novels. The real life events are so dramatic as to scarcely require embellishment. So that's it for this week. Thank you for listening to The Pulp Writer Show and thank you for listening as I went on one of my little historical digressions. I hope you found the show enjoyable. A reminder that you can listen to all the back episodes on https://thepulpwritershow.com. If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave a review on your podcasting platform of choice. Stay safe and stay healthy, and we'll see you all next week.

The role of Williams Tyndale in the translation of the English Bible is discussed. Dr. Gipp also explains how Tyndale would view modern scholarship and bible versions based on historical facts of how Tyndale viewed their predecessors. Links mentioned in the podcast:They Found The Church There: The Armed Forces Discover Christian Missions in the Pacific: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1406787914/ref=sw_img_1?smid=A3IHWHW38Z0N1B&psc=1Day Star Publishing: https://daystarpublishing.orgRecommended books by Dr. Gipp (available at https://daystarpublishing.org):- The Answer Book- Understandable History Of The Bible- Your Purpose For ExistingDr. Gipp's Website: https://samgipp.com/Dr. Gipp's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB-Asg1xgM2Ddsk4N48bbQQ/feedVideo series on "What's the Big Deal About the KJV?": https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmeJkHo165uuTk0vqt16PNpQsW2PQH_qQ&si=Z2e_4e0w_b4EJdTt

The execution of Tyndale and the English Bible (Know Your Story Week 2 ) - Dr. Matthew Barrett by St. Aidan's Anglican Church, KC

In this episode, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb explore one of Scripture's most fascinating puzzles: the parable of the lost sheep appears in both Luke 15 and Matthew 18, yet teaches dramatically different lessons depending on its context. In Luke, it defends Christ's mission to seek the lost and exposes Pharisaic self-righteousness. In Matthew, it becomes a pastoral manual for church discipline, humility, and restoration. This conversation challenges the common assumption that parables have only one meaning and demonstrates how the same story can illuminate multiple theological truths. The hosts unpack the scandalous grace woven throughout both accounts while wrestling with practical implications for church life, confrontation, and the celebration of repentance within the covenant community. Key Takeaways Context transforms meaning: The parable of the lost sheep appears in both Luke 15 and Matthew 18 with similar wording but vastly different applications—proving that parables can have multiple valid meanings depending on their literary and theological context. Matthew 18's audience is internal: Unlike Luke 15, which addresses outsiders and critics, Matthew 18 speaks to disciples about life within the kingdom community—focusing on humility, care for "little ones," and the church's responsibility toward vulnerable or straying members. The parable sets up church discipline: In Matthew 18, the lost sheep parable (vv. 12-14) directly precedes and theologically grounds the church discipline passage (vv. 15-20), teaching that confrontation should be motivated by pastoral rescue, not punitive justice. "Little ones" matter to the Father: The phrase "little ones" refers to children, new believers, and those vulnerable within the church—Christ warns sternly against despising them and insists it is not the Father's will that any should perish (v. 14). Restoration is the goal, not excommunication: Verse 15's language of "gaining your brother" frames confrontation as recovery. Even final excommunication (v. 17) should be carried out with ongoing hope for repentance and return, not with triumphalism or relief. Christ's presence empowers difficult work: The promise that "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them" (v. 20) is not a general prayer meeting verse—it's a specific assurance of Christ's authorizing presence during the judicial and painful work of church discipline. Divine intention shapes church posture: The statement "it is not the will of my Father...that one of these little ones should perish" (v. 14) must color every step of the discipline process, ensuring the church never loses sight of God's restorative heart. Explanatory Paragraphs Context Transforms Meaning One of the most significant insights from this episode is the recognition that the parable of the lost sheep serves distinct theological purposes in Luke 15 and Matthew 18. In Luke, Jesus tells the parable to Pharisees and scribes who criticize Him for welcoming sinners—the lost sheep represents those outside the covenant community whom Christ seeks. In Matthew, however, Jesus addresses His disciples within the context of kingdom life, and the lost sheep represents a believer who has wandered from the fold. This contextual shift demonstrates that parables are not rigid allegories with single meanings but flexible teaching tools that illuminate different facets of divine truth. The hosts argue that this reality should free interpreters from overly narrow readings and encourage careful attention to literary setting, audience, and surrounding discourse when seeking to understand Jesus' teaching. The Parable Sets Up Church Discipline In Matthew 18, the parable of the lost sheep (vv. 12-14) is not an isolated story but a theological foundation for the church discipline instructions that immediately follow (vv. 15-20). By emphasizing the shepherd's joy in recovering the one lost sheep and stating that it is not God's will for any "little one" to perish, Jesus prepares His disciples to approach confrontation with a restorative rather than punitive mindset. The language of "gaining your brother" (v. 15) echoes the recovery theme of the parable—confrontation is rescue, not victory. This connection is often missed because English Bible headings create visual breaks between verses 14 and 15, obscuring their flow. When read together without interruption, the passage reveals that every step of church discipline—from private conversation to final excommunication—must be undertaken with the Father's heart, which longs for the wanderer's return rather than their expulsion. Christ's Presence Empowers Difficult Work The promise in Matthew 18:20—"where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them"—is frequently misapplied as a general encouragement for small prayer groups or house churches. While Christ's omnipresence certainly validates such gatherings, the primary context of this verse is judicial and ecclesiastical. The "two or three" echoes the Old Testament requirement for multiple witnesses in matters requiring serious judgment (Deuteronomy 19:15), and the phrase appears at the climax of Jesus' teaching on church discipline. Christ is promising His authorizing presence specifically during the church's most difficult and painful work: confronting sin, evaluating repentance, and when necessary, declaring someone outside the visible church. This is both sobering and comforting—sobering because it reminds us that church discipline carries divine weight, and comforting because Christ does not leave His church alone in this weighty task but stands in the midst of the assembly, confirming its righteous judgments and sustaining its members through heartbreak. Memorable Quotes "This almost proves the idea that parables have one meaning just isn't really real...a single parable with the same words can have multiple, at the very least, can have multiple gradations of meaning." — Tony Arsenal "The scandal here is that it's not God's will that any one of these little ones should be lost. And that sometimes, I think, in the midst of great conflict feels scandalous." — Jesse Schwamb "Gaining your brother frames confrontation as rescue...discipline begins maybe actually all the way through as pastoral care. It's not public shaming." — Jesse Schwamb Full Transcript [The complete, unedited transcript of the episode would be included here for reference and accessibility.]

William Tyndale risked everything to put God's Word in your hands — and his final prayer was answered fast.This episode is a deep-dive, spy-thriller style story of William Tyndale: the scholar-fugitive who made the English New Testament a “dangerous object” in the 1520s–30s.We trace why translation was illegal, how the Bible was smuggled into England, and how a few “simple word choices” threatened an entire power system. In the end, Tyndale's death becomes a shocking victory — and a challenge for us today to actually read the Word we have so easily.WHAT YOU'LL LEARNThe Outlawed Word: Why church and state treated translation and even reading as heresy.The Laws of Fire: The Constitutions of Oxford (1408) and “De heretico comburendo.”The Ploughboy Prophecy: Tyndale's mission to put Scripture in ordinary hands.The Smuggling Networks: Printing raids, merchant allies, and the “Packington scheme.”The War of Words: Why “congregation,” “elder,” “repent,” and “love” shook the system.Betrayal & Martyrdom: Henry Phillips, the dungeon letter, and Tyndale's final prayer.The KJV Legacy: How Tyndale's phrasing fundamentally shaped the King James Version.CONNECT & RESOURCESBlog: https://conradrocks.netBook: Open Your Eyes https://amzn.to/3RJx7byBook: Night Terror https://amzn.to/3XRFohlAmazon Ministry List https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/2GSBT99APHFQR?ref_=wl_share

In this episode of Prove All Things, guest Robert Bates joins Jeff and Mike for a deep dive into the Name of God—why the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) appears thousands of times in the Hebrew Scriptures, why many English Bibles render it as “LORD,” and how Hebrew language and culture can add vivid depth to passages we already know. This is a thoughtful, Scripture-focused conversation that encourages reverence, humility, and “testing all things.”

