Was Jesus Forsaken, Guardian Angels, Baptism for the Dead, and Other Bible Debates

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. [00:00:09] Speaker B: Welcome in to the Think Deeper podcast presented by Focus Press. Joe Wilkie here, joined as always by Jack Wilkie and Will Harab. Fellas, we have a fascinating episode. Will, you weren't on the last one when Jack and I did this. We did kind of. It was somewhat of a filler episode. It's been a couple months. You were out of town, I think, or had something for work. And so we had done Bible debates. [00:00:28] Speaker C: And is that what we titled Nephilim, who wrote Hebrews? And a few other things. Like, we put the debates in the. We got a lot of good feedback. [00:00:36] Speaker B: Yes, we did. We got a lot of. [00:00:38] Speaker D: Such an interesting discussion. I listened to that whole episode when I got back and yes, it was fascinating. You guys did a great job. [00:00:44] Speaker B: Well, I appreciate it. Yeah, the. This is fun. So right off the top, we're just going to tell everybody we did this on the last one. Couple rules here. First off, these are not salvational issues, okay? So I don't want anybody coming after us of like, man, I don't even know why we're talking about this. We always get those comments of, you know, this is divisive, or whatever it may be. We're not trying to be divisive. We're just. [00:01:03] Speaker D: These are fun debates. Just interesting. [00:01:05] Speaker B: We want you to have fun with us, you know, comment and let us know your thoughts on these things. Second thing is we have to take a side. So we are. We are putting that on ourselves that we cannot just do the. Oh, well, I could go either way. You have to be. This could be. [00:01:19] Speaker D: Did you guys get into any debates last time? I don't remember that. I don't think you guys did. I think y' all agreed on just about everything last time. [00:01:26] Speaker C: No, the Nephilim thing, we went different directions. [00:01:28] Speaker B: Yes. [00:01:29] Speaker C: I went with. With Sons of Seth and Joe went with the demon babies, so. [00:01:35] Speaker B: That's right. That's right. That's a fun one. [00:01:39] Speaker C: So there was at least one disagreement. I don't know if there were any more, but yeah. So A, maybe to create disagreement. B, just as Joe said, so we don't have a cop out. So that goes along with his first point. We're not dogmatic about any of these. This is not A. I'm just drawing a line in the sand. We on all of these, I think all of us would go, I lean towards this one, but we can't take that easy. Cop out. This time we are making ourselves choose one. So know that up front. [00:02:04] Speaker B: All righty. Anything to announce before we just Jump right in. I don't think we. [00:02:09] Speaker D: I think some of these might take a while, so I say let's just roll. [00:02:12] Speaker B: We're coming up on 250. Have you. Have you told everybody. [00:02:14] Speaker D: Oh, yeah. [00:02:15] Speaker C: That we're coming up on 47? [00:02:18] Speaker B: Yeah, we're like three episodes away, something like that. So let us know. This would. Especially for those on the deep end, for those on the Patreon. Please let us know in the comments if you have ideas for the 250th. We're workshopping this. We're trying to figure out what we're gonna do, and it's coming up quick, so. And it's coming up real fast, so if you have any ideas, let us know. But we're excited to hit that mark. So, fellas, let's jump right in. [00:02:38] Speaker C: I was also just gonna say my voice is this close to going out, so I'm gonna go contribute lightly this time if anyone's wondering where I go to by the end of the episode. [00:02:48] Speaker B: So, okay, first one, as we jump in. What is baptism for the dead about now, we took. We each took two to kind of study. We've studied the other ones as well, but two that we're kind of leading. This is one that. That I chose to lead. What is baptism for the dead about now we were talking off air. This is really difficult. This is a fascinating one. My notes from Bear Valley, I was looking at that. I looked at so many different things, but will hand sign shout out. I think he's at southeast now. But he was my First Corinthians teacher, and he had said in his. Or in my notes, I had 35 different interpretations to this. At least 35 different interpretations. So go ahead and flip on over to. [00:03:30] Speaker C: We'll be debating all of those. [00:03:32] Speaker B: Yeah, hardly, hardly. I will tell you a few of them, maybe three or four of them. But this is in First Corinthians 15, so I'll just start in verse 28. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? Well, now the Mormons take this and they go way off. I was watching something where, like, how'd they get to that? And Joseph Smith kind of came up with these new ideas. This is my understanding of it. It's a very. A, you know, novice on some of these things. But my understanding is that Joseph Smith basically came up with these new ideas, and people said, well, we have some relatives that didn't know these things. What do we do? And he's like, well, we can baptize for the dead and then use the scripture to back it up. So I don't believe in Mormonism. I don't believe that this is. You are baptizing, but this is what a lot of people think that you are baptizing for those that have passed on before you, what they would call full vicarious baptism, where you are, you know, somebody dies, they're outside Christ, they were a sinner, never came to the truth. But, hey, I'm his son, and, you know, I'd love for my dad to get to heaven, so I'm just going to go baptize. That is not what Paul's talking about. Some people think, well, maybe that's what they were doing in Corinth. And Paul's just referencing that, saying, why would you do that if you didn't believe in a baptism or if you didn't believe in a resurrection? Of course, First Corinthians 15 is a resurrection passage or chapter. So some people think that's the case. I don't, because that would be pretty heretical. And I think Paul would take the time to go, no, that's not what we do. This is not seen anywhere else. There's a couple of early church fathers that did. Tertullian and John Chrysostom. Chrysostom, yeah, Chrysostom. I think both spoke to this, but both kind of spoke to the way that. That is not at all what's taking place, and that's wrong. And so the Marcians, I think it was Marcine came along. He's got a bazillion heretics or heresies, but that was another one of those that he started to believe in. And so people did kind of take that on in the early church, but that comes a little bit later. That's. That's a couple hundred years after the people started getting into this. Then there's the above the dead. Some people think the word for. For that they're baptizing for the dead should be above the dead. And this is in reference to some Baptisteries being over graveyards. That is a ridiculous belief. [00:05:51] Speaker D: That one sounds wacky. [00:05:53] Speaker B: Churches were built on graveyards. Some of those were not in the first century. They weren't that. That is pretty wacky, but that is actually a belief out there. Some people think that this is a baptism for Yourself, when you are. When you were among the dead, you're spiritually dead in Christ, right? You were spiritually dead. You were dead. And outside of Christ, dead to your sin or dead in your sins, dead in the world. And that. This is what it's referring to. I don't agree with that one either. That is not my take. I saw another one and then I'll get to what I think my take is. And I'm curious, your guys take. I saw another one and I had pulled this up. This guy on YouTube, Doug Batchelor. Never heard of him, but he's got a million subscribers talking about Bible stuff. He translates it as otherwise, comma, what will they do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead do not rise at all, why then are they baptized for the dead, question mark. So he goes in and says the Greek didn't have punctuation. And he basically adds punctuation in wherever he wants. And that explains it. [00:06:49] Speaker D: That actually he's saying seems a little arbitrary. [00:06:51] Speaker B: What will they do who are baptized, question mark for the dead. I also look at that and go, man, that is really messed up. And that also makes for a very rough transition into verse 30. [00:07:01] Speaker C: So just a little pro tip here. Anytime somebody has a proprietary Greek translation that nobody else, no other scholarship contradicts [00:07:10] Speaker D: all the other Greek translations, everyone who's [00:07:12] Speaker C: ever done it, they're the one that came and set them all straight. Probably not. [00:07:17] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. Well, the pronunciation or the, you know, all the grammar wasn't there, like, okay, buddy, so. And it doesn't even make sense when that is the case. So what does it actually mean? Tons of interpretations, at least 35. Those are kind of some of the main ones. What I think it means. And this goes along with the notes of Bear Valley. I researched and researched, and I think Will did a good job with this. I do think that baptizing the people were baptizing this would be my take. There's some holes in this. I'll get to. They were getting baptized for those that had gone on before them, those that were in Christ and getting baptized for them. I want to be with my mom and getting baptized for them. Well, why would you do that if you didn't have a resurrection? The point of that would be so [00:07:57] Speaker D: because of them or like literally for them in a vicarious way. [00:08:02] Speaker B: Not in a vicarious way. Like, no, my mom's gone on. She was baptized. She's with God. I want to get baptized. That they're getting baptized because the dead in Christ have moved on and I want to be with them. That would be the concept here. In a resurrection chapter, he'd say, why would you do that if you didn't believe in a resurrection? Because that's what he's establishing is the resurrection's true. Goes back to verse 12. If Christ, you know, if we preach Christ and he wasn't resurrected, you don't believe in resurrection. What are we doing? We have all men are to be most pitied. And then this is right after that. So if that's the case, then that would explain why people may look to get baptized. Is it the right reasons? No, but it would explain why Paul doesn't chide them per se. Is. It's not the greatest thing, but yeah, they're thinking about those that have gone on before them. Where you can poke a hole in that is the fact that the Corinthian Church is still pretty new in its infancy to some degree at this point, maybe a decade, maybe a little more that they've been there. How many people are dying in Christ that you would be getting baptized for them? [00:08:57] Speaker D: Not long history there. [00:08:58] Speaker B: Not a long history. That would be the one thing you could poke holes in. But to me, it sums up what the for the dead might be outside of. Because I looked into like, did the pagans used to do this? Is he referring to maybe things that the pagans did? This is the only place he uses. They. If the dead are not rise, why