Expedition 44

 Dr. Will Ryan and Pastor Matt continue the series on women in ministry.     1 Corinthians 11:2-16  Ephesians 5    Head in 1 Cor 11:3  • Christ is the head of man- meaning Jesus is both the creator and the 2nd Adam. He is the source of the man’s life in the familial sense and as creator.  • Man is the head of the woman- meaning source. Woman came from man. Paul in verse 12 levels the field by saying every man since Adam has come from a woman.  • Head of Christ is God- The messiah came from God to us (the incarnation). The source of Jesus is in the Godhead. This is not about God creating Jesus or about subordination within the God head (this thought was condemned as a heresy (Arianism) by the early church- Eternal Subordination of the Son [ESS])   • “Head” is about source (provision/savior) and not authority. It is a metaphor.   • Paul is concerned about modesty and equality in the church.   • He doesn’t want their beauty of women to distract from the worship or the honor of God.   • Paul wants men to act like men but also be separate from the world.   • Head coverings are cultural, and Paul was using it as an equalizing factor in the church. In our culture what can we do to create equality in the church?

Dr. Will Ryan and Pastor Matt look at the tough topic of women in ministry.    Complementarian: men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, and religious leadership. There is an important distinction between equality of worth and sameness of role. God has called men and women to different roles. They believe the Bible shows that men are called to lead the family and in the church. Men and women are equal in value, but different in function.  Egalitarian: men and women have equality in authority and responsibilities between genders. This entails women are able to exercise spiritual authority in the church. It refers to a belief that gender, in and of itself, neither privileges nor curtails a believer's gifting or calling to any ministry in the church or home. It does not imply that women and men are identical or undifferentiated, but affirms that God designed men and women to complement and benefit one another mutually.   Genesis 1:27​-28   Genesis 2:18​-24  Rib- The meaning is that Eve is half of Adam- an equal half. Man was “not good” without women on the earth. This is essentially a statement of mutuality or equality.  Helper (ezer)- “strength”  and not subordination as it is applied to God many times and his saving power.   Genesis 3:16 ​If men ruling over women was part of the created order, why do we only hear of this after the fall and as a result of it? Also, If Jesus came do defeat sin and the fall why do complementarians insist on roles depicted as a result of the fall as the created order? Egalitarians will say gender hierarchy is a result of disorder.

Doc Ryan and Matt Mouzakis with Expedition 44  look at the wrath of God.  We just finished a series on hell and sometimes when we think of Hell we think of divine wrath. We are also doing a series on Tough Topics in the Bible at our church and did an installment on divine violence and wrath came up in our conversation pertaining to that. When we think of God’s wrath it is sometime in the context of an angry dad who “flies off the handle” without a moment’s notice. If we already think of God as a distant, all-powerful sovereign, then his anger will seem more like a dangerous and volatile expression of a deeply angry being. But if we already think of God as a generous, creative father, then his anger will seem measured, fair, and a reasonable expression of his justice and fairness. So, what we need to do is clear the deck and trace the development of God’s anger through the storyline of the Bible.   The character of God  We need to start with the way God describes himself: Exodus 34:6-7 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”   o Here God describes himself as slow to anger. It literally means “long of nose”. When someone gets angry their face or nose (burning nose) gets red so when the biblical authors say that God has a long nose it means that it takes him a long time to get angry.    God’s anger  God’s hot anger and wrath in the Bible are a major reason why many people struggle to read the Bible. These words are fairly common in the Hebrew Bible, and they depict God in ways that make many people uncomfortable.    Conclusions from the Portrait of God’s Anger and Judgment in the Torah   God’s anger is his just and measured response to the covenant betrayal of his own people. It is not a volatile or unpredictable explosion of abusive violence.   o The most consistent response of God’s anger is to give people what they have chosen, even if it leads to self-destruction.   o This anger is expressed either as exile from God’s presence or in the hiding of God’s face and the removal of his protective and or- der-creating power.   God is slow to anger, which means:   o God will put up with people’s betrayal for much longer than is reasonable.   o God will always accept people who turn to him with soft hearts and genuine humility, no matter what they’ve done.    Jesus, God’s Kingdom and Judgment, and Divine Anger    When Jesus came onto the scene announcing the arrival of God’s Kingdom, part of his announcement was warning about the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Much like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus warned of God’s coming judgement if Israel did not accept his offer of the Kingdom.    o God’s wrath is not abusive anger but a protective anger. God is not a rage-a-holic   o God’s wrath is passive at times. Taking his hand off and allowing the natural consequences to happen  o God is slow to anger, which means:    God will put up with people’s betrayal for much longer than is reasonable.    God will always accept people who turn to him with soft hearts and genuine humility, no matter what they’ve done.   o God’s wrath is not an eternal attribute of God but rather a response to injustice.