I. Introduction Welcome to the Victory Church podcast and Sunday worship gathering. Victory's mission: reaching the lost, restoring the broken, reviving believers.​ Joy and gratitude for being in God's house where worship, prayer, the Word, and fellowship occur.​ Emphasis that God's grace enabled people to be present, overcoming hindrances.​ II. The Nature and Purpose of Prayer Prayer and the Word as central priorities at Victory Church.​ Biblical commands to pray: “men ought always to pray,” “pray without ceasing,” “watch and pray,” “continue earnestly in prayer.”​ Clarification: prayer is not a religious ritual but a relational conversation with a loving Father.​ Prayer as sharing cares, dreams, concerns with God; Scripture as God sharing His thoughts and heart with us.​ III. Reactive vs. Proactive Prayer A. Reactive Prayer Definition: responding to events, crises, and immediate needs after they happen.​ Typical reactive requests: jobs, finances, housing, healing, family and school pressures.​ Affirmation: these needs matter to God; believers should cast all cares on Him.​ Problem: if this is the only kind of praying, discipleship and prayer life are out of alignment with God's best.​ B. Proactive Prayer Definition: creating or shaping situations by praying God's will in advance, not only reacting.​ Example from the Lord's Prayer: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” as a proactive request.​ Goal: move believers beyond crisis-only praying into kingdom-focused, forward-looking prayer.​ IV. Acts 4 as a Model of Prayer A. Context of Acts 4 Acts as early church history, showing the Spirit-empowered beginnings of the church.​ Peter and John preaching, healing a crippled man, and provoking opposition from religious leaders.​ Authorities command them not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus.​ Connection to today: pressure in culture to silence biblical truth and the name of Jesus.​ B. The Disciples' Response They return “to their own” (the church, fellow believers) when threatened.​ Principle: where you turn in crisis reveals much about your heart.​ They share the report as a prayer request and turn immediately to corporate prayer.​ They pray in alignment with Scripture (Psalm 2) and God's will, not just emotions.​ C. Content of Their Prayer (Acts 4:24–31) Acknowledge God as Creator and Sovereign Lord over heaven and earth.​ Rehearse Scripture about nations raging and rulers opposing the Lord and His Christ.​ Interpret persecution as part of God's sovereign purpose in Christ's suffering.​ Reactive element: “Lord, look on their threats.”​ Proactive element: ask for boldness to speak the Word, and for God's hand to heal with signs and wonders in Jesus' name.​ Result: the place is shaken, all are filled with the Holy Spirit, and they speak God's Word with boldness.​ V. Praying with the Word and God's Will Call to pray not only from need or emotion but aligned with Scripture.​ Examples of praying Scripture over needs (provision, healing, emotional and spiritual needs, relationships).​ Recognition that God's will includes timing; believers must be sensitive and obedient.​ Emphasis: there is power when prayer and the Word are joined.​ VI. From Problem to Launching Pad Observation: in Acts 4, the crisis launches the church into deeper proactive prayer, not retreat.​ Instead of praying primarily for safety and comfort, they pray for greater boldness and impact.​ Application: believers today should ask God to use trials to produce testimony, messages, and greater influence for His glory.​ VII. Call to a Proactive Kingdom Focus A. For Truth and Witness in a Confused Culture Culture tolerates generic “god talk” but reacts strongly to the exclusive claims of Jesus.​ Expect opposition when living and speaking biblical truth, without being obnoxious or hypocritical.​ The church must stand firm on Scripture, not be shaped by social media or worldly opinions.​ B. For Local and Global Mission Victory Church's call: reach Providence and the nations through evangelism and missions.​ Example: missions trips (Kenya, Sierra Leone, Liberia) and conferences to strengthen pastors and churches.​ Appeal for proactive prayer for missions: bold preaching, anointing, signs and wonders, and lasting fruit.​ C. For Revival and Awakening Distinction: revival for the church (bringing believers back to life), awakening for the lost.​ Invitation to pray for souls, discipleship, anointing, revival in churches, and awakening in the nation.​ Desire to create cultures of discipleship, evangelism, missions, and deep engagement with Scripture.​ VIII. Illustrations of Proactive Prayer in History and Life Personal testimony: long season in temporary housing, choosing contentment and kingdom focus while trusting God's timing.​ Application of Matthew 6:33: prioritizing God's kingdom and righteousness, trusting Him to add needed things.​ Biblical example: Job praying for his friends and receiving double restoration.​ Historical examples: John Knox's burden “give me Scotland or I die” and its influence.​ David Brainerd's fervent prayer for Native Americans and resulting impact.​ William Tyndale's martyrdom for translating Scripture and the later spread of English Bibles.​ The Moravians' 100-year prayer meeting and remarkable missionary sending.​ IX. Practical Application and Invitation Challenge: move beyond “needs-only” praying to kingdom-centered, proactive prayer.​ Specific areas to pray proactively: personal walk, church, ministries, missions, national awakening, and social issues.​ Encouragement to stay for times of corporate prayer, lifting up pastors, leaders, and global work.​ Final appeal: cultivate a passion that cries, “Lord, give us souls, give us revival, use my life and this church for Your glory.”

With an explosion of English Bible versions on the market, why does Curtis Corner Baptist Church stand on the King James Bible? In this evening message from Matthew 4:1-4, Pastor Paul Chapman gives five clear, biblical reasons this is more than a matter of preference — it's a matter of conviction. In this sermon you'll learn:

Imagine a scene so haunting it echoes through six centuries: high-ranking officials digging up a man dead for 44 years just to burn his bones and scatter them in a river. Why? Because he dared to give the common man the Word of God in his own tongue. Join us as we journey back to the 14th century to meet John Wycliffe, the "Morning Star of the Reformation," and explore how he broke the "Latin chains" to end a spiritual famine. This episode is a deep dive into the courage, chaos, and linguistic revolution that paved the way for the Bible you hold today. Key TakeawaysThe Famine of the Word: Understanding the spiritual starvation of the Dark Ages and the fulfillment of the prophecy in Amos 8:11: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord."Dominion by Grace: Wycliffe's radical idea that spiritual authority comes from God's grace, not an office—echoing Psalm 118:22: "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner."The Lollard Movement: How "poor priests" and "mumblers" created an underground distribution network for the forbidden English scriptures.Linguistic Legacy: Discovering how Wycliffe didn't just translate the Bible; he molded the English language, giving us words like "glory," "mystery," and "treasure."The Global Ripple Effect: Why burning Wycliffe's bones failed to stop his message, eventually flowing from the River Swift to the great ocean of the Protestant Reformation.Call to ActionSubscribe to Coffee with Conrad for more deep dives into church history and prophetic insights.Share your thoughts: How does knowing the cost of the English Bible change the way you read it today? Leave us a review or a voice message!Visit the Site: For more "rocks of revelation," head over to conradrocks.net.LinksBlog: https://conradrocks.netBook: Open Your Eyes → https://amzn.to/3RJx7byBook: Night Terror → https://amzn.to/3XRFohlAmazon Ministry List → https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/2GSBT99APHFQR?ref_=wl_shareInner Circle Email Subscription: https://eepurl.com/dhtqlP My Books: * Open Your EyesNight TerrorT-Shirts: Team Jesus 4 Store PayPal: Support the Show Social Media:FacebookInstagramTwitter/XTikTok

Every Christian holds a Bible, but few stop to ask why they trust the text in their hands. Questions about manuscripts, translators, editions, and revisions are often treated as technical matters best left to specialists. Yet they carry enormous implications: Is the Bible I hold the very word of God—truly infallible and inerrant?For the preservationist, the story of the English Bible is not one of constant loss and recovery, but of transmission, reception, and faithful use within the life of the church—giving believers confidence in what has been handed down.In this episode of the Postscript, I'm joined by Dr. Jim Alter, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Sidney, Ohio, and co-founder of Ancient Baptist Press. Dr. Jim is also the founder, curator, and educator behind Purified Seven Times, a traveling exhibit that teaches the history of Bible translation into English with special attention to the preservation of God's word. Through pastoral ministry, publishing, and hands-on historical education, Dr. Jim helps Christians think carefully—and faithfully—about where their Bible came from and why that history still matters today.Visit https://www.gracebaptistsidney.com/exhibit to learn more about Purified Seven TimesVisit https://lfbi.org/learnmore

Welcome to Day 2786 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom – Theology Thursday – The Unintended Consequences of Replacing Yahweh with “God” Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2786 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps!   I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2786 of our Trek.   The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Our current series of Theology Thursday lessons is written by theologian and teacher John Daniels. I have found that his lessons are short, easy to understand, doctrinally sound, and applicable to all who desire to learn more of God's Word. John's lessons can be found on his website   theologyinfive.com.   Today's lesson is titled The Unintended Consequences of Replacing Yahweh with “God”. In the pages of Scripture, the God of Israel reveals Himself by name, Yahweh, a name that marks His identity, His covenant, and His absolute uniqueness among all other spiritual beings. Yet somewhere in the history of Jewish and Christian tradition, this name was quietly replaced. Where once God was named, now He is merely titled. Yahweh became “the LORD.” Eventually, even “the LORD” gave way to “God,” a generic and universal term that can apply to almost any religious conception of the divine. What began as an effort to show reverence or accommodate translation has produced serious theological consequences. The loss of God's name has led to a distorted view of monotheism, erased key distinctions between Yahweh and other spiritual beings, and enabled poor apologetic compromises, such as the claim that “Allah is just the Arabic word for God.” It has also obscured the meaning of the First Commandment and weakened the Church's understanding of its own covenant relationship. This article traces how we got here and why recovering the name Yahweh is essential to restoring biblical clarity. The First Segment is: From Name to Title: How Yahweh Was Replaced. The divine name Yahweh (יהוה), also called the Tetragrammaton, appears over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Bible. In Exodus 3:15, God declares, “This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.” Yet despite this, a tradition developed during the Second Temple Period in which Jews refrained from pronouncing the divine name aloud. Instead, they substituted it with Adonai (“Lord”) during public readings. This practice, rooted in caution and reverence, carried over into Greek and Latin translations of the Bible. The Septuagint rendered Yahweh as Kyrios (“Lord”), and the Latin Vulgate followed suit with Dominus. English Bibles later preserved this substitution, using the stylized “LORD” in small caps, often without explaining to readers that a name was being replaced. As Christianity spread into the Gentile world, the name Yahweh virtually disappeared from common use. The God of the Bible came to be referred to simply as “God,” a word that is not a name at all, but a title. And not a unique title either, “God” can refer to any number of deities across religious systems or even to philosophical abstractions. In trying to show reverence or universality, the Church began to erase the very name by which the true God had distinguished Himself. The second segment is: The Problem with “God”: A Category, Not a Character This shift might seem minor, but it represents a profound theological error. In Hebrew, the word elohim is used to...

This is the first episode in our new series exploring William Tyndale's life, Bible translation, and legacy. Tony Watkins interviews experts in the sixteenth century and the history of the Bible. In this first episode, they explore the history of Bible translation prior to William Tyndale and the cultural context in which he lived and worked.We're very grateful for contributions from:Bruce Gordon, the Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale Divinity School, and author of The Bible a Global HistoryAlec Ryrie, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of DurhamSimon Burton, John Laing Senior Lecturer in Reformation History at the School of Divinity at the University of EdinburghKarl Gunther, historian of the Reformation from the Hamilton School for Classical and Civic Education in the University of FloridaLink to Season 5 of the Tyndale House Podcast on New Testament manuscripts: https://tyndalehouse.com/2025/01/16/s5e1-what-is-a-manuscript-and-why-should-we-study-them/Support the showEdited by Tyndale House Music – Acoustic Happy Background used with a standard license from Adobe Stock.Follow us on: X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

The number of English Versions has exploded in recent years. Why? How are they different? What should you consider and what should you avoid? We'll look at the history of the English Bible, and Dr Jeannie will share some of her personal experiences in doing translation work.