then are they baptized? Who's a they in this situation? So is it pagans, people outside that he's pointing to a resurrection even from that. But I did research on that and pagans didn't really baptize for the dead. There were rituals and things like that. But that's not a known historical take to baptize for the dead outside of Christianity. And it's not known inside Christianity either. So that's my contention, is that it is to be reunited with dead loved ones. [00:09:42] Speaker D: So this was also my take as well, is that it was they were essentially baptized because of the dead. I don't want to just restate everything Joe said because I know we got a lot to get to here, but that was my take is that essentially because of the deceased believers that had gone on before loved ones or whatever it was, that was a motivating factor in their choosing to get baptized. He talks about the dead. A few verses later in verse 30, 35, someone will say, how are the dead raised up and with what body do they come? And so, like the theme of this section is The Resurrection, obviously, the whole chapter really talking, starting with Jesus, resurrection to start the chapter off. And so to me, yes, Joe, as you said, as he's kind of building his case for the resurrection, that. That is an important kind of point to make, is that, hey, if we got b. If you got baptized for this reason, is that if there's no resurrection. So again, not to. Not to just completely. That. That was my take. And we did not discuss this pre. Pre. Pre show either. So we were kind of learning as we. [00:10:39] Speaker B: What. [00:10:39] Speaker D: What. What people think. Well, we haven't heard what the scholar thinks yet, so maybe we should turn it over to him. But that. That's my take as well. Jack, what do you think? [00:10:46] Speaker C: Yeah, I, coming out of my preaching school classes, had gone with the idea of he was talking about somebody else's practice. But as Joe says, it's very hard to establish somebody else doing that that Paul might have been pointing to. I saw somebody else. One that Joe didn't get to. A couple of guys pointed to the book of Numbers, where if you touched a dead body, you were ceremonially joined with them, you were unclean, you had to go undergo a washing. So a baptism of sorts to come back into the fold of the people. And it's like, okay, but what does that have to do with the resurrection? Like the baptism for the dead? Like, you could call that a baptism for the dead, but it doesn't prove anything about the resurrection. I like that that's grounded in. In scripture, but again, I just don't see anything there. So the idea man, I. Okay. To be the guy who differs. I'm going to say, and I need to research more if anybody actually did this, I'm going to say that there were people who practice vicarious baptism. Paul was not endorsing it, but saying even they understand resurrection. Yeah. He's saying, look, even those guys know there's a resurrection. [00:11:57] Speaker D: You think that's why. And so you're. I'm guessing part of your theory would be that's why he uses the word they. [00:12:01] Speaker C: Yeah, they like pointing to them. [00:12:03] Speaker D: Yeah. [00:12:04] Speaker B: The they does seem to be that. The other thing you could get into, as I was looking at it, like Paul does say right after this, I die daily. Which, you know, is there a reference there to those who are dying to themselves, you know, in terms of the dead, doesn't really. That's not a strong connection. But it is a couple verses later that he does say that, so. But death is throughout the entire thing. That's. That's the entire Point of the chapters where there's a sting of death. Right. As he, you know, concludes on. So I don't know. The they is a tough one to get around. It doesn't make sense that he would refer to the Christians as they, if that's what they were doing. I assumed, honestly, I went into this looking at the Bear Valley. I was actually going to buck that and go along with the pagan side of things. But as I was looking at it, because there's no established practice, I thought that'd be a slam dunk. Like, well, they make sense. It's outside even. They believe in a resurrection. But there's just not a lot of historical evidence to point to what group that might be. There's a couple of them. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch. [00:13:00] Speaker C: Sorry. [00:13:00] Speaker D: Well, not to push back too much on you, Jack. The only thing I would say is that it would seem strange to me for Paul to give credence, even if he is not coming out and just condoning or saying, yeah, this is. This is something that we can do. But even to just kind of name drop it, so to speak, in there almost seems. It would seem to kind of give credence to it as an idea of like, oh, yeah, this thing that people do. Um, I would just have. And this is purely speculative, I would have a hard time seeing Paul doing that. But that's. That's very, very interesting. Very challenging. [00:13:29] Speaker C: I told my wife about this when I was studying these. Is the hard part about pretty much every one of these on these, the list is like. It's like when you're building Legos or something from Ikea or whatever, and you get to the end and there's extra parts on almost all of these. Every interpretation you go with, there's extra parts. There's things where it's like, yeah, I don't know what to do about that verse or that phrase in there. Kind of makes it hard. But there's not a seamless, clean interpretation that leaves you with that. Extra parts is the challenge. [00:13:56] Speaker D: So to be clear, just to kind of sum it up, Joe and I would be on the same page about them maybe getting them getting baptized for the sake of their dead loved ones. Jack, your take would be more. It is talking about vicarious baptism, although it's not a condoning of it, basically. [00:14:10] Speaker C: Yeah. Yeah. [00:14:11] Speaker D: That fair to say, Joe, anything else to kind of wrap yours up? [00:14:15] Speaker B: No, that's a tough study. I'd encourage everybody to go look at that because the interpretations are varied and kind of wild. On some of those, but it's a fun one. [00:14:24] Speaker D: All right, let's get to a very interesting one, one that is more highly debated than I realized going into it. Let's talk about Ham and Canaan Canon. Ham, Ham and Noah. What we. But Canaan is, is certainly worked in there a good bit. So Genesis 9, if you're, if you're listening, most people know about what happens after the flood. That Noah, you know, is this great man of God and then has this just truly kind of the last thing you read about him is. Is pretty negative. I'll start reading in, in verse 20. Genesis after nine, Noah began to be a farmer and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk and became uncovered in his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away and they did not see their father's nakedness. So Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done. Then he said, cursed be Cain and a servant of servants he shall be to his brethren. This, this question of what exactly happened between Ham and Noah. So I'm going to go through kind of the, the different interpretations. There's kind of three main ones. And then I this is one I'm really curious to get Yalls take on. I. I've certainly landed somewhere where I kind of think makes the most sense. The, the first possibility or the first explanation is simply basically the. I'm going to call it like the look and mockery interpretation, which is basically that the sin of Ham here was that he simply saw his father's nakedness. That. That was it very straightforward. This is the one that aligns closest with just literally what the text says. If you read verse 23, the sin literally does seem. The emphasis seems to be on him physically laying eyes on his naked father. Same with Shem and Japheth as well, like that. That is exactly what they are trying not to do by walking in backwards with the, with the cloak. [00:16:18] Speaker C: Right? [00:16:18] Speaker D: Like that seems the focus. The other thing that would make this view make the most sense, again, other than it's just the most straightforward reading of the text is that clearly you can see there's a contrast is trying to be set up here between what Ham did and what his brothers did. And again the fulcrum of that is physically laying eyes on the father's nakedness. [00:16:38] Speaker C: Is. [00:16:38] Speaker D: Is the straightforward reading. So that's, that's. I would say that's the. More that's the most traditionally, you know, held viewpoint is that it was just that he saw his father naked. Essentially. The second interpretation is just the sexual assault interpretation is that the sin of Ham basically ventured into homosexuality or incest. There are some that suggest castration, that he castrated his father. The reasons that people will. Will jump to this interpretation, verse 24, which is also very interesting, depending on how your translation has it. I'm going to ask you guys what your translation has in a second New King James has. So Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done to him. The implication of that reading is that basically he woke up and immediately knew that's not the way other translations have it. Esv, I think, has basically I should have had it pulled up essentially when Noah found out. I'll get the exact. When he, when he knew that Noah [00:17:33] Speaker C: woke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him. [00:17:35] Speaker D: Yeah, there you go. So it's almost like an implication of like he awoke and then he found out somehow. But either way, verse 24 would, would indicate that something happened to where Noah knew that something had been done to him. A lot of people point to Leviticus 20:17, 20, verse 17, where seeing someone's nakedness is basically a euphemism for having, for sexual intercourse, for having intercourse with somebody. And so they'll say, well, that's exactly what is said here. That's what Ham did. And then the final kind of thing that, that makes people believe this is the curse upon Canaan seems to be a bit harsh for just seeing him, him naked. Especially when you consider that, you know, if it, if the sin was just he saw his father naked, well, whose fault was. Was naked? It wasn't Ham's fault. It was Noah's fault. Noah's the one that got drunk and, you know, ended up in that state. And for him to turn around and curse Ham just because he kind of walked in on him and, and saw him naked doesn't seem to check out. So that's. That one, the third one has really kind of taken, really taken hold more recently. And that is the adultery interpretation that Ham actually slept with Noah's wife seems way out there. Let me kind of give the reasons why people think that. And then before I kind of share my view, I do want to kind of hear you guys what y' all think. [00:18:54] Speaker B: What. [00:18:55] Speaker D: So the, the adultery interpretation that would explain the, you know, what you know, when Noah found out what his son had done to him, it would explain the curse on Cain a little bit more. I read something interesting that said that Canaan would be the child of that