Dr. Will Ryan, Pastor Matt Mouzakis, and Jana Diaz finish up a great series on the different views on hell. In this episode we answer a few questions we've been asked and also revisit our framing questions from the intro episode. 

• Traditionalists believe that the soul was created immortal.   o Greek philosophy held to an immortal soul and some early church theologians held this view as well and it became the default position in the church since.   • The fire may be literal or figurative  o CS Lewis and NT Wright take the view of someone becoming less of the image of God (Eternal Goluming)  o Tertullian, Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, and Johnathan Edwards believed that the saints would rejoice to see the justice of God in the torment of the lost.     Scriptural  • Genesis 2:17​   • Daniel 12:2   • Isaiah 66:24  • Mark 9:43​-44 43    • Matt 25:41​,46 41   • Luke 16:24​ 24   • 2 Thes 1:9   • Revelation 14:10​-11   • Revelation 20:10​, 14-15      Strengths  • Tradition and History  • A Motivational tool for evangelism (turn or burn)  • “Takes sin seriously”    Weaknesses  • Many assumptions built into their exegesis of scripture which we’ll address in the next video.   • Paints a picture of God that is a bit monstrous. Why create people just to torture them?  • Doesn’t account well for the severity of punishment based on the crime. All is equal. Some try to say that there is a spectrum of pain based on the sinner, but this is speculation and not in the Bible.   • No text in the Bible states that the lost will live forever and there’s no text in the bible that says man is immortal  • God giving people a lobotomy so that they don’t remember parts of their life in order to not mourn the lost is problematic. If we are made for fellowship with God and each other it seems like it’s a terrible thing to do to eliminate memories of those we loved.   • Though ECT is a good tool for evangelism, is it true? In Acts the disciples and evangelists never used Hell in their evangelism sermons. They occasionally used judgment but talked about the one who was going to judge (Jesus) and not the method of judgement. ECT is not in Acts at all, so should we use it as a tool to evangelize?   • No torment text in the OT (Daniel just says contempt and Isaiah talks about dead bodies). If this was that important why wouldn’t God mention it earlier? And why not have Israel evangelize the pagans, instead God has nothing to do with them.   • ECT’s view of infinite punishment for sin against and infinite God goes in the face of “each will be judged according to their works”. There seems to be levels of reward and punishment that ECT doesn’t account for except in the level of pain which is nowhere in scripture.    • ECT never actually deals with the problem of sin if sinners are allowed to exist eternally. So God never actually wins and as a creation where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3) and he is all in all (1 Cor 15). The books are never closed.