A @Christadelphians Video: Inspiring, thought-provoking and insightful, join us for the first part in our exploration of the monumental 500-year story of the English Bible. This revealing expositional journey uncovers the courageous sacrifices and outstanding scholarship that brought God's Word into the hands of ordinary people. We reflect on how this history shapes our personal responsibility to read, understand and value the Scriptures today.**Chapters:**00:00 - Introduction: The Consequential Book01:19 - Why This History Matters for Us03:37 - The Biblical Ethos: Read for Yourself04:52 - Sources and Commemoration05:20 - The Central Figure: William Tyndale05:39 - Historical Backdrop: The Roman Empire and Jerome's Vulgate06:44 - The Fall of Constantinople and the Flood of Scholarship10:00 - Erasmus and the Greek New Testament12:10 - The Translation Timeline: Wycliffe to Tyndale13:14 - William Tyndale: Early Life and Education14:40 - The ‘Call' at Little Sodbury16:19 - Flight and Translation Work in Europe16:51 - The First Printed Translation and the Cologne Fragment17:36 - Success: The 1526 New Testament18:22 - Tyndale's Later Work, Betrayal and Martyrdom19:53 - Legacy: The King James Version and Beyond20:47 - Conclusion and Reflection**Bible Verse Category:**

A @Christadelphians Video: Inspiring, thought-provoking and revealing, join us as we explore the incredible legacy of William Tyndale and the birth of the English Bible 500 years ago. This insightful expositional presentation delves into how one man's courageous work changed history, challenged powerful religious institutions and made God's Word accessible to all. We uncover Tyndale's revolutionary—and often overlooked—beliefs, comparing them with scripture to reveal the outstanding and wonderful power of the ancient gospel.**Chapters:**00:00 - Introduction: A Legacy of Courage20:48 - Challenging Religious Authority21:13 - The Seeds of Reformation & The Christadelphian Community21:38 - Tyndale's Unusual Beliefs22:36 - Our Responsibility to Search the Scriptures23:06 - What William Tyndale Believed23:45 - Translation Choices: Undermining Church Institution25:50 - A Summary of Tyndale's Groundbreaking Beliefs26:44 - An Open Challenge to Mainstream Christianity27:11 - Letting Scripture Interpret Scripture28:24 - The Biblical Truth About Hell and the Resurrection33:22 - The Apostolic Comfort: Christ's Return and the Resurrection36:53 - The Deeper Influence: The English Bible and Zionism38:34 - Tyndale's Final Witness and Unwavering Courage40:03 - Conclusion: What Will We Do With This Gift?**Bible Verse Category:**

