Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep961: Views of Hell, Christian Nationalism, Anglican Church, Enneagram, Sex and Gender: Q & A with Preston Sprinkle

Episode Date: April 7, 2022

My Patreon supporters sent in a ton of great questions, some of which I address on this podcast. Do I still recommend Erasing Hell in light of my change in view? What are the best resources to defend ECT, Annihilation, and Christian Universalism? Do I still like the CSB translation knowing that all the translators are complementarian? What is Christian Nationalism? How does the killing of Annanias and Saphira square with my view of nonviolence? Does studying with a commentary take away from just reading the text? And other questions. –––––– PROMOS Save 10% on courses with Kairos Classroom using code TITR at kairosclassroom.com! –––––– Sign up with Faithful Counseling today to save 10% off of your first month at the link:  faithfulcounseling.com/titr or use code TITR at faithfulcounseling.com –––––– Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review. www.theologyintheraw.com

If I say anything heretical, I'm going to blame it on my cloudiness from my still recovering state from the conference. If I say anything brilliant, then I'm going to go ahead and just own that. That came straight from me. Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. This is going to be a Q&A podcast. So my Patreon supporters sent in a ton of questions, and I answered about half of them on the Patreon podcast, but that podcast started getting a bit long. So I said, Hey, I'm going to go ahead and just answer the rest of these on the live, uh, public podcast. So that is where we are. And just to note, I am recording

this on Monday. Um, what is it? April? I don't know. What day is it? Let me, what's Monday, April 4th. Uh, this is April 4th and I am still recovering from the exiles of Babylon conference. Um, I, yeah, I actually woke up this morning at like 4am. Um, cause my wife was already at work. And so when she's on the keyboard, I'm like, you know, still trying to sleep another half a half a night left in me, but she's busy. It's I woke up, I was like, ah, maybe I should just get up. And then I think by five o'clock I fell back to sleep and I slept so hard. Like my body was just sinking into the mattress and I didn't wake up until like 9am. And so it's 10, almost 10. And my, my brain is still a little, little foggy here. So I will, um, if I say anything heretical, I'm going to blame it on my, um, cloudiness from my still recovering

state from the conference. Um, if I say anything brilliant, then that's, I'm going to go ahead and just own that, that, that, that came straight from me. So let's jump in. Chris asks, not my wife, Chris, but Chris, uh, one of my patron supporters asks, Hey Preston, I sent this as a message, but I thought I'd submit a condensed version of this question. Um, since I thought your input would be helpful, do you still recommend erasing hell despite your change of view to annihilation? That's the first question. Second question is what are some resources you'd recommend that give the best case for eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, and universalism? Okay. So I sort of answered this at the conference as Chris, if you were there,

you already heard my response, but for everybody else. So Erasing Hell was written to address the question, is hell a place of punishment in the afterlife? And is it irreversible or is it reversible? The main goal of the book was not to argue annihilation versus eternal conscious torment. The main goal was to, well, just that, to see if it was really to ask if Christian universalism is correct or not just Christian universalism, but yeah, I mean, Rob Bell's version of that, that understanding of hell, you know, when he talked about hell in that book, if I remember correctly, goodness, it's been over 10 years, you know,

he said, hell, you know, do I believe in hell? Yes. Hell is, you know, somebody being abused. Hell is extreme poverty. Hell is, and he referred to all these, you know, things in this world that are really bad and evil and horrible. And I, you know, would sign off on the fact that those are bad and evil and horrible. The question is when the New Testament writers use the term Gehenna, which we translate as hell, is that what they are referring to? That was the main question we were asking. And if it is a place of punishment in the afterlife, then can people be rescued from that place? Or does it, does the Bible give the picture that if somebody goes to hell, then they cannot get out of hell? It's kind of the main way of framing it. Now, I still agree with that. And that's about 98% of what we wrote about in Erasing Hell. So yeah, I think I said 98.5%

of what's in Erasing Hell, I still 100% agree with. I think, I mean, you know. But there was two pages in the 170 page book where we asked the question, okay, we do think hell is irreversible. It is a place of punishment in the afterlife, not just a metaphor for misery in this life. Okay, so place of punishment, it's irreversible. What kind of place of punishment is it? Is it a place where people go and they die? So annihilation, or is it a place where they are suffering from eternal, never-ending conscious torment? In those two pages, we said, well, first of all, we said, wow, we were not aware at that point in our journey that there was as much biblical support for annihilation than we

had realized. And then that's, I still remember calling Francis in my home in Simi Valley. He was up in the Bay Area. And I had done kind of several, I spent a couple of days on the Annihilation View reading several articles, a book or half a book. And I was realizing, man, there's a lot more support here than I realized and called him and I said,

hey, have you looked into this, man? There's some verses here that seem to support annihilation. And we talked through it on the phone and he's like, wow. Well, I mean, I'm like, what do you, what do you think about this? I mean, this is, um, and he's like, well, we have to be honest with the text. So we can't just like say, no, there's no evidence for this. Like if there's evidence for it, we have to say there's evidence for it. Um, but let's keep studying and see if this view is, you know, the best view. And so the more I studied at that time, I was more convinced of especially

three passages, um, Matthew 25, 46, uh, revelation 14, nine through 11 and revelation 12, uh, 10 to 15. Um, I was, I was still, I was still, I still thought those three passages taught eternal unconscious torment. Plus you have the weight of church tradition that I, if I was going to overturn that, I would need a few years. And, you know, we were about to finish writing this book. So we softened our language a little bit and said, Hey, you know what? You know, there's more credibility here than we thought for annihilation, but we are going to, we do, as we look at these three passages, especially we lean towards, um, eternal conscious torment. So again, so, so now I would say, I, I, I don't lean towards eternal conscious torment. I would say annihilation is, uh, I don't