union, theoretically, which is why the narrator keeps calling Ham the father of Canaan. Because again, this was written obviously way after this. This happened because Moses wrote it. The biggest reason, though, is Leviticus, chapter 18, verses 7 and 8 that I'll read here, where once again, uncovering someone's nakedness is just. Is a euphemism for having sex with. With somebody's wife, essentially. Leviticus 18, verse 7. The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover. She is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of your father's wife, you shall not uncover. It is your father's nakedness. So they'll point to that and people will say, you know, he saw his father's nakedness. And so, you know, that that basically means that he slept with. With his father's wife. The other. Another reason is that if people will say it fits a biblical pattern of sons basically seizing their father's women to claim their. To claim their father's authority, basically. Reuben did this with Jacob's concubine in Genesis 35. Absalom did this with David's concubine. It was basically a power play, like, I'm going to, you know, sleep with your woman, essentially, even though you're my father. Super weird. But it did happen. And then Leviticus 18 also explicitly calls this the practices of, you guessed it, Canaanites. So the story would explain kind of Canaan's origins and exactly how the sin of Israel was associated with them. So there's support for this view in the Babylonian Talmud, where there's a debate between two rabbis. One says that Ham castrated Noah, the other says that he sodomized him. And so that. That's really, I guess, more support for the. The. The previous one. Number two, the sexual assault interpretation. But those are the main. Three. The adultery one is probably the least well known. That was one I had heard but had not really looked into. So I just talked a lot. I don't know if you guys want me to go first. I definitely know which one I lean towards. But any. Any thoughts that. Or additional thoughts on any of those kind of interpretations? For Ham and Canaan, there. [00:21:06] Speaker A: Journey through the foundation of scripture with remarkable clarity and insight. From creation to Joseph's final days in Egypt, one family's history guides readers through the pivotal events that shaped the nation of Israel. This newly revised and expanded edition builds upon Adam Kozart's original study guide with deeper analysis, clearer language, and thoughtful articles that illuminate the text's most profound lessons. In this essential study, you'll discover how God's intricate plan for humanity unfolds through One Family's lineage. Fresh perspectives on familiar stories that reveal their true significance. Detailed examinations of complex genealogies and chronologies that demonstrate the Bible's historical reliability. Thoughtful chapter by chapter analysis with practical applications for today's believers. Comprehensive outlines that trace the development of God's relationship with mankind. Whether studying independently or leading a group, you'll appreciate Kozort's accessible approach that balances scholarly insight with practical application. His careful attention to detail helps readers navigate challenging passages while never losing sight of the book's powerful central message. One Family's History serves as both an introduction for newcomers to Genesis and a valuable resource for seasoned Bible students seeking deeper understanding of Scripture's foundational book. Find One Family's History by Adam Kozork on Amazon today. [00:24:07] Speaker C: There's a weird twist in here. In the 9 24, where it says, Noah woke from his wine. He knew what his youngest son had done to him. They are always presented as Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And so that seems to indicate. I mean, that almost always indicates he would not be the youngest. Japheth would be the youngest. I don't know what to make of that. [00:24:27] Speaker D: Some people and new King James has younger, not youngest. [00:24:30] Speaker C: Okay, see, that's interesting. His younger son. So he would be younger than 1, but older than the other. So that'd be a bit of a strange one. I saw one guy theorizing that it was Canaan who actually committed the act, because I saw that as well. [00:24:44] Speaker D: Or that Kanan was involved somehow. [00:24:46] Speaker C: Yes. To me that was a bit of a stretch. But I did want to throw that theory in there because it just keeps talking about Ham through the course of it and. And talking to his brothers like, so I don't think that one's valid. But I. I did want to put it out there. And I don't know why that verse says it the way that it does. [00:25:02] Speaker D: Yeah. And the fact that he punished Canaan and not, you know, or cursed Canaan and not him is interesting. I'll just go and share. Joe. Sorry. Then you can jump in. [00:25:09] Speaker B: Go for it. [00:25:09] Speaker C: Go for it. [00:25:11] Speaker D: It's an Occam's Razor thing. For me, I think the simplest explanation, the most scripturally straightforward explanation, is Just that he saw his father's nakedness. And the reason is two reasons. One, the book of Genesis is not shy about laying out when sexual intercourse is taking place. Like, it is not. Like, the book of Genesis does not use, you know, metaphorical language. [00:25:33] Speaker C: Lots daughters do something very similar. And exactly. [00:25:36] Speaker D: It's always he. He lay with her. You know, the Jacob's concubines as well. Like, it's. It's pretty clear what's going on. And so it doesn't make sense to me that Moses would, you know, specifically here just kind of use a euphemism. And you're kind of supposed to figure it out. And so I think the sin of Ham. And once again, it was just the first one I laid out, which was that he simply saw his father's nakedness. And the second reason is because of the contrast with Shim and Japheth. What did J. Sim and Japheth do? They. Again, the emphasis is on the fact that they backed into the room with a cloak on their back so that they didn't see their father's nakedness. If you take this kind of the. The, you know, he cheated on, you know, he. He slept with Noah's wife interpretation, then the Shem and Japheth part really doesn't make a lot of sense because. And the other thing about that, too, the, you know, seeing someone's nakedness was not. It was uncover. Their nakedness was the euphemism. That's not what Genesis says. It says he saw his father's nakedness not uncovered. And so it's. I'm. I'm pretty firmly in the camp of it was just the seeing of the father's nakedness. But I'm curious where you guys land on. [00:26:44] Speaker C: So the IKEA spare part from that is why choose one child of Ham and say he's not. Ham's getting cursed, but one of his four, Genesis. [00:26:54] Speaker B: I've got. I got answers to both. [00:26:56] Speaker C: All right, go ahead, Joe. [00:26:57] Speaker D: Okay. Go ahead, Joe. [00:26:58] Speaker B: I'm all wise, fella. No, no, I think. I think the. You're. You're correct, Will. That's what I would lean toward for this reason. This is a perfect connection point to Genesis 3, 2 and 3. So you have the fruit of the vine, right? So you got the fruit of the vine. You got the, you know, he's drinking wine. There's the fruit of the tree. Eve takes that. Bad things happen. What's the first thing that's noticed is nakedness. Nakedness is seen there. And then what happens? God Covers them with the animal skins. And then Shem and Japheth go in and cover him. It doesn't need to be anything more than the nakedness. Nakedness already denotes shame in the Bible. It was a very shameful thing that he did. [00:27:35] Speaker D: And it's in Isaiah and other places where. [00:27:38] Speaker B: Right. Like it is a. And that's just. That's just to the thigh in Isaiah. Like, this was a big deal in Jewish customs of. You don't uncover the nakedness, especially of your father. It's incredibly disrespectful, dishonoring everything else. The reason why Canaan is involved, in my opinion, is because who wrote the Pentateuch? Moses. What are they getting ready to do? As he's writing this down and as these people are reading it, they're about to go. [00:28:00] Speaker C: Noah didn't know that though. I mean, like, why Noah picked a specific. [00:28:04] Speaker B: So here's. Here's the other thing. In 9, 1, this is what I would. This would be my understanding of it. In 9:1, God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, be fruitful, multiply. I don't think God wanted. Or Noah was willing to curse somebody that God blessed. And there's biblical precedents for that as well. [00:28:19] Speaker C: Again, there's a bunch of sons and there's only one. That's cursed is the weird part. [00:28:23] Speaker B: But my point is Canaan. That's the Canaan connection. [00:28:26] Speaker C: Well, but you're going to say. Are you saying that Moses selectively only wrote down the one or that Noah only cursed one? Why did Noah pick Canaan? [00:28:36] Speaker D: Is what Jack is asking, right? [00:28:38] Speaker C: Or because, I mean, like, if Noah only picked one, then Moses writing that down isn't noteworthy. That's just something that happened. If Moses is like editing it out to, hey, this one guy. [00:28:51] Speaker B: Unless Canaan is his oldest son. Unless Canaan. [00:28:55] Speaker D: Genesis 10:6 indicates that it's the fourth. He lists Canaan fourth in Genesis 10:6. [00:29:01] Speaker C: Sons of Ham were probably heard me teach on this. So Mizraim is the Egyptian. And so like the curse there was not, you know, could have been. That should have been somebody to be cursed. But anyway, Cush has Nimrod, who has the Babylonians and the Assyrians come from him. And so like, there's a lot of bad flows from this. It's kind of strange that it's only the one guy gets the curse. [00:29:26] Speaker B: But I think it's interesting that he mentions earlier on that it's a. Where is this is. He says Ham was the father of canaan in verse 18 he specifically mentions that, which means, yes, Canaan could have been involved. That was the other thing that I. I read that I could see as plausible is that Canaan also was there in the tent and saw it and mocked just as much as. [00:29:43] Speaker D: But that would have to be pure conjecture because it's. [00:29:45] Speaker B: That would have to be conjecture as to why. Or you could say that, you know, Canaan being listed fourth would assume it's the same thing. But to your point, it says that Ham's the youngest, but he's listed second. So there may be some goofy things going on there from that standpoint. I think the fact that he picked Canaan. Yeah, I. It also could be that he's speaking from a, you know, I don't know, kind of speaking. It's the same thing at the end of Genesis when Jacob blesses his sons, like he has some concept of the future because everything he says, there's a [00:30:14] Speaker D: prophetic nature to it. I. Prophetic nature. Noah was speaking prophetically. I mean, for all we know, Canaan, you know, like Canaan might have been six years old at this point. Like, we don't know exactly what, you know, Canaan's stage in life was. And so that's a lot of the prophetics of like. [00:30:28] Speaker C: Well, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, they're pretty prophetically important too. And they get passed over. [00:30:33] Speaker B: True. But they're not going into the land of like the promised land was taken over. [00:30:37] Speaker D: Canaan is essential to the Israelites. Correct. [00:30:39] Speaker B: Canaan is Egypt conquest. No, but they're not. [00:30:43] Speaker C: They get the land of Canaan for sure. But they're not conquering Egypt. [00:30:47] Speaker B: They escape Egypt, but they're conquering Canaan. [00:30:49] Speaker C: I mean, I would say they did. [00:30:50] Speaker B: Well, they plunder them. But I don't think that they, like, they didn't take the land. [00:30:54] Speaker D: They didn't overtake them. [00:30:55] Speaker B: Sure. If you overtake the Canaanites. [00:30:57] Speaker C: So I think Canaan was the result of Leviticus 8. Teendom is gonna be my st on this one because of that is. It's so hyper specific as to that one. That kid right there, he's cursed. Like, okay, why? And again, that he is repeatedly identified through this text. Ham the father of Canaan. Ham the father of Canaan. While it's setting up, this bad thing's about to happen. Again, it's so specific. Why is Canaan so highlighted here? And to bring in Lot's daughters thing. Again, that it is. [00:31:31] Speaker B: You're right. [00:31:31] Speaker C: It's more explicit in the text. But it was through their action because you were talking about how this echoes the garden. Their actions echo this. And that produced the Moabites and the Ammonites. Other people they go to war with, other people they conquer. [00:31:44] Speaker D: How would you get around the terminology difference from Leviticus and Genesis, the uncovered versus the saw? Like, that's. [00:31:49] Speaker C: Well, it does say saw, but then it goes. It says the other brothers covered his nakedness. And so. And it says, Noah uncovered himself, which is. Makes. Again, this is the IKEA parts. I just. I don't understand. I can't. I can't come up with IKEA parts explanation for why Canaan gets it so bad. If they just. If Ham goes in and goes, I, you know, hey, guys, I saw dad naked. And it comes out. All right, not you, Ham. You're not in any trouble here. Your one specific grandson. [00:32:19] Speaker D: But Ham would be in trouble if his. If his son was cursed. [00:32:22] Speaker C: Like, if that is. [00:32:23] Speaker D: There's a. [00:32:24] Speaker C: But he just picked one. I mean, how weird would that be if, like, if you got in trouble and you're, you know, your parents, like, you stole from mom and dad or whatever, and they came in like, you know, I've got six kids, and they come in like, robbie, you're toast, buddy. Like, that's. That's weird to me. [00:32:38] Speaker D: So what's your idea explanation for the Shem and Jaypa thing? Because that's. To me, again, like, the. The writer is clearly drawing your attention to. Here's the contrast between what these two brothers did. If Ham slept with his father's wife, and then he brings in the contrast. Yeah, but all Shem and Japheth, I mean, they were just mainly concerned about not looking at their father's genitals, essentially. And like, that, to me, is. Where is the IKEA thing that you're bringing up there? [00:33:03] Speaker C: Well, so that goes into the story. [00:33:05] Speaker D: That's unnecessary attention being drawn there. [00:33:07] Speaker C: Well, no, because somebody else makes the point. Somebody. This guy didn't actually believe in the Canaan theory, but he believed that what Ham was trying to do was usurping his father. Because the robe or the garment in Genesis in ancient literature was the sign of power, that Noah was the leader of the father. And so uncovering a. Is like, okay, I've taken that. And they go back in, because you don't need to cover a man who's in a tent. So they went back in and covered him. And his point of that was Ham was trying to take over family leadership kind of thing by, you know, mocking his father and all that. And they're saying, no, we're still honoring him as the head of the family. That fits with this as well. Why would they need to go in and do that? Well, if you know the father, like they're saying, hey, we're not part of this. We're restoring that thing. [00:33:50] Speaker D: Last thing before Joe goes. Verse verses 22, verse 22. Ham the Father, Canaan saw the nakedness of his father, verse 23. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. Under your interpretation, that's talking about two completely different things. Right? [00:34:09] Speaker C: Right. Well, they didn't participate. They didn't. [00:34:11] Speaker D: And that would be the challenge. [00:34:13] Speaker C: Right? Well, like I said, they all have IKEA parts. I just. I'm more comfortable with the leftover parts of this one than Canaan just got. Noah just got really mad and is like, I'm taking this all out on one particular kid. That's so weird to me. I just can't. I can't get my head around that one. [00:34:30] Speaker B: What you could say to blend these two is that Ham literally did see his father's nakedness, told his brothers, and then Canaan goes in and does something. And when he says, noah woke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. The question is, could that be Ham's youngest son? Because Canaan is listed last in verse 6. 10, verse 6. So we knew what Ham's youngest son did to him, which would have been Canaan, if I'm reading that correctly, which could speak to Ham, saw his father's nakedness, and then Canaan goes in and sodomizes. I'm assuming that's the point you're making, that he sodomizes Noah. [00:35:06] Speaker C: No, no, no. [00:35:07] Speaker D: He's taking the adultery. [00:35:09] Speaker C: I'm saying the canon came from Ham violating his mother. [00:35:14] Speaker B: Okay, I got you. I got you. [00:35:16] Speaker D: Well, so under that, how would. [00:35:18] Speaker B: Okay, how. [00:35:19] Speaker D: How. Cana wouldn't have even been born yet at this point. [00:35:22] Speaker C: Right. And so that goes to the, you know, when Noah found out what was done with him or done to him or whatever. If he finds out, his wife. [00:35:29] Speaker D: So you think that would have taken on, you know, maybe taken place 20 years down the road theory? [00:35:33] Speaker C: It could have. And again, there's the different translations go different directions with how immediate that was. Not necessarily in 20 years down the road, but if it's like, hey, my wife's pregnant. I don't think it was me, you know, and then she has a kid, and it's Ham's kid or whatever. [00:35:47] Speaker D: Like, I think what's hard about that is. That. That's just. Yeah, there's so much that we just talked about that's just not said anywhere in the script. [00:35:54] Speaker C: Right. So again, the point is you've got to figure out what leftover parts you're willing to live with. And I am more comfortable with those than I am with Canaan just getting decimated for no good reason. [00:36:09] Speaker D: Why? Why? [00:36:10] Speaker C: It was ham. Because, like, ham, as I said, ham, [00:36:13] Speaker A: basically [00:36:15] Speaker C: nothing happens here. Canaan, it gets the brunt of it. And that makes way more sense to me that he was a result of that. Just like the Moabites, just like the Ammonites, and ended up being a target for God's people and going back to a very similar origin story. So, anyway, we got to move on to the next one. Any final thoughts, Joe, since that one was yours. [00:36:36] Speaker D: That one was mine. [00:36:38] Speaker B: That was. Well, I would assume it was a prophetic utterance on Noah's part, the same way that Jacob has prophetic utterance. [00:36:43] Speaker C: See, to me, that's just a bigger leap than the ones I'm taking. But that's what everyone has to determine. [00:36:47] Speaker B: The science is nowhere in the text. Leviticus 18 talks about the nakedness of the wife too, but it uses different phrases too. [00:36:55] Speaker C: Well, Moses wrote both of those, though. And as you said, and one, he says, uncover one is done in the land of the Canaanites, as you said, this is their practice, these things that they do. And so. So I think that's pretty interesting. [00:37:09] Speaker D: Well, we just had our most heated debate of the two episode part so far. So there we go. [00:37:16] Speaker C: All right, what do we have next on the list? I'll go ahead with guardian angels. [00:37:20] Speaker D: I was going to say, Jack, you need to go. [00:37:25] Speaker A: Hey, guys, Jack Wilke here. If you enjoy our work with podcasts like Think Deeper and Godly Young Men and our books, articles, seminars, and want to support the work that we do, [00:37:34] Speaker C: the best way to do so is [00:37:35] Speaker A: to go to focuspress.org donate that's focuspress.org donate thanks again for listening. [00:37:46] Speaker C: All right, do people have guardian angels? There's a few verses that come into play here. One is Matthew 18:10. And this is one of those. That's unfortunate because it starts with kind of pop religion, and a lot of pop religion revolves around angels. You know, where people say when somebody dies, oh, well, heaven gained another angel. Not how that works. Well, the same thing about, oh, your guardian angel is watching out for you. Like, where do you get that? That's kind of from cartoons, TV shows, movies, whatever. But Jesus does say in Matthew 18:10, See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of my Father who is in heaven. And so their angels makes it sound like a specific one, an assigned one. Something like that is a direction that people take. That particular verse. We also have Hebrews chapter one, verses 14, which calls them ministering spirits, I believe. Let me get turned over there so I make sure I read it correctly. And this whole text there in Hebrews one is about the angels, Jesus being greater than the angels. All of that one, verse 14. Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation? So they serve Christians, those who are inheriting salvation. They have a job to do, that. And then one other one that comes to mind is Psalm 91, 11, 12, which is what Satan quotes to Jesus in the temptation in Matthew 4.6of he will command his angels concerning you. They will not strike your foot. And again, Satan's saying that to Jesus. But Psalm, the writer of the Psalms, was encouraging those who follow God. And so similar to these other ones about those that will inherit salvation or whatever. So that's the textual support for it. None of those say that you have, like, an individual angel following you around. The most it ever says is that Matthew 18, one of their angels. But it says they're angels in heaven, not necessarily your angel on your shoulder or the one standing right behind you. I guess one other thing you could bring into it is 2 Kings 6, where Elisha tells, prays, let his eyes be open. And he looks, and there's just angels everywhere. You're surrounded by them. And some people take that to say, at all times they are all around us, and we just can't see them and things like that. But that would raise a bunch of other questions, like, all right, why did my guardian angel let me hit myself in the thumb with a hammer? Why didn't he keep that little kid from walking out in front of a bus? Things like that. Yeah. [00:40:26] Speaker D: So [00:40:29] Speaker C: I'll let you guys get in with any comments before I throw out my answer on it, but go ahead. [00:40:33] Speaker B: So a couple other passages. Acts 12. Did you see that one? This is 13:15. Peter knocks at the door, at the gate or door of the gate. Rhoda comes out to answer. And then they say, you're beside yourself. She kept insisting that it was so. So they said, it is his angel. Some people use that one, it is his angel. Peter has an angel. And then Psalm 34, verse 7. The angel of the Lord. This goes through your appointed two Kings. The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear him and delivers them. So that, yeah, there's a bunch of these here. And then Matthew 13:41. This is just from actually David, Jeremiah's blog. The son of man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend. And those who practice lawlessness see that clearly. [00:41:12] Speaker C: They're like personal guardians. I was going to say that doesn't seem like angels. [00:41:15] Speaker B: Yeah, I think they're ministering spirits. I think they are here to help us. Does everybody have their own individual. No, I don't think so. I think there's a lot of spiritual warfare taking place around us, you know, in the spiritual realm, as Paul references Ephesians 6. Right. I don't think that means it's Everybody, you know, 8 billion people. Every time a baby is born, God decides to create another angel or something like that. Or there's just so many hosts, it's like, all right, that's your guy. I, I don't see it. Now, I will say there have been, this is all anecdotal and really, really weird stories. I've had clients tell me weird stories of seeing things or being saved from things or having crazy things happen that they should have died and they didn'. That's all anecdotal. You can't make too much [00:41:59] Speaker D: come to grips with. [00:42:00] Speaker B: There are some really tough ones out there, but I still don't think it proves we all have our own individual angel. I do think that God has ministering spirits that we may even be entertaining. Right. Of Hebrews 1, I think y'. All. [00:42:12] Speaker D: Can y' all cover that one in the first episode? [00:42:15] Speaker C: The first episode? [00:42:16] Speaker D: Maybe not, but I thought y' all did. [00:42:17] Speaker B: I think we did. [00:42:18] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:42:19] Speaker D: The, My answer is no. The role of angels is such an interesting story. Like, their role today. Like, what do they do today? Do they have, I mean, the ministering spirits thing. [00:42:28] Speaker B: Great. [00:42:28] Speaker D: What does that mean? Like, you know, does it mean they're physically protecting people from harm? Like, physical harm? I'm not sure. Does it mean they're pretty. From spiritual harm? That seems to not, you know, not a lot of scriptural evidence for that either. So I, I am not comfortable saying. I know for certain what the role of angels today is. I'm fairly comfortable saying I don't think people have personal bodyguard angels, essentially, which I, I, I don't mean to be like, straw man. I think that's generally what people mean when they say guardian angels. Again, Joe, you, like you mentioned, somebody will have kind of a maybe miraculous or seemingly just crazy coincidental way that they survived something or that something really positive happened that should have gone the other direction. Then they'll talk about their guard. I don't think that's the case because as Jack spoke to. Then you get into, okay, well, when does. When does your. Does that mean some people's guardian angels are just lazy and, you know, like. Or just, oh, man, wasn't paying attention. Sorry. And other peoples are really like on. On the, you know, on the ball with stuff. Like, I doubt it, you know. So my answer would be especially. And even with all the, the passage you brought up, Jack, like, I don't think there's enough there to say for sure. Like, yes, that means that Jack has a guardian angel and I have a guardian angel and Joe does and my son does and my mom does. Like. Like, I don't think I can get there based off of those scriptures. [00:43:47] Speaker B: Now, to steal me on the other side, that I don't agree with, but to steal me in their position for those that might believe in that, they may look at it and say, well, the guardian angels are never going to go against God. And if it's God's will for a kid to get hit by a bus because of the butterfly effect that, you know, somebody at the funeral happened to be grieving and that, you know, turned their life around and then they ended up baptizing 300 people. God knows we don't. So you could make the case the angels will only work within God's will and they have the inside track to what that is. Of, like, no, you're gonna let that one happen because, you know, and then other times they'll step in, but it makes them superfluous in my opinion. [00:44:24] Speaker D: No. What. It also feels like the role of the Holy Spirit would be like, how do angels fit in with the role of the Holy Spirit too? Like, there's almost like too many cooks in the kitchen type of thing. [00:44:34] Speaker B: You all. [00:44:34] Speaker C: You ask, like, what guardian from what Are we talking the keeping you from walking into traffic or are we talking keeping you from temptation? Are we talking keeping you from being around the wrong people? I mean, things like that. I don't know. You know, the idea. I think it's a lot cleaner to just say God was watching out for me than to say, oh, man, my guardian angel, you know, was watching out for me. Whatever. So, yeah, I think we're all on the Same page here, that there's not an assigned guardian angel pulling you out of traffic and things like that. [00:45:04] Speaker B: So you don't take the angel on the shoulder type of thing, you know? [00:45:07] Speaker C: Yeah, the shoulder. What about shoulder angel, shoulder devil. Yeah. And they get their wings in. [00:45:12] Speaker B: But though I will say angels are tough because, like, 1 Corinthians 11:10, that a woman's to wear head covering because of the angels. And you're like, right, it's the record scratch. What? [00:45:21] Speaker D: I'm sorry, what, Paul? [00:45:22] Speaker B: What are you talking about? [00:45:23] Speaker C: Well, and here's. [00:45:24] Speaker B: They are in and around us to some degree. [00:45:27] Speaker C: They are. Part of the problem with the text is sometimes it means preachers, sometimes, you know, like the people. Just an angel is somebody. A messenger, somebody who sent. And so. And I think sometimes the English rushes to call it, to translate as angels a little bit, too. We're going to talk about this here in a minute. But sometimes where that might be the case. But I think all the ones we just referenced are talking about heavenly beings, but we know so little about them. And I think, like I said, Pop, religion really likes to say a lot more about them than the Bible does. So we'll wrap that one right there. [00:46:00] Speaker D: All right, Joe, think you're up again. [00:46:02] Speaker B: Why is Song of Solomon in the Bible? Very interesting, very interesting. [00:46:09] Speaker C: So Song of Solomon, it shouldn't count. It's not inspired. But, like, what is the purpose? Meaning, what's the purpose of it? [00:46:15] Speaker B: Yeah, canonically speaking, it goes all the way back. I mean, you had the Jewish before rabbis, I guess the. The Jewish scholars of the day and inscribes and such always took it to be in the Scriptures. So from a canon perspective, just to defend that, there's people like, why. Why are we sure it's canon? Yes, like from very shortly after it was written, they accepted this as being written by an inspired author, obviously Solomon, and that it was always in the canon of scripture. It's found at Qumran, all of those things. So at least I think it is. So, yes, we take this as absolutely canon. But to your point, why does God have a book on sex in the Bible? A lot of people are going to go to the allegorical. They're going to say that this is a love letter from God to his people, and ultimately from Christ to the church. And so that's why it's in Scripture from the allegorical perspective. [00:47:01] Speaker D: Can I just say, is that as. Is that as ridiculous of a take as it seems like on its face, [00:47:06] Speaker B: if you read the book? [00:47:07] Speaker D: Or am I not giving enough credence to it. That just seems like a ridiculous take. [00:47:11] Speaker B: Yeah. If you read the book, it's like, oh, man, I. I certainly hope that's not the case. [00:47:16] Speaker C: It is pretty funny thinking about back as. As a kid. It was. Mom had like a kid songs, Church C and Church Song cd. And one of them was he brought me to his banqueting tables. Man over me is love. And you're like. Like, you know, having read the context of that. And I don't know about little kids singing that about Jesus and our relationship with him, but that's funny. [00:47:34] Speaker B: Yeah. So a lot of people jump to that because I was talking with Danny. Doctor. Dr. Petrillo about this because he wrote the commentary on it, which is a fantastic truth for today. It's the best commentary I've seen on it. Does a great job. But he was saying in his study, even the Jewish scholars of the day were like, squirrely about it. They didn't want to discuss sex. It was like, that can't be what it is. And so that's kind of the. I. I take a moral didactic approach, which is basically like, yes, it happened and yes, there are moral things we get out of this. It is. It is intended to be a love story between truly a husband and wife. I do take it to be Solomon and a wife that he loved deeply and very dearly. Yeah. Everybody goes, it couldn't have been Solomon. There's 700 wives. You know this. It couldn't. That's not true. Most of those, I think, would be political marriages. And I think he probably did early on in his. In his kingship, have a love of his life, have somebody who's really, really close to, despite being married to multiple. We don't see marriage the exact same way. I think he very much did. The book has a ton of textual indicators as to how this could have to. It would have to be Solomon. The ability to know all the spices and all the locations and all of the different plants and animals and things like that. You'd have to have a wide knowledge that very few people on planet Earth would have had. It's Solomon for sure. So why is it in scripture? Because it's Solomon. Writing out what true love looks like, what true wedded love and bliss looks like with the marriage, the courtship in one through the marriage in chapter four, and then the honeymoon after some of the struggles within marriage and kind of missing each other. It's a beautiful book. It sounds a lot like poetry at the time. They have Egyptian poetry that Sounds very similar, but it's kind of like the Psalms. No, you're not gonna be reading it, but it's like, it's a poetic story about love. And is there an allusion to marriage and that being connected to God and his people? Yeah, on a very basic, like, overarching level. But I really