In episode 471 of The Reformed Brotherhood, hosts Jesse Schwamb and Tony Arsenal begin a multi-part series on Jesus's parables of lost things in Luke 15. This first installment focuses on the Parable of the Lost Sheep, exploring how Jesus uses this story to reveal God's disposition toward sinners. The hosts examine the contextual significance of this teaching as Jesus's response to the Pharisees' criticism of his fellowship with tax collectors and sinners. Through careful analysis of the text, they unpack how this parable not only rebukes religious self-righteousness but also reveals the active, seeking love of Christ for His own. The discussion highlights the profound theological truth that God's joy is made complete in the restoration of His lost children. Key Takeaways The Parable of the Lost Sheep demonstrates Christ's heart for sinners, showing that seeking the lost is not exceptional behavior but the expected norm for those who understand God's character. Jesus positions this parable as a direct response to the Pharisees' criticism, turning their accusation ("he eats with sinners") into an affirmation of His mission and identity. The lost sheep represents those who belong to Christ but have gone astray; the shepherd's pursuit illustrates Christ's commitment to recover all whom the Father has given Him. God's rejoicing over one repentant sinner reveals a profound theological truth: divine joy increases in the act of showing mercy and restoring the lost. The shepherd's willingness to leave the 99 to find the one reflects not recklessness but the infinite value God places on each of His children. Regular worship practices, including family worship and congregational singing, reflect the same disposition of praise that heaven displays when sinners return to God. The parable serves not only as a comfort to sinners but as a challenge to believers to adopt God's heart toward the lost rather than the judgmental attitude of the Pharisees. Understanding the Shepherd's Heart The central focus of the Parable of the Lost Sheep is not simply God's willingness to receive sinners, but His active pursuit of them. As Tony Arsenal points out, Jesus presents the shepherd's search not as an extraordinary act of sacrifice, but as the obvious and expected response: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the one that is lost?" Jesus frames this as the normal behavior that any shepherd would exhibit, making the Pharisees' lack of concern for "lost sheep" appear not just uncompassionate but utterly irrational. This reveals a profound truth about God's character: He is not passively waiting for sinners to find their way back to Him; He is actively seeking them out. As Jesse Schwamb emphasizes, "Christ's love is an active, working love." The shepherd does not merely hope the sheep will return; he goes after it until he finds it. This reflects God's covenant commitment to His people—those whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world. The parable thus powerfully illustrates the doctrines of divine election and effectual calling within a deeply personal and relational framework. The Divine Joy in Restoration Perhaps the most striking element of this parable is the emphasis on the shepherd's joy upon finding his lost sheep. This isn't merely relief at recovering lost property, but profound celebration that calls for community participation: "Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost." Jesse highlights Thomas Goodwin's profound insight that "Christ's own joy, comfort, happiness, and glory are increased and enlarged by his showing grace and mercy." This suggests something remarkable about God's relationship with His people—that in some mysterious way, God's joy is made more complete in the act of showing mercy and restoring sinners. The hosts point out that this doesn't imply any deficiency in God, but rather reveals the relational nature of His love. When Jesus states that "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance," He's indicating that divine celebration isn't prompted merely by moral perfection but by restoration and reconciliation. This understanding transforms how we approach God when we've strayed. As Jesse notes, "Jesus is never tired, flustered, or frustrated when we come to him for fresh forgiveness or renewed pardon." Our repentance doesn't merely avoid punishment; it actually brings joy to the heart of God. This is a profound comfort for believers struggling with sin and failure, assuring us that our return is met not with divine disappointment but with heavenly celebration. Memorable Quotes "This parable of the lost sheep gives us the beating heart of God, his normative disposition toward his children. It's really an exceptional and special window into God's design, his loving compassion for us, his heart of ministry and seeking for us, for his children who are lost." - Jesse Schwamb "He wants us to draw on his grace and mercy because it is inherently who he is. And he drew near to us in this incarnation so that his joy and ours could rise and fall together, which is insane that God would come and condescend to that degree that in his giving mercy and in ours receiving it, Christ gets more joy and comfort than we do when we come to him for help and mercy." - Jesse Schwamb "Christ's love is an active working love. Just as the shepherd did not sit still, wailing for his lost sheep, so our blessed Lord did not sit still in heaven pitying sinners. He comes to us, he came to us, and he continues to draw to himself those who are sheep, who hear his voice." - Jesse Schwamb Host Information Jesse Schwamb and Tony Arsenal are the hosts of The Reformed Brotherhood, a podcast that explores Reformed theology and its application to the Christian life. With a blend of theological depth and practical insight, they examine Scripture through the lens of historic Reformed doctrine, offering accessible teaching for believers seeking to grow in their understanding of the faith. Resources Mentioned Scripture: Luke 15:1-7, Matthew 18, John 10 Worship Resource: Sing The Worship Initiative (sing.theworshipinitiative.com) Theological Reference: Thomas Goodwin's writings on Christ's joy in redemption Brad Kafer and Michael Lewis, The Theocast Tragedy, episode 75, with guest Jeremy Marshall, November 16, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-reclamation-podcast/id1747221237?i=1000736883898. Joshua Lewis and Michael Rowntree, The Theocast Split: Examining Christian Unity and Theological Differences, November 11, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-remnant-radios-podcast/id1392545186?i=1000736293538. Daniel Vincent, Fallout of Theocast, November 15, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-particular-baptist-podcast/id1512601040?i=1000736872315. Tony Arsenal, "A Refutation of Reformed Fringe," Reformed Arsenal, November 2025, https://reformedarsenal.com/category/a-refutation-of-reformed-fringe/. Tony Arsenal, "The Quest For Illegitimate Religious Gnosis: How 'Fringe' Theology Deforms Christology," Heidelblog, November 24, 2025, https://heidelblog.net/2025/11/the-quest-for-illegitimate-religious-gnosis-how-fringe-theology-deforms-christology/. Full Transcript [00:00:08] Jesse Schwamb: And what's special about the series? Parables that we're about to look at is it gives us the beating heart of God, his normative disposition toward his children, which is not like, we haven't seen some of that already, but this is, I think, really an exceptional and special window into God's design. His loving can compare for us, his heart of ministry and seeking for us for his children who are lost. It's really unequal in all the parables and probably among some of the most famous, Welcome to episode 471 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse. [00:00:56] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother. [00:01:01] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother. You know, it seems like sometimes we could just summarize the teaching of Jesus like this. You get a parable and you get a parable, and you get a parable, and we've already, by looking at some of these parables, gotten to see what the kingdom of God means. The kingdom of God is Jesus coming in His power. It's here, but also not yet. The kingdom of God is the judgment of God. The kingdom of God is a blessing of God. The kingdom of God is the treasure of God. And what's special about the series? Parables that we're about to look at is it gives us the beating heart of God, his normative disposition toward his children, which is not like, we haven't seen some of that already, but this is, I think, really an exceptional and special window into God's design. His loving can compare for us, his heart of ministry and seeking for us for his children who are lost. It's really unequal in all the parables and probably among some of the most famous, and I think we'll probably have some maybe like semi hot takes, maybe some like mid hot takes as the young kids say. [00:02:07] Tony Arsenal: Mid hot takes. [00:02:08] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. [00:02:08] Tony Arsenal: So like [00:02:09] Jesse Schwamb: lukewarm takes, well my thought is like, what is a hot take that's not heretical? Do you know what I mean? So it's gotta be, yeah, [00:02:16] Tony Arsenal: there you go. [00:02:16] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It's like, listen, we want to be orthodox in our approach here, but I think we gotta, we gotta chew these up a little bit. Like we gotta digest them, we gotta move them around in our gut and really take everything that we've, we thought we knew about these, we just heard and they've been written on cards or postcards or crocheted into, I guess you're not crocheting bible verses, but like cross stitching Bible verses on pillows and really go deep because I think there's so much here for us, and if this were like for, for everybody that wants to say that, sometimes we take a little bit too long with our series. Again, I do have a question, simple question for all of those people. And that question is how dare you? And the second thing I would say is, you're lucky that you're not listening to a Puritan podcast. Maybe you never would, like at the Puritans in a podcast, the series would never end. They'd start with like a single verse and be like, we're gonna do two episodes on this. And then they'd be getting to the like, you know, 4 71 and they still wouldn't have left like the, the first five words. [00:03:11] Tony Arsenal: It's true, it's true. We move a little bit faster than that. Pace. Not much. Yeah. Way, [00:03:15] Jesse Schwamb: listen, way faster. By like Puritan standards, we are cruising. Like we're, we're just like NASCAR going through these parables. And to that end, I'll try to keep us moving though. I've already delayed us already because we're, we're late for affirmations. [00:03:30] Affirmations and Denials [00:03:30] Jesse Schwamb: Denials. The time is ripe. It is Now. The fields are gleaning with affirmations and denials. So let's, let's bring them in. Tony, are you denying against, are you affirming with something? [00:03:40] Tony Arsenal: It's a little bit of both, I guess. Um, do it. [00:03:44] Controversial Theology Discussion [00:03:44] Tony Arsenal: A little while ago, uh, it was maybe back in September, I did an episode on, uh, some theology that was being propagated by a podcast called Reformed Fringe. Um, it was a solo episode, so if you haven't listened to it, go back and listen to it. The affirmation here comes in, in, uh, the form of a show called, I think it's called The Reclamation Cast. Um, there are a series of podcasts that have addressed some of the same issues. For those who haven't been following it, which I would assume is probably most of you, the issue is kind of blown up online. Um, Theo Cast, which was a pretty big a, a really big podcast in the, uh, sort of reformed ish, particular Baptist world. Um, they actually split because of this. And so John Moffitt was one of the hosts. Justin Perdue was the other. And then John was also on this show called Reform Fringe with Doug Van Dorn. So I'm affirming some of these other podcasts that have covered the same issue, and I would encourage you to seek them out and listen to them. I can can pull some links together for the show notes today. Um, more or less the, the issue that I identified, um, is beyond just sort of what's known as Divine Counsel Theology, which was made, made, really made popular by, um, Michael Heiser. I don't know that he would, we could say that he was necessarily like the. Architect or inventor of that. I'm sure there are people who've had similar thoughts before that, but he's really the main name. Um, he's passed on now, but, um, Doug Van Dorn was a, uh, he's a Baptist pastor outta Col, uh, Colorado, who took his views and actually sort of like cranked him up and particularly. Uh, troubling is the way he handles, um, the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Um, I won't go into all of the details, but he wants to argue and he has argued in writing actually, and he, he published the paper first in 2015, and then again in 2024, he published it again, uh, with very minimal changes and nothing substantial. It was really kind of contextual stuff. Um, he actually argues that in the Old Testament, when we see the angel of the Lord, it's not just, not just God appearing as an angel, it's God actually becoming an angel. And in his paper, at least, he argues, um, more or less that this is a sort of hypostatic union. It's not just a temporary taking on of some sort of like outward appearance. Um, it's an actual, uh, uh, assumption of properties into the person of the sun. And the whole reason he makes this argument, which is why it's a little disingenuine, that now he's saying that's not what his argument was. He makes this argument in order to make it so the angel of the Lord can genuinely suffer, experience passions, change his mind, um, enter into covenant, come to know new knowledge, like there's all sorts of things that he wants the angel of the Lord to be able to actually do, not just accommodated, but actually. Experience. Um, and he does that by having the angel of the Lord be an appropriation of angelic properties into the person of the sun, what we would call a hypostatic union. And in his paper, he actually says like, I would want to use all of the same language of, uh, of this union as I do of the incarnation. He intentionally uses the words image and form kind of drawing from Philippians two. So the, the affirmation comes in and there are other podcasts that have identified this. So it's not just me. I would encourage people to go find them. Where the denial comes in is, um, there have been many people, including myself, who have attempted to engage with Doug Van Dorn, like publicly, directly, um, through private messaging. There are many people who've tried to reach out to him, and he has just sort of waved all of them away. Which is one thing, if like you just say like, I don't really care to interact with you. I don't really care to have this discussion. But then he is also presenting the situation as though he, he is totally open to having these conversations and nobody is trying to reach out to him. So I would encourage everyone, you're all reasonable people, search the scriptures, read what he has to say. The paper that he wrote is called Passing the Impassable pa or impassable Impasse, which is hard to say, but it's a very clever title. Um, and it was, it actually was written, I don't know a lot about this controversy and maybe I need to do a little bit more research. It was actually written during a time where, um, the particular Baptist conventions that were out out west where experiencing a lot of internal controversy regarding impassability, and this was his proposal for how, how biblically you can still maintain the divine attributes of changeness and impassability all these things, uh, without compromising the real, the real passable, um, appearance that we see of the, of God in the Bible. So. I don't wanna belabor the point. This is not the point of the show. We, I already did a whole episode on this. I've published, I wrote many blog articles. There's a lot that I've, I've put out on this. Um, so check it out, look at it. Wait for yourself. Um, the only reason I've been, this has come up in our telegram chat. People have encountered this theology. Um, one, one guy was asking about it, 'cause I think like his mom or his aunt or someone close to him had, has been sort of reading Michael Heider's work. Michael Heiser was very instrumental at logos. He was on staff at Logos for quite a while. So a lot of their, um, more speculative theological articles that you might find on their website are written by him. Um, he was a, one of the main people behind the sort of proprietary translation that, um, Laro uses the Lham, um, English Bible. So. It's not a neutral point. Pretty significant theological consequences if, uh, if our reading of what Doug is saying is correct. Um, and there doesn't seem to be any real openness to discussing that. He has to be fair, he has published a series of affirmations and denials, um, affirming his a his orthodoxy saying he affirms the change changeness of the son. He denies that there was a hypothetic union. So that's encouraging. It's great to see that when it comes down to it. He's willing to make affirmations, uh, of orthodox things and to deny unorthodox things, but it doesn't really help the situation when those things and those affirmations, denials are still at very least difficult to reconcile with what he wrote. I think in point of fact, they're actually contradictory to what he wrote. So the, the proper course of action would be for him to say, well, no, that's not what I meant. Or, or, yes, I wrote that, but that's not what I believe. Um, rather than to just try say, trying to say like, well, you all got it wrong. There's a lot of people reading these papers looking at it going, Ooh, it sure seems like the sun took on an angelic nature, even if that was temporary. That's, that's got some pretty weird consequences for your theology. And one of the shows I was listening to made this point that I thought was interesting and a little scary is this is like an utterly new theology. Um, no one that I've talked to who is aware of this, who studied these issues. Is aware of anyone ever saying anywhere that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was some sort of like assumption of actual angelic properties into the person of the sun. Almost everywhere that you read. It's either a manifestation view where the sun is kind of appearing as an angel, um, but it's not actually becoming an angel. It's, it's sort of taking on created medium, uh, in order to reveal himself or an instrumental view, which would be something like there's an angel that is used instrumentally by the Lord, and so we can say that it the angel of the Lord is the Lord in an instrumental sense, kind of like saying like if I pick up a hammer. Use that hammer for as long as I'm using that hammer. The hammer is actually sort of an extension of me. I'm moving it, I'm motivating it, I'm controlling it, it's connected to me, and then I put it down when I'm finished. Those are kind of the two main views that people, people would argue in the Old Testament, if they want to even say that the angel of the Lord is a Christoph, it would either be this manifestation view or this instrumental view, this sort of weird novel assumption of properties view. I'm, I've never encountered anything like that and I've studied this, this, this particular issue at some length. So check out the other episodes, I'll pull together some links, uh, of ones that have done it, both that have been, uh, critical of Doug's position. And also there was one, um, on remnant radio, which I never heard of, but, um, that was acknowledging that there are some question marks, but sort of saying like, this really is an overblown controversy. Um, and then I'll link to Doug's podcast too, so you can listen to his own words and, and sort of think through it yourself. [00:11:51] Jesse Schwamb: Some point I have this volition, you know, places, organizations, groups might have like FAQs, frequently asked questions. I have this idea to put together for us, like a frequently discussed topic. This would be one of them. We've talked, or we co we've come back to this idea of like the molecule way, the messenger of the Lord many times. Yeah. In part because I think there's a good and natural curiosity among many when you're reading the scriptures and you see that's the angel of the Lord and you're trying to discern, is it Christoph? And in some cases it seems more clear than others. For instance, the Maia appearing to, you know, Joshua, or, you know, there's, there's all kinds of instances in the scripture that draw us into this sense of like, well, who is it that is being represented here? And the funny thing about this though, and I agree with you, that like makes it. Puts it in like, I would say contradistinction to like just kind of innocently wanting to understand is that there's a lot of theological gymnastics happening here, like a lot and two, it seems to me that he's kind of trying to create a problem to find a solution on this one. Yeah. And so it should give everybody that sense that we always talk about where like the red light goes off, the flags get thrown up, that when you hear that, you're just like, well, something is not right about that. And the thing that's not right about it is one, it doesn't subscribe to, like you're saying, any kind of historical orthodoxy. And two, it's just funky for funky sake. It's, there's