just lean towards it. I think it's, um, well, yeah, I think, I think it's, I think it by far represents the best understanding of, of, um, of, well, hell, the afterlife, lake of fire, like the various images that describe the ultimate state of those who reject God. I do think the annihilation view represents, um, um, what the Bible is trying to say. So yeah. Do I recommend a book? Absolutely. Um, I think it's a great book. In fact, there's a lot. It sounds so arrogant. No, but I mean, like I, my favorite part of that book was, was the relational posture towards talking about hell. Like we worked really hard at saying we need to, it seems like the doctrine of hell is just, worked really hard at saying we need to, it seems like the doctrine of hell is just, it's people that write on it sometimes, write on it too aggressively, or they just don't have like a,

we need to integrate a more pastoral tone here. And we need to translate some of the scholarly data in an easier to understand way. So like the work on Jewish literature, I think in that, and there's a, I think our, one of our chapters, you know, was just surveyed Jewish literature on hell. I think that's, yeah, I think that's super helpful. So best resources for the three views that you mentioned. So for, as far as eternal conscious torment goes, Chris Morgan and Robert Peterson are two of the leading scholars that have made, um, made at least part of their career, you know, defending eternal conscious torment. They, I believe they co-wrote a book called hell under fire or co-edited. I think maybe they co-wrote it. I don't know. But if you just look up the names, Chris Morgan, Robert Peterson and hell, then yeah, they're, they're, they're the leading

scholars on eternal conscious torment or another one. My favorite actually is Josh Butler's skeletons in God, God's closet. Now he does take a version of eternal conscious torment in that book. Um, but it's not like he's defending eternal conscious torment against annihilation. He does do that to some extent, but that's not the main purpose of his treatment of hell in that book, Skeletons in God's Closet. But in terms of presenting the ECT view with nuance and pastoral sensitivity and theological acumen. Like he, he's, he's paid so close attention to how the doctrine of hell participates in the biblical story, if I can put it like that. So that I would, yeah, highly

recommend that. The classic text on annihilation is Edward Fudge's, Edward or Edwin, Edwin Fudge, Fudge's, The Fire That Consumes. It's in, it's gone through three editions. So I would get the latest edition, the third edition. It's big, it's scholarly. It's not too scholarly that it's hard to understand. It's just, it's a lot. It's, I mean, it's, I don't know how many, maybe three, 400 pages. Um, but yeah, that is the classic, uh, evangelical biblically centered, um, text on annihilation. I would also, if you want something less, um, expensive or, you know, something that's just easier to access, maybe just go to the rethinking hell website that Chris date and others run. Um, they've have a plethora.

What's a plethora FA, um, have a plethora of, um, of, they have a plethora of resources, audio, um, written resources, videos, um, graphics. I mean, they, they, it's, it's, you can spend dozens of hours on the website. Um, just yeah. Unpacking what annihilation or conditional immortality is the view or the term they prefer. There's not a single question. Somebody has thrown out the annihilation position that isn't addressed somewhere on their website. They have a podcast to universalism or ultimate reconciliation. The best defender of this is Robin Perry. So I edited a few or four views on hell book and Robin Perry contributed the ultimate reconciliation chapter in that book. And it it's compelling, dude. I'm not going to lie that it's a very well argued chapter. And it was, you know, as the editor, when I remember when he sent in that essay, I was like,

dang, this is, this is good. Um, and then, uh, he also wrote a full length book under the pen name, Gregory McDonald called the evangelical universalist. If you want a book length treatment, that's the best, my opinion, the best thing out there that I've read. And, um, that chat, if you want a shorter treatment, that chapter in that book, well, I guess you'd have to buy the whole four views book, but yeah, that chapter there is super good. Okay. Next question from Matthew. I love this question that this I'm, I've been excited to wrestle with this question because

I have been wrestling with it. It's a really thoughtful question. Matthew says, now that you know that the CSB translation committee are all complementarians, does this erode any of your trust in the translation? And if so, do you feel conflicted at all about your sponsorship arrangement with them? For what it's worth, Matthew says, the CSB seems like one of the best translation available. And let's see, I'm just trying to summarize here. That being said, personally, I can't unhear that

they are all complementarians. And from looking at the scholarly scholar list, a whole D a whole heap of diversity, red flags come up. Okay. I mean, so this, this comes back to the podcast I did with my friend, my friend, Brandon Smith, who was involved with the translation, um, the CSB translation. Again, the CSB Christian standard Bible is my favorite translation. It is a revision and update of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which is a translation that wasn't that popular, but one that I absolutely loved. But it's been discontinued. And so the CSB is the translation that has been is, well, yeah, it's a revision of this. I mean, there's a lot of similarities between the HCSB, but it has been updated and

changed, um, to some extent. Um, yeah. When, when Brandon said they're all, all complementarians, I was, I was shocked at that, Matthew. I won't lie. I was like, really? I didn't. Cause when I looked at the, I guess I, I, when I looked at the list, I didn't have that question in mind, and I did see a lot more theological and educational diversity and denominational diversity. Did I say that? I think there's 17 denominations represented among the translators of the CSB. Brandon, I could double check that. Well, it'd take me too long. But yeah, I'm pretty sure he said 17 denominations represented. That's pretty, that's, that's impressive.

Do they lack in other forms of diversity? Yes. But that's an important kind of diversity that I thought was good. It's not like they're all Southern Baptists or something or all part of complementarian denominations. Educational diversity. I mean, if you look at the list, which I do have it here, I don't know how much you care about the, yeah, I mean, I'm looking at, you know, PhD from Hebrew Union College, PhD from University of Basel, PhD from Southern Baptist Seminary, PhD from Macquarie University, PhD from University Texas