think it's about genuinely loving your spouse and knowing what that looks like and what sex is for and, you know, all those things. So I think that's why it's in Scripture is God is giving Solomon the ability with his Proverbs. Same with David, you know, his father with the Psalms to write out a poetic book on true love, on, you know, wedded bliss, on, you know, and in the story or the things that we get from that. [00:49:48] Speaker D: I don't, I don't want to make this a. A boring one to cover. I, I fully agree with Joe here. Not anything to disagree with. On. I think about. You think about Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. Every single one of those emphasizes and hones in on a very specific part of our human life. You think about the Psalms and, And the Psalms is definitely the most, the most broad. But the focus is very much is. Is very much on first of all, the, the praise and honor and, And. And glory, glory of God that we're praising God. But also there's a lot in the Psalms about going through hardship, like going through, you know, times where we feel distant from God and God, you know, [00:50:30] Speaker C: where are you walk with God. Ups, downs and everything. [00:50:33] Speaker D: Yes, ups, downs, valleys and. And peaks of spiritual walk. Proverbs. What. What does that emphasize and hone in on. On parenting almost exclusively. Obviously there's other things in there. Proverbs 31 we covered before. But like my son, you know, teaching him wisdom and learning all. And teaching your children all these things. Discipline and very, very parenting Focus. Ecclesiastes. What is the focus? And there's a lot in Ecclesiastes as well, but primarily working and, you know, finding, you know, fulfillment in your work and purpose in your work and things like that. Well, what is the one major area of life that is left out if Song of Solomon is not in the Bible? Bible marriage. And so, you know, there. Those books are all. Are not all written the same. They're not all poetry. Obviously. Proverbs are certainly not, but they're, you know, I think each of them fills a specific role in scripture of like, here is just a. A insight into God's view of this part of your life that is Going to be an enormous part of your life again, parenting, your work and your purpose, your walk, your spiritual walk with God, times of distress and trouble and marriage. And so I haven't done near the study on it that Joe has. Joe's got just fantastic content on Song with Solomon. If you ever want to really do a deep dive on the book. But that would be kind of just my contribution to it is how it fits kind of seamlessly in with those other four or those other four. [00:51:50] Speaker C: I was going to say the same. You're exactly right. And you could throw Job in as well, of suffering. And so just everything you go through in life, it's that God has given us the good life and this is part of it. And not to get too far into this discussion because we got to move on for time's sake, but there are those that say it's just for procreation. It's good to have a book like this in here to say, hey, as a married couple, this is a blessing from God to be enjoyed. This is part of it. We don't need to be confused about this or to limit it to that. [00:52:22] Speaker D: It's almost like with that, obviously God is all knowing. Obviously he knew this, but that because sex would be perverted and distorted. I mean, all the way back to Genesis. [00:52:33] Speaker C: That some Christians son violating his. [00:52:38] Speaker D: Yeah, not that one. I know it's a good. Well, well played. That Christians would have some guilt surrounding it sometimes, like the. That the message might get distorted for Christians. Like, oh, yeah, it's only for procreation. Oh, you're not supposed to enjoy it or, you know, whatever it may be. And so, yeah, I think that plays a pivotal role. Joe, you can wrap us up on that if you got any other thoughts on. On Son of Solomon. [00:52:59] Speaker B: No, I think we covered it. I think your breakdown was perfect of, you know, and Jack, your contribution on Job. Just various elements of life. And let's not. I always say the same thing with Song of Solomon. Stop shying away from sex. It's a beautiful thing. God created it. And that book very much shows as we talk about nakedness. Right. Going back to your guys point, it is a. It's a reclaiming of something that God created when everything else seems to distort it. So good stuff. [00:53:23] Speaker D: Yeah. All right, guys, let's get to what I would consider to be probably the most hotly debated, I would say, of the ones on our list here. Was Jesus forsaken on the cross? I was gonna say people love talking about this. I love talking about This, I think this one's really, really interesting. Kind of the way this goes both ways, the different arguments you can make, I think are just fascinating. And so, man, I've got a lot of stuff written down here. So I will try to be, you know, try for brevity's sake here, I will try to breeze through it and let you guys give your take. So obviously, Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15, verse 34, Jesus says, Loi, loi lama sabakhani. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Interestingly, it's the only prayer in the Gospels where Jesus does not address God as Father. I think that's interesting. My God, my God and I, obviously, you know, we know kind of why. And I'll get to that in a second. So there's obviously was Jesus for second on the cross. Basically what we got to cover is the case for that and the case against that. The case against, okay, hey, Jesus was not forsaken by God on the cross versus the case for, yes, Jesus most definitely was forsaken. So I'll breeze through. I'm sure you guys have some notes that you can supplement here. So the case against the idea that Jesus was forsaken on the cross. Most people are going to point to Psalm 22 and argue that Jesus was saying this simply to fulfill Psalm 22, that he was not literally asking, like he didn't know, or that he was not literally making a declaration that God was forsaken, that he was just saying the opening words of Psalm 22, verse 1, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Also as a way to draw people's attention to the fact that he was the Messiah. Psalm 22 has, you know, is. Is certainly a messianic psalm as it talks about the, you know, bulls have surrounded me. You know, it mentions, and I forget the other one that I should have written down. That's a clear allusion to the crucifixion. There's an apologetics press video that, that I watched on this, that to be honest, they didn't really give a firm answer on the yes or. They certainly didn't give a yes or no. But they spent a lot of time talking about this psalm. This, the Psalm 22 basically is saying that's what Jesus was saying. Other people, just other people. Again, if you're making the case against the idea that Jesus was forsaken on the cross, they'll point to John, chapter 16, verses 31 and 32, where Jesus is talking to his disciples he says, do you now believe, indeed the hour is coming, yes, and it's now come, that you will be scattered each to his own and will leave me alone. And yet I am not alone because the Father is with me. People will say, well, they're right there. He says that they were with him or that God was with him. There's the Trinitarian argument, obviously, that people will say, well, God could not have forsaken Jesus on the cross because God cannot be divided. The Father cannot separate himself from the Son. That would violate the nature of the Trinity, obviously. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD this was kind of the main point of contention as whether or not you know how the nature of God works in the Trinity. And they came down and said that Christ two natures are united without division, without separation. As far as church fathers that believe this way, Augustine, in his exposition of the Psalms, Christ speaks his head of his body, voicing the abandonment felt by sinful humanity, which he took on himself. So speaking as head of his body, voicing the abandonment he felt by sinful humanity, not by God, don't see how he gets to that. But that's, that's, you know, is what it is. Aquinas said that the Father forsook him only in that he didn't shield him from his persecutors. That this is a withholding of rescue, not a withdrawal of love or union. So that's kind of the, the, the gist of the case against, again, people, it's, it's mainly centered around Psalm 22, the fact that Jesus was merely quoting Psalm 22 and drawing attention to the fact that he was the Messiah. And then also, once again, the kind of the trinitarian side, the case for the fact that Jesus was forsaken on the cross. And I will go ahead and lay my cards on the table that I'm, you know, as Jack said, nobody's really dogmatic about any of these. I'm as close to dogmatic as one can get on the fact that Jesus to some extent had to be forsaken on the cross. If we truly want to be able to say that Jesus took our, the punishment for our sin. A lot of this has to do with, you know, what is your connotation of the word forsake. People think, you know, I think people think, you know, God forsook Jesus and essentially that God left Jesus out to dry, essentially, and that, you know, that he just kind of brushed him off and forgot about him. But what the question that to Me, this boils down to, is, if Jesus truly took the punishment for our sin that we so often say, if he so off. If we so often say he sacrificed himself for us, what is it that he was actually sacrificing? We say things like, he bore. Bore our burden, he took our penalty. Penalty. How can we say that he wasn't separated from God if that absolutely would have been our penalty if he didn't step in our penalty for sin. The burden for our sin absolutely would be separation from God. In fact, eternal separation from God. And yet Jesus stepped in and took that. And so just before I get to any kind of scripture or anything else that I have to say, just on its face, I think that's where we have to, you know, that's where I'm going to kind of plant my flag on, is that if our kind of take is, well, God didn't really forsake Jesus. It was just. He was just kind of quoting a psalm and it was just kind of a temporary, you know, temporary type of thing to me, that lessens the weight and the gravity of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Isaiah 59, verse 2 is very well known that talks about our sin literally separates us from God. And then what does 2 Corinthians 5 say? That Jesus literally became sin for us. Those two verses would seem to be in conflict if Jesus became sin for us. And yet we. We're told that our sins separate us from God. I got a few quotes to read that I'll save for maybe a little bit later. There's a couple other elements that come into this that I'll just briefly come in to go go over. Luke 22. We actually, us three had this exact debate two or three years ago as a enjoyable discussion on the podcast. It was not, I don't think we were discussing this question, but essentially, why was Jesus sweating drops of blood? Was it just due to the physical pain that he was going to have to endure? My position is that might have been a part of it, but people were crucified all the time. Maybe not all the time. Crucifixion was not something that was specifically set aside for Christ. There were other people that obviously, especially after Christ, that this happened to, there seemed to be an extra element that was affecting Jesus's emotions and his prayer. And it wasn't just that he was going to be, you know, physically tortured and all those things. I do think it was that he was going to be separated from the Father. Hebrews chapter 6, verses 7 through 9, about Christ pleading with God to essentially bring him back from Hades. Acts 2, verse 26, 27, as well, Peter's sermon, actually, where he's quoting David, a psalm of David, talking about, you will not allow your holy one to see corruption. You will not leave your soul in Hades. Lastly, other places in the Old Testament when it literally says, you know, talks about God forsaking his people, what does it mean? It means that he turned aside his face. Deuteronomy 31:17 was the best example of this for me. So I'll pull that one up real fast. Deuteronomy 31:17. Then my anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured. Many evils and troubles shall befall them. So they will say in that day. Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us? You don't see that phrase, God forsaking somebody. And it just simply mean, you know, he was still with him, but he was, you know, maybe a little distant from. No, he hid his face. And again, if we truly want to make the argument which our kind of faith depends on, that Jesus took our punishment. But I think it's pretty clear that he. That he. That there was a separation of some kind. Now, I just talked for a long time. I'll summarize it to say I don't think Jesus was just being performative, that he was just quoting Psalm 22, just, you know, as kind of. In kind of a performative fashion. So where do you guys fall? What would you add? I know you guys looked up some stuff and research notes on either side of either. The case for the case against [01:01:15] Speaker C: Jake. [01:01:15] Speaker B: You want to go first? [01:01:16] Speaker D: I should have called on one of you. Sorry. [01:01:17] Speaker C: Yeah, go ahead. [01:01:19] Speaker B: So that's a compelling case. I have some stroke. I agree with you that I think to some degree he was forsaken. What that looks like, though, is very difficult to know because. Yeah, I mean, John 16:32 would come to my mind. Psalm 22:24, obviously the end, as you near the end of that Psalm. For he has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, nor has he hidden his face from him. But when he cried to him for help, he heard. I mean, I don't know. That seems to be a potential reference as multiple Parts of Psalm 22 are referenced there. And so did God hear him when he called him? Called out to him? I'd like to think that God did. On the other Hand, I'm with you. I mean, you have to believe in penal substitutionary atonement. I think we do. There's a lot of people that don't. But I think seeing Jesus as the stand in for us would assume that God can't look upon sin. The sin separates us, as you said, Isaiah 59:1 or 59:2 more specifically. But does God ever really forsake us? He turns away from us in sin. We can pull away from God. But does God ever truly forsake Israel? Does God ever truly forsake his people? [01:02:34] Speaker D: People? [01:02:35] Speaker B: He turns his face from them in that situation. But how many times does he do that? They're still his people, his covenant people. And so it's difficult to say that there was a point in time, because what was Jesus path back? That's the difficulty. He can't repent from it. So is death the point? Well, he goes to Hades. So are you saying at some point in Hades, based off of Hebrews 6, at some point in Hades, he is begging his way back into, you know. Well, I don't think that was the plan either. [01:03:01] Speaker D: So what was his back real fast on that? And that, that's, I think if I remember right, that was the point of contention that I think me and Jack actually were on the same page for this. It's been a while, so I could have this backwards. But essentially, you see all throughout the New Testament after Jesus's death, especially in the book of Acts where it talks about God raised Jesus up. God raised him up. God raised him up. God raised him up. The emphasis being it was God who raised Jesus from the dead. And so my contention would be, you know, if you go to Hebrews 6 talking about that he was offering up prayers and supplications, take this cup away from me, that that was a prayer not to take the punishment or not to take the, the physical pain away. I don't think Jesus's mind was just on, oh my word, this is going to hurt so bad. But that it was, I'm going to be separated from the Father, I'm going to be in Hades. Don't leave me there. Bring me, raise me up. Bring me back. That Jesus, you know, the, the incarnate Jesus, obviously the Jesus in human flesh was not gonna be able to raise himself from the dead. I, I don't think it's an accident that again, basically every single time in the Book of Acts, it's God raised him up. God raised him up. So that would kind of be what I would say to that. [01:04:09] Speaker B: And I'd still disagree with the, with that, with you and Jack on that one, because I look at it as. He knew he was going to be raised in three days. That wasn't in question. That's you. I'll, you know, tear down this temple, build it up in three days. I mean, throughout the scriptures, Jesus knew that resurrection was absolutely. [01:04:24] Speaker D: Well, he also knew he was gonna. He was go have physical pain the whole time. Too. [01:04:27] Speaker B: True. But physical pains, in my opinion, I. I think that's a. That's not banking on God. Please, please, please fulfill your promise. That's like, this is about to be awful. If there was any other way where I don't have to go through the worst pain that anybody. [01:04:41] Speaker D: Peter was sweating drops of blood, too, or the hundreds of other people that got crucified. [01:04:47] Speaker B: I mean, I. [01:04:48] Speaker D: There had to be an extra element [01:04:50] Speaker B: in the garden, I think bearing the sins of the world is obviously a, you know, right. [01:04:56] Speaker D: In what way being separated from God? [01:04:59] Speaker B: Well, it depends on, once again, are we fully separated from God when we have our own sin? Not really. Yes and no. I mean, we're separated in terms of, like, we're not making it to heaven. If we die, we would die in our sins. We're not separate in terms like God, it can no longer accept us, like, if we repent. Well, what is. Jesus can't repent? He never did anything, and so he has to go all the way to the point of death. [01:05:25] Speaker D: The contention would be, I don't think either us nor Jesus were obviously fully forsaken past the point of no return. But I think if I'm living in sin right now, yeah, I'm separated from God. Absolutely. I think the Bible teaches that. [01:05:38] Speaker B: Sure. And I'm saying, okay, so he dies. Does he die in sin bearing the sins of everybody else? And so is that the separation of God? Is that what we're saying? That why he goes down to Hades, Hades and his. You know, this is a first Peter three. That's for different podcasts, I guess. But, you know, who's he ministering to? And what does that look like when he's there? And when does God decide to bring him back up? I don't think it was ever the plan that God was going to leave him in Hades. That's my point. I think the. The prayer of let this cup pass from me. [01:06:05] Speaker D: But our point was back during this podcast is that Jesus was going to be powerless to raise himself back up. And so, yes, that was the plan, like, but it still rested on God. The Father. [01:06:14] Speaker B: Father. To do that. I agree, but I think there's a trust that that was always, I mean, I don't know when he humbles himself. And I think there's always going to be a trust that God was going to raise. He and the Father are one. Like, I don't think there was ever a point. It goes to the John 16 passage 16:32. Like, hey, you know, you guys are going to scatter, but God's going to be with me. [01:06:35] Speaker D: Well, the Father was with him. And my answer to John 16 would be that the Father was with him in that moment because obviously he had not borne the punishment yet. [01:06:42] Speaker B: So did God hear when he calls him with, with the Eloi or however you want to say it? Lama sabachthanai? Like, did God hear him in that moment when he's calling out to God? Or is that merely a reference to Psalm 22? [01:06:55] Speaker D: Like, audibly, like, I think he. Yes, I think he heard him. Like, audibly heard him. [01:06:59] Speaker B: It's kind of the, like, can God hear the prayers of sinners? [01:07:02] Speaker D: I, I, yeah, which. [01:07:04] Speaker C: Well, because I think what's interesting is after that he says, into your hands I commit my sins, Spirit. [01:07:08] Speaker D: Yeah. Which is one of seven things from the cross. [01:07:11] Speaker C: But he says, after that was the last thing he said. And so after he says, why have you forsaken me? Says, I'm committing my hand. Well, if you're forsaken, if somebody forsakes you, you can't commit something to them. You can't give it to them. And so I would say that's one piece of evidence. Psalm 22, 1 I think, is very strong because like many psalms, it starts off going, hey, where are you? And it ends with, I know you're there. You've always been there for me. And 22 is Jill brought up 24, says that, that. But somebody pointed out, and I came across this years ago, and I wish I knew who it was so I could give them credit. The arc of Psalm 22, 23, 24 reads like death, burial and resurrection. You've got the Psalm 22, which is very clearly illusion, foreshadowing of the cross divided his garments, he's surrounded by, you know, criminals, things like that. Then Psalm 23, the Lord is my shepherd, but he says, as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, and I will live in the houses of the Lord forever. And then Psalm 24, he comes, you know, would be him coming out of [01:08:10] Speaker D: the gate of the holy hill. [01:08:11] Speaker C: Yeah, that who is the king of glory, you know, and basically victory, like job done, we won kind of thing. And I think that's pretty interesting as well. And so that would take it Back to Psalm 22. Not only is he not just quoting a psalm, there's a lot of lot to be drawn there of God's walking him through this whole thing that God's with him. And I think that is an interesting question you raised there, Joe. Of course, like, all right, when does he come back online? Because the problem. And you make a good point about the punishment and what he bore for us, what extent does that mean? You could take that to the point where you'd have to say that he would have to go to hell, because that is the deserved. [01:08:50] Speaker D: Some people do. [01:08:51] Speaker C: Some people do believe. And there's of course, that we've had that discussion about the, the Apostles Creed where the translation of he descended into hell is actually wrong. As he descended into Hades, he descended into the grave, Sheol, the dead. You know, things like that. That I would not say that he went to hell, which would say that he didn't take on everything that we would deserve. I would say Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death. And so that was accomplished by his death. Right. So it doesn't have to go beyond that by dying. And you take that to the sacrificial system, the one that's sent away, that's Barabbas. The one that's put to death is him. Day of atonement, like all of the Passover lamb, all of the connections that are there, it is just the death of the lamb, the goat, the sacrifice, whatever. And so I, and Trinitarian wise, I think that's a pretty important thing. I don't believe there was ever a separation between the Godhead. And so when you said, and I think you made a good point, it really depends on how you're defining forsaken week. And I would think in the context of Psalm 22, it's letting him go through it. Not necessarily. You know, nobody's answering the phone and he's just not. He turned his back and he's just not paying attention to it. I don't take that view, but I see how you get there. [01:10:21] Speaker D: Yeah, I mean, I don't see how, I don't see how you can, you know, anybody like the, the penal substitutionary atonement thing to me is. Is just the, the nail in the coffin for me. [01:10:31] Speaker C: Well, how do you do that without hell, though? I mean, like, that would require hell. [01:10:35] Speaker D: Well, you're right, but that's where I think the. What your point about Romans 6:23, the wages of sin being death. I don't, I don't believe Jesus went to hell. I think the. What he says, the thief on the cross makes it, you know, a pretty clear thing that he was going to be in paradise. Right, but I, So, but under what you're saying, though, that would mean basically the only thing that Jesus took on for us was just a physical death, that there was no, no, no other spiritual ramifications, no other deity ramifications. It was literally just that he had to go through a pretty intensely painful death. And that was it. And that just to me is what undercuts the sacrifice of Christ. [01:11:10] Speaker C: Well, but again, like, at what point do you determine what the list is that he has to go through? And if, if you're going to be thorough with the list, it would have to require hell. I don't, I just don't see how you can say, say he had to take on everything that would have been coming to us and say what, by the way? He didn't have to go to hell. [01:11:26] Speaker D: Like, if, well, then how to take [01:11:27] Speaker C: on everything that we had to go come to us. He has to go to hell. [01:11:30] Speaker D: But how can we be consistent, though? Again, like you would be pointing to, well, he has to go to hell. How do we be consistent with the idea that Christ literally became sin, but that he was still, you know, wrapped up in the arms of God, like God was still fully embracing him and all those things? Like, I don't, I don't, I think that's incredibly inconsistent to say, though. [01:11:51] Speaker C: But then you have the problem of splitting the Trinity, which is a lot bigger problem. [01:11:55] Speaker D: I mean, well, Jesus Christ, you know, Jesus Christ coming down as flesh, but [01:12:01] Speaker C: that he still can say I and the Father are one that stops. If we literally apply that, as you said, and that would be a point at which he cannot say I and the Father are one. And if there's any point at which. [01:12:14] Speaker D: So what did Jesus say about, like, what was the sacrifice? [01:12:17] Speaker C: I mean, well, you'd go to Philippians 2 for that, right? Took on the foreign, you know, everything that it says there of. He emptied himself, took on the form of a bond, servant in flesh, went and died on a cross. Everything that that entails, I would say is the sacrifice. Right? [01:12:33] Speaker D: So 30 years of living on the [01:12:35] Speaker C: earth and a death basically kind of down to plan. [01:12:39] Speaker D: That's what I'm saying, though. [01:12:41] Speaker B: But the key sacrifice is a forever humbling. He is forever under God. And this goes to 1 Corinthians 15, as we talked about, which is God is the one that puts everything into subjection under Christ's feet. Christ is not. He does not reign above God. Christ has forever humbled himself under the hand of the Almighty of the Father. That wasn't always the case. There was a time where they existed in, and they still are in perfect unity. But Christ humbled himself. And that is a permanent humbling because now he identifies with us as brothers, as Hebrews talks about as well, not just sons, but as brothers. God the Father does not. Jesus does. He decided to cast his lot with us in some sense. And so that is the permanent humbling of himself, that he is not on God the Father's level anymore. That, to me, is what he gave up. It's not just coming down to earth and dying. It's the fact that he forever gave up his position as the. It's tough to say equal, because I think they're still equal. But in terms of position in the Godhead dead, He forever gave up his position to come down and to save and to rescue us. [01:13:46] Speaker C: Now, I would add on to that, like, so then 10 minutes or an hour or an evening or whatever, you know, from Friday morning to Sunday morning or whatever it was, of not. Of going no contact with the Father or whatever added on top of that, honestly, isn't that much as big as that is. As huge as that is to go from one of the three thrones atop all of existence, and then to go, okay, I'll be the one that comes off of that throne and becomes a human who can feel pain and die and then go through that. The sacrifice of that is then to say, by the way, it's not good enough unless we add a day and a half of where you're not on the same wavelength. That, to me, is where we're kind of. The rankings are a little bit skewed there. [01:14:32] Speaker D: To me, not to. Joe, you had another thought? I was just saying not to beat the dead horse here, though. So then. But just so then, Jack, what would you say the prayer in the garden was for? [01:14:41] Speaker B: Like, what. [01:14:41] Speaker D: What was Jesus going through agony about? [01:14:44] Speaker C: I mean, everything he was going to go through was. Was awful. You know, that doesn't. I don't think we. I think it's reading something into it to say that it was at that level. Like, there. There's no reason to believe that unless we're porting that into. [01:14:59] Speaker D: No reason to believe that. There's a spirituality element right there. [01:15:03] Speaker B: There's. [01:15:03] Speaker C: Well, we're not given enough to say, well, that had to be about this certain thing, this certain element of what it was all going to go through, whatever it was he was going through. And he knows better than we do. [01:15:15] Speaker D: But there's also, well, there's also like threads throughout scripture about father, take this cup away from me and the crap representative of God's fury, God's wrath. I mean, we didn't even mention Isaiah. [01:15:26] Speaker C: And I'm pro psa. Yeah, like I'm. I'm on that side of it. I know the. I got a couple of friends who are anti that who are probably hollering at the screen right now like, you're all wrong. But so, yeah, like he was going to feel the wrath of God. But that doesn't, you know, it's a complicated thing. You just got to be very careful with the trinitarian stuff or else you'll have two little Irish guys yelling at you. [01:15:52] Speaker B: The other element, and I don't mean [01:15:54] Speaker C: me and Joe, sorry, the cartoon guys. [01:15:58] Speaker B: Sorry Donald. [01:15:58] Speaker C: And [01:16:01] Speaker B: the other thing you could look at is the spirit and body being, you know, separated at that time that the body physically dies. The spirit of Christ is, you know, so when you think about the sin being put on Christ, it is the human form of Christ that it is put on the body that it has put on his spirit. I'm not saying that's the case. I'm saying maybe that would explain some of it. I do wonder. This is for a different one. I do kind of wonder, like, where does the, you know, days of like when. When he goes back and preaches to [01:16:35] Speaker C: those clearly, I mean, the spirit for the next episode. [01:16:40] Speaker B: It is, but like, what is. Does that come into this when we talk about. Some people think he was correct. Like, is this the prison that he goes to? And then he's resurrect. Because right after that it's like, hey, baptism saves us. It's appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrect resurrection of Jesus Christ, who's at the right hand of God. So God raised him up, but that is talking about his death and where he goes after his death. Theoretically, you could say prison. That's certainly not Haiti or that's certainly not paradise that those in prison of those back in the flood that he did go to hell, he ministered to them or preached to them and claimed to them and then is raised from that. So I don't know if I make [01:17:14] Speaker D: the case, but the Hebrews 5 passage about when he offered up prayer supplications with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death. [01:17:20] Speaker C: Death. [01:17:21] Speaker D: I mean, technically, he didn't save him from death. He just raised him up, you know, raised him from the dead. And so I think people point to that as well. [01:17:31] Speaker C: So there's. There's a lot here. We could probably go round and round. We're gonna have to cut off the. The sixth one, which is one of the lesser interesting ones we might roll into the next time. The angels, the seven churches in Revelation. So, as we said, there will be at least a part three, maybe a part four of debated Bible topics. So as we said, we've got a lot more on the list, but we can always add more. We can do these every couple of months. So if you have things like this, again, things that are not unimportant, but also it's not life, death, go to hell, heaven, get it wrong kind of thing. It's very good mental exercise to get the scriptures open to say, what does this one say? What does that one say? How do these work together? What do I do with all of these IKEA parts that I have left over when I study the Scriptures? So I appreciate these guys putting in the time and study on this and everyone who's listened. Once again, A, give us your takes on these, the five that we got to. B, give us other ones you want us to add to the list, because we will certainly come back around to this, Lord willing, in a couple of months. Anything else, fellas? [01:18:39] Speaker B: Once again, the list just so for those that are listening, that are going to comment. What is baptism for the dead about? Why is Song of Solomon in the Bible? What happened with Ham and Canaan? Do people have guardian angels? And was Jesus really forsaken on the cross? So if that's just a quick rundown real fast, if you are about to comment on Focus plus or even on YouTube or Facebook or wherever else, those five topics, let us know. [01:19:01] Speaker C: Absolutely. All right, thanks, everybody, for listening, and we'll talk to you guys on the next one. [01:19:10] Speaker A: It.