Today Dr. Will Ryan and Matt tackle Christian Universalism, or Ultimate Reconciliation, Or Universal Restoration, Or Patristic Universalism. This view states that all shall be saved. It is not pluralism which means all roads lead to God. This Christian view of universalism states that through faith in Christ alone all shall be saved. This view affirms all cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith and believes in judgement and many believe in a literal Hell, Universal Restorationists (UR) just believe that it won’t last forever.     Strengths  • Consistent with the character of God who is love  • Scripture seems to support the possibility of all being saved  • Affirms God is powerful and able to accomplish what he wants to  • Give a sense of Hope for the world  • If God truly does love all and save all then it really motives followers of Jesus to see people in a reflection of that love and not just see them as people God wants to judge.   • Can make sense of the death passages and the salvation passages  • Makes sense of Retributive and Restorative justice passages   Weaknesses  • All doesn’t always mean all. Sometimes it means all kind. Like as in the gospels where it said, “all of Jerusalem came out to see Jesus”.   • Tradition following the 4th century has been pretty silent for UR  • May decrease evangelistic efforts. But do we need Hell to convince people? The disciples didn’t use it in Acts, they simply proclaimed Jesus’ kingship.  • If we are all saved why not live however we want to?   • UR has a hard time explaining the 2 paths and gates and point of no return passages. Some arguments seem to be a stretch.   • Free Will- Does God override people’s will? He seems to give them over to their desires if they don’t want Him and allows their heart to be hardened. Will he force himself on them through torment (at gunpoint?)? UR seems to go against free will that hold to God’s non-coercion (but to His persuasion).    • Hitler and the Satan will be saved?  • Some will say that this makes the cross useless without (capitol) punishment.   • A lot hangs on post modem repentance. The bible neither affirms not denies this. Maybe it depends on the amount of light given?

Dr. Will Ryan, Pastor Matt, and Jana examine the Conditional Immortality/Annihilation view of hell. We look at the Biblical and philosophical arguments and then the strengths and weaknesses. Conditional immortality states that immortality is not the default position of humans in this view. Adam and Eve’s life depended upon eating from the tree of life the eternal life of humanity is in eating from the true tree of Life – Jesus.  • Conditional Immortality has an extremely strong case biblically. It connects the punishment for sin and the rejection of God from beginning to end in the Bible.    Conditionalists (CI) don’t have to reinterpret death, second death, destruction, perish, and more to mean separation or torment. They let words mean what they normally mean.    Jesus’ death on the cross actually makes sense in a substitutionary atonement model with CI VS ECT. Jesus actually experiences and overcomes the wages of sin… DEATH (Not eternal torment).    In the conditionalist view God actually conquers sin and eliminates it from the cosmos.    Conditionalist do not fall into the platonic views of the soul being immortal that many in the early church fell into but stick to the Hebrew view that goes back to the beginning.  If we are immortal by nature then Hell is not really a punishment but a choice of location, instead of the continual biblical motif of choosing life or death.    In the apostolic writings there is never a mention of Hell as eternal torment. In the gospel presentations in Acts, Hell is never mentioned. Judgement and the one who judges is. When the Apostles refer to this judgement it is never eternal torment.    In CI the punishment fits the crime and God says that he values proper scales when it comes to justice. CI seems to be more just in this way than traditionalism.    CI’s version of final judgement is both just and merciful. Unending torment seems to go against the character of God who says over and over that “His anger only last for a moment, but favor lasts for a lifetime”. The traditional view has God’s wrath lasting forever which is nowhere in scripture.    CI fits more with the character of God than ECT overall. A God who respects free will, is merciful, but will let people have what they desire and if that is their own will then God is saddened but obliged to remove his sustaining hand and let them cease to exist.

Dr. Will Ryan and Matt interview Christ Date from Rethinking Hell on the "Big 3" hell texts that connect the word eternal and an act of punishment/judgement. Matthew 25:31​-46  Revelation 14:9-11  Revelation 20:10​-15 We examine if these texts affirm the traditional view or the conditional immortality (annihilation) view of Hell.  Chris Date is Adjunct Professor of Bible and Theology at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary and co-editor of Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism (Cascade, 2014) and A Consuming Passion (Pickwick, 2015). A full-time software engineer, Chris believes theology and apologetics are for every average joe in the pews, and not just for pastors, philosophers, PhD’s and the erudite in ivory towers. Formerly a traditionalist, he became convinced of the biblical view of final punishment over the course of a process which began when he interviewed Edward Fudge, and he has since defended the view in several debates and on Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable? Radio program on Premier Christian Radio UK. Chris is also a steward of the Rethinking Hell project.