Arlington, PhD from Dallas Seminary, PhD from Union Theological Seminary, PhD from University of Cambridge, PhD University of Toronto, PhD from King's College in London. So I mean, and I can go on and on. Like the educational credentials with the scholars are pretty legit. And these are institutions, PhD from University of Sheffield, another from Sheffield, another from Oxford University. These are institutions where you don't get away with a PhD Harvard University. Sorry, I'll stop. PhD from UCLA. UCLA. These are institutions where you don't get a PhD from these schools by just reading your presuppositions into the text. They don't allow that sort of thing. Maybe at some confessional

schools would be a little more lenient on that know, if you're signing off on the confession of the school, some, and some, and I'm not gonna name any names, but in some places, the, the evidence you use to get to that conclusion might be less scrutinized than in a place like university of Cambridge, where they don't care where you land. They want to know, is your argument sound? So when you're, when you're groomed in that kind of context, it does, it does do something to you. I was, I mean, University of Aberdeen, um, it was like that. And that was, that had a strong kind of Christian presence, but the professors, they, they did not care where you landed. It was a, it's a secular institution. You could have said that Jesus isn't God or whatever. And they're like,

all right, cool. Argue it well. And we're here to do actually Jesus, you know? Um, so I, to me, that does make a big difference. Um, also for me, as much as I would have liked to have had some egalitarians on the translation committee to To me, you know, it did, a little red flag went up in my mind when they're all complementarians, but then I'm like, okay, well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Like, let's look at passages where they could read their complementarianism into the text. And they, in my estimation, they were incredibly fair. So let me give you three examples for the Greek word Adelphoi, which is translated, typically translated brothers.

The CSB translates Adelphoi brothers and sisters. So there's no, and sisters in the original Greek, what they're doing is saying, okay, when Paul says brothers, that's his way of addressing the whole congregation, which includes women. And so brothers and sisters is the more accurate rendering of the sort of meaning. Even though some people will push back and they say, no, brothers means brothers. And this is an interpretation on a translation. That's a huge debate, whether they're taking some interpretive liberties here by adding ancestors, or if they're drawing out the essential heart or meaning or

thrust of Adelphoi in the first century context. That's not something most complementarians do, brothers and sisters. that in fact, they got flack for that because they're like, well, you guys egalitarian now? Like, no, this is what Adolfo is essentially me. It's, it's referring to all people in the congregation. So that, that's, that's a bold move for a complementarian. And I think that shows that, Hey, we're going to try to render the text as fairly as we can. Their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 16, 13, when Paul says, in most translations would say, act like men, they translate it, be courageous, be strong, because the verb act like men,

it's too early for me to recall what the Greek verb is here, but whatever, in 1 Corinthians 16, for me to recall what the Greek verb is here, but whatever, in 1 Corinthians 16, andridzomai or something like that, I don't know. You can translate it to act like men, most translations do, but it's like, what does that mean? What does it mean for a woman to act like a man? And if you do some research on that word, you see that they kind of, the gist that they're, that that verb means is it's drawing on the stereotype of how men act in the Roman culture. And typically it emphasizes courage and strength. Doesn't mean all men are courageous and strength and all women are not. And that's why act like men can be a problematic translation. They're very sensitive to that. And they say, be strong, be courageous, be strong. Again,

that's a bold move for a complementarian to make. Genesis 3.16, just one more example. For instance, okay, so the ESV, the ESV translated, I believe all by complementarians. The ESV says, your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. Contrary to your husband. I forget the Hebrew word here. Um, the CSB translates it. Your desire shall be for your husband from what I, the brief time I looked at the Hebrew word here, I do think contrary to taken by the ESV is reading. I mean, that is one

possible interpretation of that meaning of that word, but that's, you're, you're making a translation decision here that I don't know. Like, I don't know if that's the best way to translate that word and why pick that one over a more neutral, like your desire shall be for your husband. Um, they, they, to be fair to the ESV, they do have a footnote that gives the translation that the CSB does, but you know, who reads footnotes, not, not everybody, not most people. So, um, all that to say, I am more concerned with the translation itself and whether it shows evidence that it's reflecting, um, the theological bias of the translators. And I don't see that in the CSB. I don't. So while

yes, I would have liked to have had egalitarianism for one, I mean, I would like to have more women there, people of color. I mean, I, I'm always going to prefer more diversity, but if we're asking the question, does their complementarianism affect the translation negatively? I'm going to say based on what I've seen, no, I don't, I don't think it does. So translation negatively? I'm going to say based on what I've seen, no, I don't, I don't think it does. Um, so yeah, I'm still gonna recommend the CSP. Next question, Aaron asks, uh, what's your best or most succinct definition of Christian nationalism? I, you know, it's funny cause there's certain phrases where you feel like you know what it means. You just know it.

But if somebody asks you to define it, like, oh, hmm, I don't know. Let me think about that. So I actually went to Wiki just to see. I'm like, well, what do others say about Christian nationalism? So this is what Wiki says. They say Christian nationalists primarily focus on internal politics, such as passing laws that reflect their view of Christianity and its role in political and social life. What I like about this definition is that it equally applies to those on the quote unquote left or the right. Cause I'm not that definition or maybe

explanation, um, could apply to those on the left or right. It doesn't single out just those on the right. Okay. Now I do think in how Christian, cause I, so I would agree with that in, in the term, Christian nationalism could be a right-wing thing. It could be a left-wing thing. It's just re they, they want their view of Christianity to be represented in political and social life. Now, how it's often used, and I'm honestly, I'm not the expert on this. I'm just going off my anecdotal, just as I hear people use the phrase, it's almost always used nationalist, you typically think of a right-wing, quote-unquote, Christian person who's trying to merge their view of politics with their view of Christianity. So here's how, in terms of how I see it used, here's my very non-inspired, non-written-in-stone definition. Patriotism and allegiance towards one's state or when Christian nationalists, Christian nationalism happens when patriotism and allegiance towards one's nation takes on

moral or spiritual value. Like if, or so, so we're promoting and supporting the state is part of our Christian duty. So it goes beyond mere submission to the state. Like fine. Babylon wants me to drive 65 miles an hour. Fine. Whatever. I'll drive 65. Babylon says I can't smoke pot guys. Okay. Um, uh, um, so I, and I do think that Christian nationalism is typically manifested in giving your allegiance to one political party, one political party while seeing the other political party is bad. So here's a difference. Like, uh, you know, a Christian nationalist might look over and if during the national or during the pledge of allegiance, I'm not pledging allegiance, they would look over and see me as doing something immoral. Not just like, whoa, that's interesting. Like, well, how come you