really a lot that's happening there to get to some kind of end, and it's better to know what that end is. I'm glad you brought that up. So I think you can, everybody who's listening can weigh, like, if you. Don't wanna weigh into that, or you don't really need to solve the problem that's being created here, then don't bother with it altogether. Yeah. Uh, it's just not worth your time. But people, this is the hide thing. Like when, when we are challenged to be discerning people, when we are challenged to take scriptures at face value, there is always a tendency for us sometimes to go too deep, to get too wild with it, to try to turn around and bend it to, to answer all in every single question. And even the reform tradition doesn't attempt to do that. So here, there is something that's beautiful about these certain mysteries of God and to take him at his face, to trust him in his word, we should seek, seek out many things. Some things are just not worth seeking out. So, you know, the Internet's gonna internet and people are gonna, people and theologians are gonna theologize. And sometimes that's good and sometimes it's not that productive. [00:14:08] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I, I think to be as charitable as I possibly can be, I think, um, Doug is, has identified a legitimate. Question about the Old Testament, right? Right. The, the Bible appears when we read about God in the Old Testament. He appears to do things like change his mind, suffer yes. Grieve experience passions. Right. Um, and, and so that's a real, um, question that needs to be answered as you read the Old Testament. Um, and the two options of course, or the two primary options of course, are either that God actually suffers, he actually experiences those things, in which case he wouldn't be a changeless God. Um, he wouldn't be a perfect God because there's these, these modes of change within God. The other option would be that there's some sort of appearance of suffering or appearance of, of change or passions that is not actual, it's not real in the sense that he's not God's lying. It's not that God's lying to us, of course not. But that these are appearances for our sake. We would say that's, we call that the doctrine of accommodation. Right. Um. What Doug tries to do is actually exactly what the church did in trying to understand how it could be that the second person of the Trinity suffered. Uh, why, why we can genuinely say that God suffered. Um, we can say that and that the answer was the hypothetic union, and this is where it really kind of like jumped into full relief for me is Doug has the same answer for the Old Testament, but instead of an incarnation of humanity, I don't know what you would call it, an, an evangelization or a, something like that, um, he would probably call like a, some somatization. Um, he uses the difference between Soma and sars as though that somehow answers the question. He says it's not a, an incarnation into sarks. It's a, an assumption of properties in da Soma. But in either case, like his answer is the same answer. That the way that the angel of the Lord suffers in the Old Testament is not according to his divine nature. It's according to these angelic properties that are assumed into his person well. Okay, so like you get the same conclusion. There needs to be some explanation now of like, well, why is it a hypostatic union when it's the human nature, but it's not a hypostatic union when it's the angelic nature or angelic properties. Um, and I think the, the real answer is that when Doug wrote those papers, he just didn't realize those implications. Um, Doug is a sharp guy, like, don't get me wrong, he's a smart guy. Um, I think he's got a pretty good grip on Hebrew and, and a lot of this too is, um. Not to make this more of an episode than it is, but, um, this Divine Council worldview at first feels like not that big of a deal when you, when you read about it the first time. Um, or when you read sort of like popular treatments of it. Um, the real problem is that this divine council worldview, um, which I'm not gonna define again, you can look, I'll pull the radio episode or the other podcast episodes, but this divine council worldview becomes like the controlling meta narrative for the entire scripture for these guys. And so if, if the son is to be the sort of lead Elohim on this divine council besides Yahweh himself, then he has to become an angel. He has to become a one of the sons of God in order to do this. Sort of almost ignoring the fact that like he already was the son of God. Like, it, it just becomes, um, this controlling meta-narrative. And if all that this, all that this divine council worldview is saying is like, yes, there's a class of creatures. Um, that are spiritual in nature and the Bible uses the word Elohim to describe them and also uses the word Elohim to describe the one true God who's in an entirely different class. And it just happens to use the same, the same word to describe those two classes. Okay. Like I would find a different way to say that that's maybe not as risky and confusing, but that would be fine. But this goes so much farther than than that. And now it has all these weird implications. He actually did a five, five-part sermon series at his church where his argument is essentially that like this. This overarching narrative of the Sons of God and, and the 70 sons of God. Um, that that's actually the story that explains how salvation functions and what we're being saved to is we're not being swept into the life of the Trinity, which is kind of the classic Christian view, the classic orthodox view that because, because of who the son is by nature, in reference to the father, when we're adopted, we gain that same relationship with the father and the son and the spirit. Um, he's, he's wanting to say, it's actually more like, no, we, we we're sort of brought onto this divine council as, as creator representatives of the cosmos. So it's, it, there's a lot to, it's, um, again, I, I don't want people just to take my word for it. I'm gonna provide as many receipts as I can, um, in the, the, um, show notes. Um, but yeah, it's, it's weird and it, it's unnecessary and [00:18:57] Jesse Schwamb: that's right. [00:18:58] Tony Arsenal: It made a lot of sense to me when Michael Heiser went down these routes, because his whole program was, he had a, a podcast called The Naked Bible, and the whole idea was like he interprets the Bible apart from any prior interpretations, which of course we know is not possible. But that was sort of his plan was he's. It wasn't necessarily anti cre, anti-real or anticon confessional. He just thought you needed to and could come to the Bible without any sort of pre interpretive, uh, positions. Um, so it made a lot of sense to me when he was like, well, yeah, this isn't the way that the historic tradition isn't understood this, but that doesn't matter. But then you have someone like Doug Van Dorn come around who claims to be a 1689 Confessional Baptist. This is like radically foreign to that system of doctrine. So it's just a weird situation. It's kind of an abandonment of the pattern of sound words that handed down to us, the ages. Um, and it does have all these weird implications, and I'm not hearing loud and clear. I am not saying Doug Van Dorn is not a Christian. Um, I do think that the implications of what he's teaching are heretical. Um, but we've made the distinction before that like, just because you teach something heretical doesn't mean you're a heretic. Um, that's a, that's a formal proclamation that the church officially makes not some dude on the internet with a podcast. But the, the implications of his teaching are quite dangerous. So. Check it out. Read it with caution and with discernment, um, and with, you know, a good systematic theology that can help kind of correct you in your hands. And the creeds and the confessions. But dude, check it out. You, you're reasonable people. Look at the scriptures yourself and make your own decisions. I don't expect anybody to ever just take my word for any of this stuff. [00:20:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's right. Or like you said, don't bother with. Yeah. Or don't bother. Just read the confessions. Unaware of it. Yeah. That's also, okay. Stick to the, the, hopefully the good local preaching and teaching that you're receiving and just hang out there. Yeah. And that's also okay. The internet is a super strange and weird place. Yeah. And that includes even among well intentions. Theology, sometimes it just gets weird. And this is one of those examples. [00:20:51] Tony Arsenal: It's true, it's true. I often tell people that my, my goal in any sort of public teaching or podcasting or blogging or when I'm preaching, uh, my goal is to be as like vanilla reformed as I possibly can. Like that's what I'm saying. There, there are times where like some of the stuff that I be, like, I, I'm not like straight down the middle on every single thing. There are things that I would, you know, like my view on, um, state relations with church like that, that's not exactly run of the mill vanilla presbyterianism. Um, so there are definitely things where I'm, I'm sort of a little off center on, um, but I try to be like right down the middle of the vanilla, vanilla aisle here with maybe a little bit of chocolate sauce here and there. But it's, it's pretty, uh, my reform theology is pretty boring and I'm fine with that. I love [00:21:35] Jesse Schwamb: it. I love it. It's okay to be boring, isn't it? Like boring? It's is for the most part, right. On the money. Because often when we do take our views and we polarize them to some degree, we know that there's a greater probability propensity for the errors to lie there if you're always hanging out there. Yeah. But especially in this, again, you've said all the right things it, it's just one of those things. But it's a good mark for all of us to understand that when we move so far away from orthodoxy that we're just kind of out on the pier by ourselves and you're looking around, you ought to ask what happened that you're out there so far. [00:22:05] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Well, Jesse, save us from this train of thought. What are you affirming or denying today? [00:22:10] Jesse Schwamb: I hope I have something that's exactly the opposite. As you know, Tony, not all affirmations especially are created equal because sometimes we throw one out there and it's, it's good. We think it's great. Maybe not for everybody. It doesn't resonate. It doesn't hit. This is not one of those, this is for everybody. [00:22:24] The Importance of Daily Worship [00:22:24] Jesse Schwamb: I'm coming in with a hot, strong affirmation, and that is one of the things you and I have promulgated for so long is the beauty, the necessity, the responsibility, and the joy of regular daily worship, and that can look. Lots of ways, but I think you and I have tried in our own lives and we've spoken a lot about the high conviction that we have that that kinda worship should be participatory and it can involve reading the scriptures, praying, singing this spills over into convictions about family worship, leading our families, and that kinda experience, even if it's just a little bit every day and even if it's, we give it our best efforts, this is not like a kind of legalistic approach. And so I just came across something that I think I've been testing for a while that I think is faab fabulous for everybody, could be helpful to you in daily worship. And I'm just gonna give you the website first and explain what it is. Secondly, so the website is sing the worship initiative.com. That's sing dot the worship initiative.com. You can find it if it's easier. Just search the Worship initiative. What this is, is it is. Once you sign up for this, you'll actually get a text. It's a daily text, and that text will be a link in a browser every day. So it's not a podcast, but it comes through a browser every day. It is a time of, I would say, I'll use the word colloquially, it's a time of devotional with singing led by Shane and Shane and some of their other musicians and their friends. And this is glorious. It's no more than 15 minutes, and it's purposely orchestrated to lead you or whoever's listening with you in singing, including in the app or rather in the browser. They will give you the words for the songs that they're gonna sing that day. And one, Shannon and Shane are fantastic musicians. You wanna listen to this with a good speaker or set of, uh, earbuds because, uh, the music is great and it's very stripped down. It's just, it's just piano and a little bit guitar generally. Uh, but the speaking of the theological pieces of what's in these songs is fantastic. And this just past week, they've done songs like Crown Hit with Many Crowns. Um, in Christ Alone, he will hold me fast, he will hold me fast, is an incredible piece of music and a piece of worship. So I'm just enjoying, they are using rich deeply theological songs to speak rich, deep theological truths, and then to invite you into a time of singing, like along with them. It's as if like they were just in your living room or in their kitchen and said, Hey, you got 15 minutes, especially start the day. Why don't we gather around this table and why don't we worship together? So I haven't found something quite like this where it's like an invitation to participate, both by being active listeners into what they're saying, but by also singing together. So I. Can only come at this with a really hot affirmation because I'm being blessed by it. And this rhythm of somebody like leading you daily into song, I'm finding to be so incredibly valuable. Of course, like we can find song in lots of places. We may lead ourselves, we may rely on the radio or a playlist to do that, but this kind of unique blend of a time that's being set apart, that's organized around a theme and then brings music into that as a form of meditation and worship is pretty singular. So check out, sing the worship edition of.com and especially if you're a fan of Shane and Shane, you're gonna slide right into this and feel very blessed because they're talented musicians and what they're bringing, I think is a, is a rich theological practice of actual worship, not just devotionals of some kind, but like actual participatory worship of, of in spirit and truth. [00:25:53] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I just signed up for this while you're talking. It took about a minute. It's super easy. So, um, and I'm sure that they have a way to opt out. If you start it and you hate it and you want to just stop getting text messages, I'm sure you can just respond, stop. Um, so there's really nothing to lose. There's no gimmick. They don't ask for a credit card, anything like that. Um, and I, I'm with you, like I love me some Shane and Shane music, and I do like some Shane and Shane music, um, that, that like takes me way back. Those, there are a lot of singers who've been at this for a long time. Yes, Shane and Shane was like. A really like popular band when I was in like, like upper high school. Oh yeah. So like, we're talking about a multi-decade career, long career doing mostly worship music, like they're performers, but they have entire, they have entire, many entire, um, albums that are psalms, um, entire albums that are worship choruses or what you might think of as chorus singing. Um, so yeah, I think this is great. And I'm always looking for new ways to integrate worship into my life. So this could be something as simple as like, maybe you're not gonna be able to sing out loud, but you could listen to this on the bus on the way home. Or you could put in your air, your ear pods, uh, when you're, you know, doing the dishes and instead of just listening to another podcast. I recognize the irony of saying that on a podcast that you may be listening to while you're doing the dishes, but instead of just listening to another podcast, you spend a little bit of time thinking about meditating on God's word. So that's great. I think that's an awesome, awesome information. A little [00:27:20] Jesse Schwamb: bit like very casual liturgy, but you're right, they've been around for a while and this, the content that they're producing here strikes me as like very mature. Yeah, both like in, of course, like the music they're doing and how they're singing, they're singing parts, but also just what they're speaking into. It's not just like kind of a, let's let tell you how this song impacted my life. They're, they're pulling from the scriptures and they're praying through. They're giving you a moment to stop and pause and pray yourself. There's a lot that's, that's built in there. And can I give like one other challenge? [00:27:47] Encouragement for Family Worship [00:27:47] Jesse Schwamb: This, this came to me as well this week and I know we've had some conversation in the telegram chat about like family worship, leading our families in worship about somehow how do we model that? How do we bring that together? And music often being a part of that. And I think that it's especially important for families to hear their. Their fathers and their husbands sing, no matter what your voice sounds like. Can I give a, a challenge? I think might sound crazy. This might be a hot, hot take. And so you can bring me back down instead of a mid hot take. If it, yeah, if it's a little bit too hot. But I was reading an article, and this is really from that article, and it, it did challenge me. And the article basically challenged this and said, listen, most people are actually far more musical than they understand themselves to be. And that might just not be in the instrumentation of the voice, but in other ways. And so the challenge was if you're a, a husband, a father, maybe you have some proclivity of music, maybe you have none. The challenge was basically, why don't you consider. Learning a musical instrument to lead your family in worship. And, and the challenge was basically like, pick up a guitar and, uh, see if you can eke out a couple of chords. Work through that just for the sole purpose of if nothing else, but saying like, I want to participate in something differently in my home. And maybe that's getting a keyboard and just, just trying it there. If I can play the guitar, anybody truly I think can play the guitar. It's, it's not really that difficult. I just found this captivating that this guy laid down the gauntlet and said, maybe you ought to consider doing that if only to be a model of worship in your own home throughout, throughout the week. And I just thought, you know what? That's something we're thinking about. I think all of us have something there. And that might be for some, like, maybe it means strengthening your personal prayer closet. So like your example in time of, of corporate worship of your family is stronger. Maybe it means your study of the scriptures, not just of course for like pure devotional life, but to instruct or to practice that scripture for your family. So I, I take this point of, it's not just about the music, but it could be if you're, if you're looking and saying like, man, I wish that we had some music. Um, you, you possibly could be the music. And it's just something to think about. [00:29:47] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I'll say this. Uh, it's not that hard to play guitar, but Jesse is actually quite a talented guitar player, so even though he's right, it's not that difficult. Uh, Jesse is, uh, is much better than he's letting on. But yeah, I mean, most modern worship songs, um, you can get by, you might have to like find a version online of it in this key, and you might not be able to sing it in this key, but like GC, D and E Minor. Yeah, that's right. We'll get you, we will get you basically every major worship song that you're used to singing. And those are all very easy chords to play. Yes. Um, there are difficult chords and some, some worship songs are more difficult or the, the tone is more difficult. Um, but even, even something like that, or get a keyboard and just do, you know, you can just pluck out notes, right? You can write on the notes what the, what the name of the notes are and just pluck out notes so people can sing with it. Um, there are lots of ways you can do, get a kazoo. You could lead music, you could lead your, that's your family in worship with a kazoo, um, or get the Trinity Salter hymnal app. Like, it's, yes, there are many ways that you could incorporate music in your family devotions and your personal devotions that, um, are not that challenging and, uh, really do add a lot. Now, I know there are some, there are probably a few people in our, our listening audience that are acapella only people. And I respect that perspective and, and I understand where it comes from. But, um, even then, like this might also be a little bit of a hot take. I'm not an excellent singer. I'm not a terrible singer, but, um, I could be a better singer if I practiced a little bit. And with the, with the ease of finding things like YouTube vocal coaches and right, just like vocal lessons and techniques and practice. Cool. Like, you could very easily improve your ability to sing and your confidence to sing, right? And that's only gonna help you to lead your family. I'll even throw this in there. Um. I'm in a congregation with lots and lots and lots of young families. There are five pregnant couples in our church right now. Wow. And our church, our church is probably only about 70 people on an average Sunday. So five pregnant, uh, couples is a pretty high percentage. Um, what I will tell you is that when the congregation is singing, we have lots of men who