Dr. Will Ryan, Pastor Matt Mouzakis and Jana Diaz begin a series on Hell.    o Our view of hell must be rooted in our view of God’s character.      • Today we will give an overview of each view along with some common texts to show their merit.   • In the upcoming episodes we’ll try to unbiasedly cover each view with its Biblical strengths and weaknesses along with philosophical strengths and weaknesses.   • We’re going to have an interview with Chris Date from Rethinking Hell   • We’ll conclude the series with our thoughts and reflections     Traditionalism (Eternal Torment, Eternal Conscience Torment [ECT])   Primary text: • Matt 25:41​-46: Sheep and Goats, eternal punishment vs eternal life  • Mark 9:43​-48:  Cut off your hand, pluck out your eye, eternal worms and fire not quenched  • 2 Thes 1:9: shut out from the presence, everlasting destruction  • Dan 12:2: everlasting contempt  • Rev 14:10​-11: tormented, smoke will rise forever and ever  • Rev 19:20: Those who receive the mark of the beast thrown into the lake of fire  • Rev 20:10​,15: Devil, Beast, False prophet tormented day and night forever, those not found in the book of life thrown into the lake of fire.    Notable advocates: Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and most of the western Christian tradition after the Reformation.      Conditional Immortality (Annihilation)   Primary texts:  • John 3:16: “perish”  • Romans 6:23: Wages of sin is death  • 1 Thes 1:9: everlasting destruction (not destroying)  • 1 John 5:11​-12: he who has the son has life, he who does not have the son does not have life  • 2 Peter 2:6-7: Sodom and Gomorrah’s extinction is equated to the lost. Ungodly are destroyed  • Matt 10:28: Don’t fear the one who can kill your body but fear the one who can destroy your body and soul in hell  • Psalms- Primary image of God’s enemies is death or destruction (end of life)  • Phil 3:18​-19: Their end is destruction • Hebrews 10:39: destruction   Notable advocates: Irenaeus, Ignatius, Athanasius, Arnobius, (Epistle of) Barnabas, John Stott, Edward Fudge, FF Bruce, Ben Witherington, Greg Boyd, Chris Date     Universal Reconciliation (Christian Universalism, Patristic Universalism, Restorationism)   Primary Texts:  • Lam 3:31​-32: God restores after he judges  • Rev 21:25​- Her gates will never be shut (same nations who were the bad guys are healed and welcomed in)  • Rom 5:18: All die in Adam, all are made alive in Christ  • Rom 11:26: All Israel will be saved  • Rom 11:28: All shut up in disobedience, all given mercy  • Col 1:19​-20: Through the cross all things are reconciled to God   Notable Advocates: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, George MacDonald, William Barclay, Thomas Talbot, Rob Bell (possibly?)

Doc Ryan with Expedition 44 and Pastor Matt Mouzakis    • Get our focus off of the acquisition of possessions and money because they run contrary to the kingdom vision; be generous and store up treasures in heaven. You can only serve 1 master.  • Don’t worry or be anxious because God knows your needs and he provides.   • Our role as humans is to love and show mercy; we are ambassadors of God’s reconciliation. God alone is judge.   • We are called to discern but not condemn.   • The sermon on the mount is an invitation to a new way to live- the kingdom way to live  • It is not to simply accept and believe in Him but to live like Jesus and do what he says  • The only acceptable response of a follower is to embrace this way of life.   • “Doing and practicing” are more ordinary terms that would have equaled the definition of righteousness in the mind of a Jew during Jesus time. This righteousness we are called to is to conform our life and behaviors to Jesus’ kingdom vision.   • James 1:22​-25 22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.   • The sermon on the mount is not legalistic or Torah on steroids. To respond to the sermon in the mount is not to respond to an ethical or moral vision… it is to respond to Jesus our King. Our proper response is to declare Jesus and who he is by the way that we live.