don't pledge allegiance? And I explain, you know, my allegiance to Jesus and allegiance is religious language. And I don't in good conscience feel like I can do that towards Rome or Babylon or Persia or, or Greece or North Korea or, or Mexico or America or whatever. Like I don't, my allegiance isn't to any Babylon today. So, um, submit to the state, be a good citizen, honor, pray for the year, all that clearly biblical, but giving your allegiance to me and like that in my conscience, I feel like that's going a little too far. So, okay, cool. Awesome. But if somebody is like, no, as a Christian, like you are doing something unchristian by not pledging allegiance, that would be, I think a Christian nationalist. Next question, Ethan, in light of nonviolence, how can we approach Ananias and Sapphira? Do we go along the thinking that God's judgment is

releasing himself from the situation and a natural outcome to sin, or was he active in striking them down? Also, congrats on Freddie Freeman. The Potters will have to work hard against one of the best lineups I've ever seen in your Dodgers. Yes, I was very excited. Well, I was so, so bummed that the Dodgers lost Corey Seager because I, and players come and go, I get that, but there was just, I mean, Corey, he's only worn Dodger blue. He, when he's healthy, I think he's one of the most dangerous hitters in all of baseball when he's healthy. There is that question mark though, is when's he always healthy you know but man when he is on which

he's when he's healthy he's on and you know he's just he's cory seager like he's a dodger and so it's really hard to see him leave so but i am glad you know when i take freddie freeman over cory seager yes especially since we have trey turner shortstop now we've got an already overly stacked lineup although we just lost pollock but we got craig kimbrough oh my gosh who got absolutely lit up in spring training sorry if you don't mind 30 more seconds so craig kimbrough one of the most devastating closers of the game like i mean yeah the stats are just off the chart he comes comes in for his first outing. First guy, first pitch guy hits it off the wall. Second guy, home run third guy, fourth guy.

He might've gotten an, I think he got one out in there somewhere. Um, fourth guy got a hit and they pulled up and I was like, Oh my word. I don't think he's ever, ever gotten lit up like that in the history of his, probably his life ever since like maybe little league or something. I don't know. Anyway. So I was a little, a little like, Oh, that's interesting. Um, but yeah, stoked about Freddie. Um, Ananias and Sapphira of course are the married couple. They're married. Yeah. Yeah. Married couple in acts five when they lied to the Holy spirit over, um, not giving all the money they said they were going to give to the community. And they both got struck dead.

I went back and read the text. And as far as I see, it doesn't explicitly say God struck them dead. But I do think it seems to be clearly implied. Like it wasn't just happenstance. It just happened to drop dead. So, yeah, I do think that, yeah, I do think God was active in striking them dead, um, as a form of judgment. Now my, but see my understanding of nonviolence, this isn't everybody's view, but my understanding of nonviolence is that it's an ethic given to

Christians. It's not something that God, it's not an ethic that God has to abide by. And I know some of you are thinking like, well, wait, are we supposed to act like God? Is this a, what does this mean that, you know, God can do something and then he calls us not to do that same thing. Well, that's explicit. That's exactly what he says in Romans 12 and 13. Vengeance is mine. I will repay. Therefore you don't do it. Like, I mean, I don't know how else to read that text. Like he, he explicitly says, this is something reserved for God because I'm the perfect judge. I know how to execute perfect judgment and you don't. And yeah, that's, this is part of what I do. So I know other, I'm pretty sure Greg Boyd and, and, um, um,

I do. So I know other, I'm pretty sure Greg Boyd and, and, um, um, Brian's on, sorry, Brian, you don't, do you listen to the podcast? Um, I, I blame, I, I forget my kid's name. Like I, I blank names on friends I've known for like 20 years when they're standing in front of me. It's super embarrassing, but anyway, Brian, um, I don't want to misrepresent Greg or Brian and we line up on nonviolence at the end of the day, but I'm pretty sure they would, they would say, no, God also isn't violent. I just, to me, that's, um, but annihilation is that like, I, that's, I don't know how to get around it. Well, I guess you could say like, God leaves us up to our natural mortality at the judgment day. I would, I would prefer that kind of understanding, but, um, I don't, the language of the text seems to make God an agent of judgment. So, um, and if all throughout the old Testament, he's judging people sometimes through killing them. Um, so, uh, so yeah,

so, so all that to say, given my, my understanding on violence, God can act violently. People are not called, God's followers are not called to act violently. People are not called, God's followers are not called to act violently. Therefore, this passage is troubling from other reasons, but it doesn't interrupt my view of nonviolence. Mick, as a lifelong Christian, I have taken a more serious interest in biblical scholarship, historical and cultural context, original meanings, et cetera. This has led me to tons of great books about the Bible. However, I'm finding that the more I learn about the Bible, the less equipped I actually feel like I am to read it. I'm at the point now where I feel like I read it, if I read it unassisted, that I'll completely miss the meaning of the text or

misinterpret it entirely. I'm reading Tim Gombos' commentary on Mark right now, and that's been a great, that's been really great for getting me back to the Bible and not just the Bible adjacent books, but I feel like I'm not doing it right because I'm technically reading more Gombos than Mark. Okay. I used to have this guilt as well, and I want you to relieve you from this guilt. And the guilt is like, you know, when you get a good commentary and you read a passage of scripture and then you read a commentary and all of a sudden it's like, oh my word, now I see what's going on here. Wow. They're giving me cross references. They're giving me some historical background. They're opening up the text. They're error rating the text. And it's like, wow, this text is coming alive.

And then you do that enough. And then you go back and read the Bible just on your own with no commentary. And you're like, well, what does it mean? Like, I don't, okay, great. I'm sure there's so much here that I can't even see. And then you go to the commentary and it opens it up for you. And I used to feel guilty. Like, well, I just can't read the Bible without a commentary. Look, I think the Bible is designed to be read in community. I do. If you don't agree with me, you have to agree with me. Here's why. Up until the printing press for 1500 years of Christianity, including the first Christians in the first century, most of humanity couldn't read. They were illiterate. 90% is the estimate.