sing and they sing loud. But when the children are looking around at who is singing, they're not looking at the women, they're looking at the men. Right. Um, and you know, we're not, we are not like a hyper-masculinity podcast. We're not, you know, this isn't Michael Foster's show, this isn't the Art of Manhood. Um, but we've been pretty consistent. Like, men lead the way. That's the way the Bible has, that's way God's created it. And that's the way the Bible teaches it. And if you're in the church. You are commanded to sing. It's not an option. [00:32:28] The Importance of Singing in Church [00:32:28] Tony Arsenal: But what I will tell you is that, um, singing loud and singing confidently and singing clearly and helping the congregation to sing by being able to project your voice and sing competently, uh, it does a lot for your church. Yes. So it's never gonna be the wrong decision to improve your ability to sing and your confidence to sing. So I think that's great. I think the whole thing is great. You can learn to sing by listening to Shane and Shane and singing with them, and you can Yes. Invest a little bit of time and maybe a little bit of money in, in like an online vocal. I mean, you can get something like Musician or something like that that has guitar, but also you can do vocal training through that. There's lots of resources out there to do that. So yes, I guess that's the challenge this week. Like, let's all get out there and improve our singing voices a little bit and, and see if we can, can do this together. [00:33:14] Jesse Schwamb: I love it. I, I don't wanna belabor the points. [00:33:16] Encouragement to Learn Musical Instruments [00:33:16] Jesse Schwamb: I only bring it up because there might be somebody out there that's thinking, you know, I'd like to do more of that. And I say to you, well, why not you? It's okay. Like you could just go and explore and try get or borrow a relatively inexpensive guitar. And like you said, you don't need to learn to read music to do that. You're just kind of learning some shapes and they correspond to certain letters in the alphabet. And in no time at all, you could be the person that's strumming out, eking out some chords and you're doing that at home. And that might be a great blessing. It might change your life. It might change the trajectory of how you serve in the church. And you might find that God has equipped you to do those things. Yeah. And wouldn't it be lovely just to try some of those things out? So whatever, whatever they are, it's certainly worth trying and, and music is a big part of, I know like your life. Mine and it is someday. Tony, we have to do the sing episode. I don't know that we've actually done that one, right? We just talk about what it like, is it a command that we sing and why I think we've [00:34:08] Tony Arsenal: done that. I think we did have, we, it's early on in the episode on our views. Might have changed a little bit. So we maybe should um, we should loop back to, I'm sure we talked about 'em when we were going through Colossians as well. [00:34:17] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, I think we did. I just dunno if we did, like, we're, we're just gonna set a whole hour aside and for us, that's definitely not an hour, but, and just talk about this in particular and like what, why do we sing and what, why does guy command this? And then why our voice is different and why do some people feel this, you know, sense of like why don't have a good voice and you know, we, you always hear people say like, well make a joyful noise. And I think sometimes that falls flax. You're kinda like, yeah, but you don't know the noise I'm making you. That's kind of the response you hear. So some someday we'll come back to it, but I'm gonna make a prophetic announcement that there is no way we're going get through this one parable. No already. So. [00:34:55] Introduction to the Parable of the Lost Sheep [00:34:55] Jesse Schwamb: Everybody strap in because we'll do probably a part one. And if you're curious about where we're going, we're moving just away from Matthew for now, we're gonna be hanging out in Luke 15. We've got a trio of parables about lost things. And again, I think this is gonna be very common to many people. So I encourage you as best you can, as we read these to always start our conversation, try to strip away what you've heard before and let's just listen to the scripture. [00:35:20] Reading and Analyzing the Parable [00:35:20] Jesse Schwamb: So we're gonna start in Luke chapter 15 in verse one. I'm not even gonna give you the name of the parable because you will quickly discern which one it is. So this is the Luke chapter 15, beginning of verse one. Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Jesus to listen to him, and both the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling saying, this man receives sinners and eats with them. So he told them this parable saying. What man among you, if he has 100 sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the 99 in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it. And when he is found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors saying to them, rejoice with me for I found my lost sheep. I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repentance than over 99 righteous persons who need no repentance. [00:36:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And yeah, this, this will definitely be a multi-part episode. And, and part of that is we just spent a half an hour talking about affirmations and denials. I think we probably should have a podcast called Belaboring The Point, which is just us talking about other random stuff. Fair. [00:36:33] Comparing the Parable in Luke and Matthew [00:36:33] Tony Arsenal: But, um, the other part is that this parable is, um, slightly different in Luke as it is in Matthew. [00:36:41] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. [00:36:41] Tony Arsenal: Um, and also it's positioning in the narrative and what comes immediately following it is different. And I think that's worth unpacking a little bit as we talk about it this week, next week and, and probably maybe even into a third week. Um, but the, the parable here on, on one level, like most parables is super, super straightforward, right? Like right. This is God's di, this is God's demeanor, and his disposition is that he seeks that which is lost, um, which is good news for us because all of us are lost. There's only lost people until God finds them. Right. Um, and find again, of course, is an accommodated way of saying it's not like God has to go out searching for us. He knows where we are and he knows how to find us. Um. But this is also a different format for a parable, right? He's, he's not saying the kingdom of heaven is like this. The parable is what man of you having a hundred sheep? Like the parable is a question Yes. Posed to the audience, and it, it is in the context here, and this is where, this is where looking at the parallels between different, different gospels and how it's presented and even the different variations here shows you, on one level it shows you that Jesus taught these parables in multiple different contexts and different occasions. Right? In this occasion, it's he's sitting down, he's with the tax collectors and the sinners. They're grumbling. They're saying, this man eats with sinners. And receives them in, um, in Matthew, it's slightly different, right? He's in a different context and sit in a different teaching context. So the way that we understand that is that Christ taught these parables multiple places. And so we should pay attention to the variation, not just because there's variation for variation's sake, but the way that they're positioned tells us something. So when he's telling the account in Luke, it's told as a corrective to the tax collectors and the um. Right on the Pharisees, um, who are, sorry. It's a, it's a corrective to the Pharisees and the scribes who are grumbling about the tax collectors and the sinners drawing near to Christ. And so he speaks to the Pharisees and to the scribes and is like, well, which one of you wouldn't go seek out their lost sheep? Like, it's this question that just lays bare. They're really sinful. Ridiculous Jonah. I just invented that. Like Jonah I perspective that like, oh, exactly how dare God go after how dare Christ eat with sinners and tax collectors? And he says, well, if you love something. If you love your sheep, you're going to go after your sheep. [00:39:03] The Deeper Meaning of the Parable [00:39:03] Tony Arsenal: You're not going to just abandon, uh, this sheep to its own devices, even though there is, and again, this is a, a comedy way of talking about like, even though there's some risk associated with going after the one sheep, because you do have to leave the 99, he still is saying like, this is the character. This is my character speaking as grace. This is my character. This is the character of my father. And there's this implication of like, and it's obviously not the character of you. So I think this is a, this is a really great parable to sort of highlight that feature of parables when they're repeated across different, um, gospels. We have to pay attention, not just to the words of the parables themselves, but what the teaching is in response to what the teaching like proceeds. We'll see when we look at Matthew, there's a very, there's a, a different. Flavor to the parable because of what he's going to be leading into in the teaching. So I love this stuff. This has been such a great series to sort of like work through this because you, you really start to get these fine details. [00:39:59] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. This parable of the lost sheep is I think on the face straightforward, like you said. But it is actually complex. It's complex in the argumentation and the posturing Jesus takes here, like you said, he's binding the pharisee. This is condemning question of like which one of you, like you said. So there's that, which is slightly different element than we've seen or covered so far. There's also the context, like you said, in which it happens and I think we need to think specifically about. Who is this lost? Who are the 99? Who are the ones that Jesus is really trying to draw in with conviction, but also, again, what is he saying about himself? And it's way more, of course, like we're gonna say, well, this is again, that default, that heart posture. Even those things are more cliche than we mean them to be. Yeah. And we need to spend some time, I think, on all of these elements. And it starts with, at least in Luke, we get this really lovely context about when the teaching unfolds. And even that is worth just setting down some roots for for just a second. Because what I find interesting here is I think there's a principle at play that we see where. Everything that everything gives. Jesus glory, all the things give him glory, even when his enemies come before him and seek to label him. It's not as if Jesus appropriates that label, repurposes, it turns it for good. The very label, the things that they try to do to discredit him, to essentially disparage him, are the very things that make him who he is and show his loving and kindness to his people. And I think we'll come back to this like this, this sheep this, these are his children. So these words that it starts with, that were evidently spoken with surprise and scorn, certainly not with pleasure and admiration. These ignorant guides of the Jews could not understand a religious preacher having anything to do with what they perceive to be wicked people. Yeah. And yet their words worked for good. I mean, this is exactly like the theology of the cross. The very saying, which was meant for reproach, was adopted by Jesus as a true description of his ministry. It is true. He's the one who comes and sits and subs and communes and touches the sinners, the ugly, the unclean, the pariahs. It led to his speaking three of these particular parables in Luke in rapid succession. For him to emphasize that he's taken all of what was literally true that the scribes of Pharisees said, and to emphasize that he is indeed the one who received sinners. It's not like he's just like saying, well, lemme put that on and wear that as a badge. He's saying. You do not understand God if you think that God does not receive sinners, to pardon them, to sanctify them, to make them fit for heaven. It's his special office to do so. And this, I think therein lies this really dip deep and rich beauty of the gospel, that that's the end that he truly came into the world. [00:42:47] Christ's Joy in Finding the Lost [00:42:47] Jesse Schwamb: He came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. He came to the world to safe sinners, what he was upon Earth. He's now at the right hand of God and will be for all eternity. And he's emphatically the sinner's friend. And without this reproach from the Pharisees, like we don't get this particular teaching and what they intended again, to be used to really discredit God, to say, look, how can this be the son of God? What we get then for all of eternity is some understanding of Christ. And even here now with his word, we have this sense like, listen, do we feel bad? Do we feel wicked and guilty and deserving of God's wrath? Is there some remembrance of our past lives, the bitterness of sin to us? Is there some kind of recollection of our conduct for which we're ashamed? Then we are the very people who ought to apply to Christ. And Christ demonstrates that here, that his love is an act of love. Just as we are pleading nothing good of our own and making no useless delay, we come because of this teaching to Christ and will receive graciously his part in freely. He gives us eternal life. He's the one who sinners. I'm so thankful for this parable because it sets up very clearly who Jesus is, and this is where we can say he is for us. So let us not be lost for lack of applying to him that we may be saved. This text gives us the direct inroad to apply for that kind of healing and favor of God. [00:44:08] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And, and I love, um, there is such a, um, subtle sort of SmackDown that Jesus does. Like, yeah. I, I think, um, just speaking on a purely human level for a second, like Jesus is such a master re tion. Like he is so handy and capable to just dismantle and smack down people who, and I obviously, I don't mean that in like a sinful way. Like he just puts down the argument. He just gets it done with, and even the way this is phrased, right, they come, they're grumbling, this man receives sinners and meets with them. So he told them this par ball, what, what man of you having a hundred sheep, if he lost one of them, doesn't leave the 99 in the open country and go after the one that is lost, right? So he's saying like, he jumps in right away, like. This is just the obvious answer. This is just the obvious state, like who would not go after their sheep. I think we hear this, and again, I'm not an expert on like first century sheep herding practices, right? But like we think of it, I look at it, I'm like, actually, like that seems like a really bad investment. Like it would be really bad idea to go after the one sheep and leave your 99 in the open country. That seems like a silly answer. That's my error. That's me being wrong because he's saying that as the obvious answer. Right? I think we sometimes, um, I've heard, I've heard sermons that preach this, that make it almost like this is a super reckless. You know, abandonment. Like he's so enamored with us that he leaves the 99 and he goes after the one, and he's taking such a huge risk. But the way that this is presented, this is the obvious thing that anyone in their right mind would do if they lost a sheet. Right? For sure. Right? It's not an unusual response. Yes. There's an element of risk to that, and I think that's, that's part of the parable, right? There's a, there's a riskiness that he's adding to it because, um. Again, we wanna be careful how we say this. Um, God's love is not reckless in the sense that we would normally think about reckless, but it's reckless in the sense that it, it es assumes sort of ordinary conventions of safety. Right? Right. That's not really what's at play here. Like the, the fact is Christ presents the scenario where you, you go after one lost sheep and leave your 99 in the open country or in Matthew, it's on the mountains. Like that's the normal expected course here, such that if you are the person who won't do that, then you are the one that's out of the ordinary. But then he goes on to say, and this is where, where I think he's just such a master, he's such a master at setting a logical trap. Here he says, um. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors saying to them, rejoice with me for I have found my sheep that was lost. And again, this is the expected answer. This is not some unusual situation where like people are like, oh man, he like, he had a party 'cause he found a sheep. That's strange. This is what, what would be expected, right? This would be the normal response. But then he says, just so I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous persons who need no repentance. He is able, in the course of like. 30 words, like this is a short, short response. He's able to show them that their response to, to sinners is totally out of the ordinary. Like it's a, it's sort of an insane response. Um, he positions going after the one sheep and leaving the 99 as the sane response and leaving the, you know, leaving the one to be lost, leaving the sinners and tax collectors to be lost. That's the insane response. Right. That's the one that like, nobody would do that though. Why would anybody do that? But then he goes to show like, but that's exactly what you're doing. [00:47:55] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. Right. And he [00:47:56] Tony Arsenal: says, what you should be doing is rejoicing with me for, I found my lost, she. Right. He shifts. He shifts. He's now the man in the parable saying, um, not just, uh, not just rejoice or not just I'm rejoicing, but he's summoning them to rejoice with him over the salvation of these lost sinners. And that is the normal expected response. And then he, he shows like there will be this rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents more so than if there was a, but, and we should address this too. He's not saying that there is a such thing as a righteous person who needs no repentance. Right? He's saying like, even if there were 99 righteous people who need to know repentance, even if that was somehow the case, there would be more joy. There is more joy, there will be more joy over the sinner who repents than over a hun 99 people who didn't need to be saved. Right? He makes the sin, the, the, um, Pharisees and the scribes look like total chumps and totally like. Totally self-absorbed and turned inwards on themselves in this tiny little master stroke that you wouldn't even, you wouldn't even think that that was part of the point. If it wasn't for the fact that it was positioned right after verse 15, one and two. You just wouldn't get that from this parable. That there is this sort of like rhetorical SmackDown going on that I think is, is important for us to, to latch onto a little bit here. [00:49:18] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, why is our podcast not three hours? Because there's so much I want to say, so. I'm totally with you. I like what you brought up about this recklessness of God, and I'm with you. We shouldn't define that in the same way. Maybe we can modify it. I might say like His love is recklessly spend thrift. That is, we see when Paul says like God has lavished his love on us, like these big verbs that they are real. Yeah. It's not just hyper rip hyperbole or just like flowery language. And I think as you're speaking, what really occurred to me, what really kind of came through with what you're saying is, okay, what is this cost? Why is he so particular to go after this one? And I think it's because it's, he's looking for his sheep. So these are his children. Yes. It's not just, I think Christ is out in the world because he will find his children. He will find the one who is. His own. So he is looking for his own sheep. One of his, one of his fold. So like the sheep I might find in the world is the one that God has been seeking to save, even one of whom knows his name. That's like John 10, right? So one of, I think our problem is understanding this parable has to do with the when of our salvation. You know, we generally think it's at the time that, you know, we believe. The people are those given to God before the foundation of the world. And God sees us as his people before we were ever born, even before the world began. And when we believe it is just our Lord finding us as his last sheep and we're returned to the fold. So he always goes after that one. So we'll learn more. Like you said, when we look at Matthew's account about who are those other 90 nines. So we can set that aside, I suppose, for now. But it really is a matter of our status before Adam, before the fall, and then after Adam, after the fall, while all men fell with Adam. So also did God's people, which he had chosen before time began. And so this idea of going after the one is bringing back into the fold that who is his child though, who he has made a promise, a covenantal promise to bring into the kingdom of heaven. I was thinking as well of this amazing quote and like, what that all means about God's love for us, which again, is just more than like, isn't it nice that when you are out in