So 90% of Christians were dependent upon another Christian reading the Bible out loud for them to even read the Bible. By definition, the whole idea of reading Bible by yourself didn't exist until 500 years ago. And even then it was really expensive to buy a copy. And even then it took a while for literacy rates to improve and stuff. So yeah, I think the Bible's, and even now we have the ability to read it on our own. I still think it keeps the original purpose and design. Scripture is meant to be read and interpreted in community. I still think it keeps the original purpose and design. Scripture is meant to be read and interpreted in community. So what is a commentary? It's that. You're reading the Bible in conversation with somebody who has studied it a lot longer than you have. Typically,

if they're writing a commentary, they have studied the historical background. They know the original languages. And so you are simply reading the Bible in community with somebody who knows the text better than you. That's not a bad thing. The focus is still on the text, or let me say, let me, okay. The focus still should be on the text. Like obviously you don't want to just read the commentator's interpretation as fact. I mean, especially if you're reading Tim Gombas, I mean, you don't want to listen to that guy. Um, but yeah, so you don't, you don't want to just read their conclusion and kind of ignore the text and say, okay, so this is what the text means. No, you want to, you want to read the commentator, look at how he's or her, or they're

pointing you back to the text and the focus is still on the text, but you're reading the text in conversation with, or at least, you know, it's maybe a one-way conversation with the commentator. This is why I do like to read a couple different commentaries. Even, even if I'm just doing kind of a, I just want a quick, you know, I'm not doing a deep dive, but I do want to get some, you know, context here. Like I typically will look at two different commentaries, which is why the Logos Bible software is so incredible. Um, I, you know, I have, they're not asking me to advertise by the way, but I love it. I love the Logos Bible software because I have several commentary sets in the software. So all I do is enter the verse and

within about five seconds, I have, you know, five different commentaries already turned to that page. I could type in Romans, you know, 319 and then bam, takes me right to like three or four different commentaries within a few seconds right there in front of me. And I can kind of just, sometimes it just takes a couple minutes to kind of look. I'm like, oh, so that word is used in this passage and it means this there, and maybe that will help inform what it means here. Oh, here's a parallel passage in maybe in early Jewish literature that helps us inform what Paul is talking about here. Um, so anyway, all that to say, yeah, don't, don't, you should feel guilty, I guess, if all you're doing is reading Gombos' interpretation saying, oh, this has to be what the text means. No, that's not, Tim wouldn't want that. Um,

but if it invites, it's an, it's an, it, it, commentaries invite you into a conversation with other believers around the text. The text is still, still central. Another, you know, another, I've mentioned this before, but John Whitaker's podcast, it's called the Listener's Commentary on the New Testament. The Listener's Commentary on the New Testament. It's basically, it's an audio commentary. And I, um, I often will do my like devotions by listening to John Whitaker's, the listener's podcast, because all he does is he takes a passage.

He worked, he'll work through a book, spends about 20 to 20, 20 to 30 minutes typically on a, like a paragraph and a text. And he just walks to the text and explains what it means. Isn't giving a ton of like application. He doesn't give some application, but it's primarily just here is the meaning of the text. As I understand it, obviously every interpretation is fallible, but I think he does a really, really fair job saying, here's what this word means. Here's the context of what Paul's talking about or other new Testament writers. So I think that's a really helpful cause that in a sense, you know, I use it, what, what triggered my reference to that commentary is I use the phrase conversation, right? Um, and if you're reading a commentary, it's, it's kind of a conversation, but it's this, I think the listener's commentary is even better

because you're hearing the other person's voice. The only thing missing is you can't talk back to him, but you can email him and he would appreciate that. But yeah, the listener's commentary. Okay. Next question. Have you ever tried an Anglican church? I know you've had a few Anglicans on your podcast, but I can't recall you saying if you've ever tried one, my family and I recently started attending one at your recommendation. I, so you're attending an Anglican church at my recommendation. That's hilarious. Um, can't, uh, oh, and we fell in love and got confirmed anyways. Um, feels like it may scratch some of your itches. Happy to share more if you're interested. You know, I, it's funny. I've never even thought about this. Um,

but I was like, have I ever actually been to an Anglican church? And there is one church, the only church, the Anglican church I've been to, I preached at, it was a soul survivor church in Watford outside of London. Um, but if you know anything about soul survivor, it's, it's a, uh, it's a, how do you like a, well, it's a charismatic Anglican church that you wouldn't, it's, you wouldn't really know you're in an Anglican church if you're there. Like it was, it was a kind of a low church atmosphere. It just felt, it felt like a, um, it felt just like, um, an assembly of God church is what I compare it to. Except I preached a lot in AOG churches and it just felt very, very AOG. Um, so does that count? I guess technically, yeah, it's an Anglican church, but, um, no, I've never, that's crazy. Um, there's only one here in town. And for the eight

years we've lived here, we have, we always say, Hey, we should try out the Anglican church. Like, um, when we're kind of in between churches or whatever, and then we'll get settled into another church and haven't visited it. So I think I would, in terms of my family, I think I would resonate with a more liturgical Anglican church. I don't know if my family would, I don't know. I think, yeah, I don't know if they would resonate with that as much. And that's a hundred percent preference. Um, yeah. So, um, yeah, yeah. But thank you for that recommendation. I, I, I do appreciate the Anglican church as a denomination, you know, obviously from a distance, I'm not part of one, um, hardly even been to one, um, Anglican church, the evangelical covenant church. I love the new frontiers network is fantastic.

Those would be probably my top, um, some of my top denominational of new frontiers isn't technically a denomination, but it's, it's a great, great network. All right. Next question. What are your thoughts on the Enneagram? Oh, this is from Amanda. Um, uh, thoughts on Enneagram. I've seen some churches embrace it as a way to find the strengths of their members and others warn against it. I, I really appreciate the Enneagram. I found it to be really helpful. My family, it's been really helpful for my family as our kids have interacted with it. And it's, it's really helped us understand some of our kids. And other people I know, it's been really helpful.

So yeah, I'm not an expert. It's not a topic of conversation like every day. Some Enneagram gurus, it's kind of like all they can talk about. So that's definitely not where we're at. But yeah, we found it really helpful. I, I, I would put Enneagram and some people might not like this, but I, I would put it alongside other, you know, personality tests. I've also found helpful. I think the first one I took was the disc profile. I think it's called D I S K D I S C disc. That one was mind blowing because I'd never done

a personality test before. I remember when I was teaching at Cedarville university many moons ago, um, they had us, they had all the professors, like 20 of us take this disc, um, test. And, uh, it was so enlightening to help, um, the professors kind of understand where, how, how we're wired differently, In particular, professors that were a high D. I think a D would be like an Enneagram 8, maybe more type A personality. They kind of see things in black and white. And then you put them alongside like a high I. I think it's an I.

It's like more of a verbal processor. Like they don't mind like kind of thinking out loud. Um, they're more relationally driven and it was so helpful to see why high D's and high I's just have a really hard time. At least my context, I was like, they're button heads, you know, like, how could you say that? He's like, well, I might change my mind tomorrow. You know? Um, yeah, it was super helpful. So I did strength finders too. That, that one was really good. My, one of my good friends swears by strength finders. Um, so Enneagram, you know, yeah, I think these are super helpful. Are some better than others? I, I honestly don't even know. I, I, that's above my pay grade. You know, some of you are like,

no, the disc is the best or strength finders or no, Instagram rules, rules them all. You know, I, I don't know. I've, I found them all to be helpful. Here's where, um, here's where I think they could, I want to avoid two extremes. Um, the one extreme would be, there is no value and understand doing these, the psychological babble, you just putting people in boxes and we all have the spirit of God and anybody can change. And there is no such thing as, you know, the kind of really just hyper reaction against it. Or some people, there's some like cultic, like origins of the Enneagram. I don't know something. I don't know. I've heard people say that's got like, I don't know, demonic origins or something. I know nothing about that. I don't. And to me, I'm not like a big origins guy. Like, you know, if something's

good or not, I want to look at what the content of what it actually contains and what it is, not where it might've come from a hundred years ago, 200 years ago or something. So, um, uh, so that's one extreme I want to avoid just writing these off is just psychobabble and have no value. I also want to avoid the other extreme of, yeah, I don't want to put people in boxes or just judge people based on the Enneagram number. Like, oh, you're a seven, you're an eight, you're a whatever. And I found myself doing that action in the past. And I've had to confront myself, slap myself in the face and say, no, just because they might be a one or a three, so what? They're still creating God's image.

They're their own person. And yeah, that might help give a framework around who this person generally is and maybe somewhat how they're wired, but I don't want to prejudge them, somewhat how they're wired, but I don't want to prejudge them, assume things about the person based on their Enneagram score. So, um, and you know, I, can people change? People ask me what mine is. And I, I honestly feel like I've, I've had several numbers throughout my, my journey. Um, yeah, I don't know. I, I, you know, on the podcast I tested as a one and then so many people were all up in arms saying, you're not, I appreciate the love. They're like, you're not a one. Um, could be a three. My best friend, Joey Dodson is convinced I'm a three. Um, I think I could be a five, although there's some similarities between ones and five. So yeah, I don't, I don't

know. I don't know where I am. Um, I don't care a. If I'm a one, I think I'm a strong wing nine, maybe a nine wing one. I don't know. Okay. Next question. Ryan asks, and by the way, let's see, I won. Oh, just two more questions. Okay. Over the past two years, Ryan says, I've come to the conclusion that the left behind narrative of Christ's return is a misreading of revelation and other supposed end times prophecies. If that is a case, what does the Bible say about Christ's return? I'm going to agree with you that, yeah, I don't hold to a left behind narrative. Um, I used to, I was raised, you know, pre millennial pre trib rapture. Um, and I don't hold to that view anymore. Um, I do think the book of Revelation in particular has been misread significantly. Um, yeah, I don't, do I get into all that? I think, yeah, I think Revelation, like most scholars today would would say it's more of a piece of political protest against first century Rome than anything.

There is end time stuff in Revelation. Most of it, if not all, most of it is the last two or three chapters, 19 through 22. And much of what leads up to that is more first century stuff. So, and if you, you know, I heard Don Carson, DA Carson, the one say, you know, if, um, if whenever I assign a class on revelation, I, I assign a thousand pages of first century Jewish apocalyptic literature. I think he said that I'm drawing from memory from about 15 years ago, but, um, and I would agree, you know, first century Jewish books like second Baruch and for Ezra and some Sibylline oracles and others like, um, like revelation is odd to us, but it was right at home

in Jewish apocalyptic literature. And it's almost here. this goes back to the commentary question. It's almost, it's not impossible. It's more difficult to really understand what's going on in the book of Revelation without being familiar with the books of Tuberuk and 4 Ezra. They're just so similar, 4 Ezra especially. It's fascinating reading 4 Ezra and you feel like you're reading the book of Revelation. Why? Because first century apocalyptic Jewish literature was a certain genre that was common in that day. So when we read it from a distance, we will misread Revelation if we're not familiar with how to read Jewish apocalyptic literature. What does the Bible say about Christ's return? I mean, you still have, I think, you know, first Thessalonians 4, Revelation 19, Matthew 24. I do think, yeah, I do think there's a literal return,

whatever that means. Even the whole like imagining him, well, he did say, I'm going to return the way I went. So does that mean he's going to appear, you know, um, on the Mount of Olives in Israel? Um, or is that more metaphorical? I, I don't, I'm not a hundred percent sure. I do know that now that we know that the earth is round and not flat, that is a little odd because every Christian gets all ethnocentric when they think about Christ return, like I'm going to look up in the sky and there he is. He's going to be riding the horse. Like literally I'm going to see him physically. And you know, if you're in America saying that it's like, well, it sucks to be a Christian in Tokyo, you know, I guess we got to wait like

eight hours, you know? So I do think there's, there is a lot of, um, just like his first return, his first coming was really like unpredictable. Um, I think his second coming is going to probably, whatever we think about it, we're, we're, we're probably going to be shocked and corrected at how he returns. I, and I do think that even a lot of the passages that talk about his second coming do have an apocalyptic kind of genre that it's described in. So I just want, yeah, I want to hold a lot of my understanding with the second coming with, with an open hand. And in terms of the particulars, does there seem to be some kind of like wars and chaos kind of leading up to return that does seem to be emphasized in the second coming passages. So I, I, I'm just kind of, I'm thinking out loud here.