We all think we know Henry VIII. A huge man in cloth of gold, hands on hips, staring down from a Holbein portrait. Six wives. Two beheaded. Monasteries destroyed. Rome defied. But the real Henry is far more complex — and far more frightening. In this Beginner's Guide to Henry VIII, I take you from his birth in 1491 to his death in 1547, exploring the rise of a charming Renaissance prince… and the fall into tyranny that changed England forever. You'll discover: How Henry went from second son to king at 17 His early talents — theology, music, languages, sport His achievements: the navy, Parliament, the English Bible, the break with Rome Why he didn't die a Protestant The truth behind the six wives and the politics of each marriage His darker side — executions, rebellions, monasteries destroyed, and the terror of the 1530s Why historians still argue about his legacy today Henry VIII's reign was a turning point in English history: religiously, politically, culturally. He is both a state-builder and a tyrant, a man of dazzling intelligence and devastating brutality. So… was Henry VIII a great king, a monster, or both? Let me know what you think in the comments. If you enjoyed this beginner's guide, please like the video, subscribe, and ring the bell for more Tudor history every week. You can view other videos about him in my Henry VIII playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLepqWJ7TpkrI08JG1cwz7UqUYNxFHsPRv

In this episode, we explore the courageous men who paved the way for Martin Luther—followers of Jesus who, long before the Reformation, risked everything to return the church to the authority of Scripture.--The PursueGOD Truth podcast is the “easy button” for making disciples – whether you're looking for resources to lead a family devotional, a small group at church, or a one-on-one mentoring relationship. Join us for new episodes every Tuesday and Friday. Find resources to talk about these episodes at pursueGOD.org.Help others go "full circle" as a follower of Jesus through our 12-week Pursuit series.Click here to learn more about how to use these resources at home, with a small group, or in a one-on-one discipleship relationship.Got questions or want to leave a note? Email us at podcast@pursueGOD.org.Donate Now --Big Idea:Long before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses, God was already stirring reform in the hearts of ordinary believers. From Peter Waldo to John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale, the spark of reformation began not in cathedrals but in the conviction that the Bible—not the pope—was the true authority of the church.Episode OverviewFormation → Conformation → Deformation → ReformationThe first-century church was formed as a grassroots gospel movement led by the apostles (Acts 2).The following centuries saw conformation through creeds and councils that clarified core doctrine.After the fall of Rome, the church experienced deformation—institutional corruption, superstition, indulgences, and a Bible out of reach for the common person.Yet even in the “Dark Ages,” God raised reformers who called His people back to the Word.Key ReformersPeter Waldo (1170 AD)A wealthy merchant who gave up his riches after reading Matthew 19:21.Funded the first vernacular translation of Scripture into French.His followers—the Waldensians—preached repentance, memorized Scripture, and survived centuries of persecution.John Wycliffe (1320s–1384)Oxford scholar who rediscovered the gospel of grace through Scripture.Declared that “Scripture alone, not popes or councils, is the final authority.”Produced the first complete English Bible (translated from the Latin Vulgate).His followers, the Lollards, secretly spread handwritten English Bibles and published the Twelve Conclusions (1395)—early “theses” against corruption, indulgences, and unbiblical traditions.Jan Hus (1369–1415)Czech priest inspired by Wycliffe's writings.Preached the gospel in Czech so people could understand the Bible.Wrote On the Church, teaching that Christ alone—not the pope—is head of the church.Burned at the stake for refusing to recant, proclaiming, “You may roast this goose, but in a hundred years a swan will arise whose song you will not silence.”A century later, Martin Luther would see himself as that “swan.”His followers, the Hussites, became the Moravians, who later influenced John Wesley and the Methodist Revival.William Tyndale (1494–1536)Scholar fluent in seven languages, determined to make Scripture accessible to every English speaker.Translated the Bible...