Um, I, I, I do think that there might, that might be an element of what that, again, what that looks like. I don't know. Is it cyber warfare? Is it nuclear warfare? Is it, um, is it, um, kind of like brave new world where we're all just so plugged into our phones and, and sedating ourselves with pleasures and that that's the chaos that precedes the second coming that may, maybe that may be peace on earth visibly all the nations holding hands together. And we're just sedating ourselves with Netflix or something. I mean, maybe that's the chaos that, you know, I don't know. I don't know. Again, there's, there's, a lot of this is imagery. So, um, I do think there's an imminency. Christ can come at any time, but if you, if you work out a, if you iron out a detailed map preceding Jesus, Jesus's return,

like, well, this has got to happen and this has got to happen and this has got to happen. This has got to happen. That tends to create tension with the imminency of Christ that he can come at any moment. It's like, well, if all these things have to happen, then he can't come at any moment. He has to wait for all these things to happen. So that, that, that is one danger of the kind of newspaper theology, where you're just kind of like trying to map all these passages on specific concrete history, you know, events in the world today and say, well, this is that, and this is that, and this locust is that tank or whatever, like all that, that does create some difficulty with the

imminency of Christ's return. So that's all I got, Ryan. That's a great question. And, uh, yeah, I would hold a lot of these passages just with a humble open hand. Christ will return. He will raise the dead. He will judge the living and the dead. He will institute the new creation. He will break in the new creation. Heaven will come to earth and we will live forever on a new earth with our Lord and Savior. Last question that probably was difficult one here. What would a traditional Christian response be to this idea about gender? God created the male and female

and created land and water, but marshes and swamps exist. So we know there are things in between. So, right? So land and water, but a marsh and swamp is kind of in between land and water. Therefore, gender can be like this too. There can be things in between male and female. So Caroline, great question. I actually address this in my book embodied on page pages 96 to 98.

I spent three pages addressing this, um, this argument. So if you're interested, uh, you can check that out. Um, but I will give my summary. So yeah, it's true that, um, that in Genesis one, you see a lot of kind of polarized binaries being expressed light and day. Okay. Light or day and night, but we also have dusk and dawn in between day and night. We have morning and evening. We also have afternoon brunch, you know, land and sea. We also have marshes, as you said. So when it talks about male and female, those aren't the two exclusive. Um, I'm going to use the term you used here, but I'm going to explain why I don't like in a second. These aren't the two only genders. These are two ends of the spectrum. You have male over here, female over here, and they have all kinds of genders in between. That's the argument.

It sounds good at face value, I think, right? I mean, it's like, oh, well, land and sea, that works. Day and night, that works. Yeah, there's in-betweenness. Look at Genesis 1, there's all kinds of in-betweenness. Is there in-betweenness when it comes to male and female? Well, first of all, we have to make a, there's so many thoughts I have on this, but first of all, we have to ask the question, is male and female in Genesis one talking about biological sex or the modern concept of gender? So in your question, and you're using quotes here, so I'm assuming you're kind of quoting maybe somebody that said this to you, or maybe something you read. The term gender here is the biggest problem in this argument because typically this argument is made and then by using

the term gender, it launches into a conversation about gender. Well, what's gender? Well, up until the 1970s, late sixties, um, gender was just a synonym for biological sex. But nowadays gender is used to refer to a different aspect of the human experience. So let me, let me, let me, well, here's a definition of gender used today that I think many people would agree with. Um, gender refers to the psychological, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female. And that can be broken down into three subcategories, gender identity, which refers to one's internal sense of being male, female, both or neither. Gender role, which has to do with whether somebody adopts the cultural expectations of being a male or female,

you know, masculinity and femininity. And then gender expression, how a person behaves, the mannerisms they have, their interests, and the appearance of their, how they present themselves and how it's associated with a particular sex. So gender as a category is, it's broad. It can be fuzzy. It can be flexible and some might say a little too flexible. I mean, that's a broad, the psychological, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female. That's different from biological sex. So, okay. So let's back up and just define biological sex.

Biological sex. Here's one definition that a couple of psychologists gave that this would be widely agreed upon by most, if not all, but most biologists, medical professionals, whatever, that an organism is male or female if it is structured to perform one of their respective roles in reproduction. And they go on to say, there is no other widely accepted biological classification for the sexes. Biological sex has to do with categories of reproduction. And I do take it as a scientific fact that the earth is round and not flat. My apologies to my flat earthers out there.

that the earth is round and not flat. My apologies to my flat earthers out there. And that Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species, meaning, um, we reproduce when a male, when the gamut of a male, um, impregnates, whatever impregnates, uh of a female. That's how Homo sapiens reproduce. And the English words used to categorize both sides of that reproductive situation, if you will, are male and female. So I use male and female consistently to refer to biological sex. Again, most people in the sciences,

they do the same thing, that male and female, like earthworms, I think, aren't sexually dimorphic. Some species they reproduce without another partner or whatever. Homo sapiens do. So they do reproduce when a male impregnates a female. I do believe that the Hebrew words used to translate, that are translated male and female in Genesis 1.27, that they are referring to biological sex. In fact,

the same Hebrew words are used to refer to animals when they're coming into the ark, um, because animals, um, mammals also are sexually dimorphic. And also in Genesis 127, humans are created male and female. The very next command in 128 is like be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, which seems to be connected, you know, um, just because it's a different verse doesn't mean it's a whole different thought. Like it's the logic is God created the male and female. And part of the purpose of that creation of them as male and female is that they would reproduce as male and female. So here is how I would understand. Oh, so Genesis 1 27 is not

referring to gender, gender identity, gender role, gender expression, or just the concept of gender as it's defined in modern, in our modern Western English kind of context. Um, and that's where this argument I think goes wrong is it smuggles in the word gender when the text is talking about biological sex, and then it typically will reference intersex. You know, some people were born neither male nor female. I'll come back to that in a second. And then it'll use the term gender, and then it'll talk about people of different genders, like non-binary and transgender and gender fluid. And all of a sudden, we've just slowly kind of drifted into a very different conversation about gender when the text isn't talking about one's internal sense of who they think they are. It's talking about

the objective reality of biological sex. So yeah, even though we have rivers and marshes and other forms of land and sea, you know, that it's kind of in between land and sea. Um, we have beaches and we have sunsets, not everything's day and night and so on and so forth. Yeah, that's obviously we do. The question is, do we also have many, uh, many other biological sexes that exist in between male and female? And the answer is no, we don't. Male and female. And this, again, this is not, this is not, it's not, this is biological reality. It's not, this is scientific reality.

Male and female are the two categories of sex for Homo sapiens. Now, does that mean every male is exactly like every male? Well, no, obviously there's, there's variations within being what it means to be male variations within female. Some are tall, obviously there's, there's variations within being what it means to be male variations within female. Some are tall, some are short, some are Enneagram eight, some are sevens, some are light skin, dark skin, some have different personalities. So if we're, if we're talking about that kind of diversity, of course, obviously, um, but male, a male is not a female. Female is not a male. These are two distinct biological classifications of the sexes. Okay.

So what about intersex? Intersex refers to 16 to 20 or even more, depending on how you classify it. Let's just, let's just say 20 different biological conditions where somebody is born with some kind of atypical feature in their, um, in their sexual anatomy and, or their chromosomes. So, um, Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, vaginal agenesis, um, androgen insensitivity syndrome. Um, yeah, there's a whole, you know, there's, you know, what, 16 more. I only mentioned a few, but, um, and that the technical term is a, a, a DSD, which can refer to either differences of sex development or disorders of sex development. Some really prefer one of those terms over the other difference or

disorder, either way, DSD, you can just say DSD and it covers them both. So, um, most medical professionals would say disorders of sex development last time I checked. So some atypical feature in one's sexual anatomy in most, and by most, I mean about 99% of people with a DSD, the level of variation in their sexual anatomical development is so minor that there's, that there's, um, there's, there's little to no ambiguity in whether this person is still male or female. Um, Kleinfelter syndrome is, is a classic example, which covers a high percentage of people with a DSD. A lot of Kleinfinfeld is, is fairly common. And, um, you know, some of the symptoms of Kleinfeld, there's can be, um, a man, a male can be infertile and maybe be, um, they can be balding. Like they would have, um, they would have more baldness than

a man that doesn't or receding scalp. It's like, well, is that, there's still a male, um, being fertile doesn't make you a man. Like you're, you're, you don't have to be fertile to be a male. Um, uh, sometimes the, uh, client filters, you, um, it has to, I forget, it has to do with, um, either the levels of testosterone or how the cells receive or process the testosterone. levels of testosterone or how the cells receive or process the testosterone. So sometimes they can have, um, more, uh, fatty tissue in their chest area. I don't, some people say, yeah, men will see men develop breasts. Well, a breast is an organ that isn't just fatty tissue. And fact check me on this. I don't think, um, uh, I don't think a male with, uh, with Klein filters would develop like functioning breasts as a, as a, um, as a bodily organ. Yes, they can develop

more fatty tissue around the chest area. Um, but that's different from developing breasts, but, but even if they did develop breast, so there are some intersex conditions. I have two friends of mine who have a more severe intersex condition where there is a, a blend of male and female sexual anatomy, um, to the point to where sometimes it's, it's, it's hard to, it's like, are they male or female? It's like, it's kind of, they're both really, they have a really, a blend of both male and female anatomy. Even in those cases of these people, and I can't emphasize that enough that I, you know,

almost hate talking about this, like on a podcast, some abstract sense, but we're talking about people and these people, these friends of mine who have names and stories and, and are, are, are created in God's image. They, their embodiment of both male and female sex characteristics doesn't mean they're a quote, like third sex or an other sex. They're male and female are still the only two sex categories for homo sapiens. Some, you know, most are either one or the other. Some have minor variations in their male and female anatomy. Um, and some might be a significant blend of both male and female, but male and female are, there's no, there's no third gamut. Um, there's no third sex. And this is something that most intersex organizations that I've read,

um, would say, we don't think intersex people are a third sex. Like that can be offensive to at least some intersex people. So all that to say, yes, there are variations in creation in between this in Genesis 1. And no, that does not mean that there are, you know, that male and female as biological sex categories, which is what Genesis one is talking about, that there are variations, a bunch of variations in between male and female as biological sex categories. If we want to talk about gender, then let's talk about gender, but that that's gender is there's nothing in Genesis one that mentions anything close to what we would call gender identity or gender or whatever. Um,

there could be some social aspects of being male and female Genesis two. Um, but it still wouldn't, yeah, we're getting off, off the rails now. Um, but even now, even that is really, it's kind of unrelated to this argument anyway, but anyway, I hope that helps. I would check out again. I'm not telling you to buy my book, but if you already have it pages 96 to 98, uh, where I address that argument. So I hope that's helpful. Thank you, uh, patron supporters for your amazing questions. You all always keep me on my toes. And I feel like your questions keep getting more challenging, more harder. So thank you for always keeping me alert and in the books. We'll see you next time on Theology in a Round. Thank you.