On Culture Friday, John Stonestreet addresses doctrinal clarity, persecution, and the ethics of technology. Joseph Holmes reviews The Promised Land, and a museum showcases the history of the English Bible. Plus, the Friday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Missions Upside Down - a FREE, award-winning video series about Christian missions in the past, present, and into the future. You can find this free resource on RightNowMedia or at missionsupsidedown.comFrom the Peace of God Bible, inviting you to experience God's peace. With notes and devotions from Dr. Jeremiah Johnston. PeaceofGodBible.comAnd from Covenant College, where Christian faculty equip students for their callings through hard ideas, deep questions, and meaningful work. covenant.edu/world

Does it matter which Bible we use? Today we often choose a version of that Bible that best suits our personal preferences. With over 50 versions of the English Bible, it is wise to consider how these versions came to be. But the various versions contain so many contradictions with each other until it is …

How do we get from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to the English Bibles we read today?In this episode, Dr. Mark Ward—author, theologian, and YouTuber (War on Words)—talks through the history of the Bible, why translation is so important, and how to understand the differences between versions. From formal to functional equivalence, we look at how to think biblically about choosing and using Bible translations.00:00 Welcome to the Sound Words Podcast02:30 Why We Study Translations06:25 How We Got the Old and New Testaments10:22 Why Study How Translations Work14:01 Translation Tribalism16:18 How to Help Someone Out of Translation Tribalism18:27 Evangelical Translations22:29 Formal vs Dynamic Equivalence25:04 Word-For-Word vs Thought-For-Thought27:14 Major Takeaway#BibleTranslation #SoundDoctrine #ChristianTheology #SoundWordsPodcast #SoundWordsSound Words is a ministry of Indian Hills Community Church, a Bible teaching church in Lincoln, NE. Sound Words is also a partner of Foundations Media, a collective of Christian creators passionate about promoting biblical theology and applying it to everyday life. Learn more at https://foundationsmedia.org. Follow on Instagram Follow on Facebook Follow on YouTube Follow on Twitter Follow on Threads Visit https://ihcc.org

Two years after William Tyndale cried, “Lord, open the King of England's eyes,” Henry VIII decreed that English Bibles be placed in every church. Today, Michael Reeves recounts the story of this troubled king whom God used to further church reform. Request The English Reformation and the Puritans, Michael Reeves' teaching series on DVD, with your donation of any amount. You'll also get lifetime digital access to all 12 video messages and the study guide: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/4237/donate   Live outside the U.S. and Canada? Request the digital teaching series and study guide for The English Reformation and the Puritans with your donation: https://www.renewingyourmind.org/global Join us at one of our upcoming Renewing Your Mind Live events. We're coming to Australia, California, North Carolina, and more. Learn more and register:  http://renewingyourmind.org/events  Meet Today's Teacher:   Michael Reeves is president and professor of theology at Union School of Theology in the United Kingdom.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of media for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, and host of the Ask Ligonier podcast. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts