Everything possible is theologically wrong with two-covenant theology (Jews saved by law, gentiles by Christ) — it is unloving to Jewish people because it withholds their own Savior from them.

Summary judgment on two-covenant soteriology.

The theological basis for freeing fellow Israelites: God redeemed Israel from Egypt, so they cannot hold one another in permanent slavery

Explaining the theological rationale behind Israelite-specific slave laws.

Galatians 3:23-25 -- The Law as paidagogos (guardian/tutor) leading to Christ; distinct from kinsman-redeemer language

Mike evaluates whether Galatians 3:23-25 connects to the Ruth kinsman-redeemer passage.

The biblical canon is a human list identifying inspired books; God's inspiration and providence guarantee we have the right books, with the OT ratified by Jesus himself.

Question from Ninja For Hire about whether canonization was itself inspired and whether inspired texts beyond the Bible could exist.

Being grafted into Israel does not give Christians the right to claim every promise made to Israel, especially negative or law-based promises

The second half of the question about claiming Israel's promises via grafting-in

Mark 7:14-19 — Jesus declares all foods clean by distinguishing ceremonial uncleanness from moral defilement; the Levitical purity laws were pedagogical, not moral.

Tabitha Littman asks why Jesus seems appalled that Jews believed touching/eating certain things made them unclean given God instituted those laws in Leviticus.

Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath: Matthew 12:1-8 and the principle of hierarchical moral reasoning

Question from Dakota France about what Jesus means in Matt 12:1-8, whether the Sabbath carries rewards or penalties for Christians.

Melchizedek is a historical figure who typologically prefigures Christ as king-priest; the Melchizedekian order is non-genealogical and superior to the Levitical system.

Continued Q3 on the Melchizedekian priesthood.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (man seizes virgin) is best read as maximizing the woman's rights and removing the man's after a sexual violation; it reflects the law making the best of a sinful situation.

Q12 from Tyler: trouble understanding the morality of Deuteronomy 22:28-29; some say it's consensual, but 2 Samuel 13 (Amnon and Tamar) seems to contradict that.

How to determine transcultural vs. culturally-bound biblical instructions

Anonymous listener (username: "hi pastor mike") asks how to distinguish timeless biblical commands from culturally-specific ones.

Deuteronomy 22 rape law — two scenarios and the woman's protection

Listener Christy Courts' friend claims Deuteronomy 22 shows flawed teaching. Mike defends the passage.

Objection: quantum physics shows things can come into existence uncaused. Response: quantum events are not truly uncaused or from nothing; the quantum vacuum is something, not nothing.

Objection — quantum physics

The OT sacrificial system was a dress rehearsal for the cross. Israel given the law → failed repeatedly → sacrifices provided forgiveness and fellowship. Jesus fulfills this: lives a perfect life, dies sacrificially in our place (Matthew 26:28 — blood of the covenant poured out for forgiveness of sins), and rises from the dead as proof of victory and eternal life.

The cross — sacrifice and resurrection

Deliberate sin and condemnation (Hebrews 10): (1) The NT provides forgiveness for sins the OT law couldn't cover — Jesus is better than the law. (2) Hebrews' "willful sin" passage is about apostasy (rejecting Christ entirely), not individual acts of deliberate sin. The context of Hebrews 10 is about abandoning the faith, not occasional moral failures.

Deliberate sin — Hebrews 10 is about apostasy

Mountain-moving is a euphemism for what is humanly impossible but possible for God. Faith is weak (mustard seed), not strong — the emphasis is that you don't earn miracles; God does everything, you just believe.

Correct interpretation of the mountain-moving promise in Mark 11

The death penalty is clearly supported by Scripture. Genesis 9:5-6 — given to ALL humanity (not just Israel) — establishes capital punishment for murder based on the image of God: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."

The foundational biblical case for the death penalty from Genesis 9

Objections answered: (1) Jesus's "turn the other cheek" refutes personal vengeance, not governmental justice; (2) David's pardon is a divine exception, not a rule; (3) John 8 (woman in adultery) was a mob, not a court — and the passage is textually questionable.

Responding to objections against the death penalty

Psalm 51:16-17 ("God does not delight in sacrifice") is situational to David after murdering Uriah — he can't just offer a bull and fix things. The only thing he can offer is a broken spirit. It's not a blanket rejection of the sacrificial system.

Q6: Does Psalm 51 mean God doesn't want sacrifices?

1 John 3:4 ("sin is lawlessness") doesn't mean Christians must keep the Mosaic Law — "lawlessness" means rebellion against God's moral authority, not specifically violating Torah commands. The New Testament redefines how we relate to God's moral standards.

Q19: Does 1 John 3:4 mean the Law of Moses still applies?

About Freedom from the Law: When Paul says we're saved by grace apart from the works of the law, is he referring only to the Law of Moses, or the moral law, as well?

Q&A question: About Freedom from the Law

Church Leader Living in Sin? Letter vs. Spirit: I am a young adult, still living in my parents' home. My father is the pastor of our small church. One of my siblings has leadership roles, but is living in sin (cohabitation). My father has talked with him, but hasn't taken any biblical action to remove him from leadership or from church. The elders don't see a need to do anything either. What should I do? (I'm the youngest and a daughter.) I was told I was taking the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.

Q&A question: Church Leader Living in Sin? Letter vs. Spirit

Did Jesus Come to Abolish the Law?: Why does Paul say in Ephesians 2: 15 “…by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances…” when Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law in Matthew 5: 17?

Q&A question: Did Jesus Come to Abolish the Law?

About the Law, Works, & Salvation: I've watched both of your videos on the Old Testament law. I get that we don't need to keep the law, as we are now under grace, so how do I understand 1 Corinthians 6:9 which says adulterers won't inherit the Kingdom?

Q&A question: About the Law, Works, & Salvation

About the Witness in John 8: In John 8: 13-19, Jesus testifies that the Father is His witness. Given the emphasis on 2 witnesses in the Law, why did He not mention the Holy Spirit in this point? The absence is conspicuous.

Q&A question: About the Witness in John 8

Is it Helpful to Offer “Thoughts & Prayers”?: Following a tragedy, people will often say, “Our thoughts and prayers are with all those who are affected,” which is often followed by angry or mocking non-believer comments such as, “Your prayers clearly aren’t working. Do something that will actually help like changing the laws.” What are some proper, biblical ways to respond to that sort of position?

Q&A question: Is it Helpful to Offer “Thoughts & Prayers”?

Should Immoral Things Be Illegal?: Should biblically immoral mean illegal? Surely if sin harms the community, then all legal sin harms society and should be against the law.

Q&A question: Should Immoral Things Be Illegal?

Did Jesus Come to Abolish the Law?: Does Ephesians 2: 15 contradict Matthew 5: 17? In Matthew, Jesus says that He did not come to abolish the law, but it looks like Paul in Ephesians says the opposite.

Q&A question: Did Jesus Come to Abolish the Law?

The Law of Agency: How do you respond to non-trinitarians who use the "Law of Agency" to dismiss the scriptural evidence for the Trinity in regard to Jesus, etc. claiming He is not God, but simply God's agent?

Q&A question: The Law of Agency

Casting Out = Abolishing?: How do you reconcile Galatians 4: 28-31 with Jesus saying He didn’t come to abolish the Law? Casting them out kind of seems like abolishing.

Q&A question: Casting Out = Abolishing?

Healing: By Faith or By God?: In Luke 8: 43-48, Jesus says, “Your faith has made you well.” He didn’t say God did it, but her faith. How is this different than the Law of Attraction as told by New Agers?

Q&A question: Healing: By Faith or By God?

Is the Hypostatic Union Illogical?: How can Christ truly be God and man at the same time, infringing upon the laws of logic? If it’s true, I know I can't understand it fully, but I do expect to be able to demonstrate how it isn't illogical.

Q&A question: Is the Hypostatic Union Illogical?

Share Our Burdens?: Galatians 6:2 says to carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ, but verse 5 says that each person should carry their own load. Should we share our burdens or carry our own?

Q&A question: Share Our Burdens?

Didn’t the Israelites Have Meat to Eat?: If the Israelites had flocks and herds, why did they complain that they had no meat? They didn't have the Law of Moses yet on what not to eat.

Q&A question: Didn’t the Israelites Have Meat to Eat?

Sin Before The Law: In Romans 5: 13, what does it mean that sin was not counted against those before Moses gave the law? Did all those people receive eternal salvation?

Q&A question: Sin Before The Law

A Man Is Justified by Faith Apart from the Deeds of the Law

The Transfiguration (Matt. 17 / Mark 9 / Luke 9) visually enacts Hebrews 1:1-2: Moses and Elijah appear representing the Law and the Prophets, but God's voice from heaven says "This is my Son — hear him." The old revelation is present and honored, but the new word is through Jesus. This is "Hebrews 1 in living illustration."

The Transfiguration as a visual fulfillment of Hebrews 1:1-2's funnel from prophecy to Son

Andy Stanley's "unhitching from the Old Testament" teaching conflates two different questions: (1) Are Christians under the law of Moses? and (2) Must Christians believe the Old Testament is true? Acts 15 answers question 1 (no, Gentiles need not keep Torah); it says nothing about question 2. Stanley's conflation leads him to suggest that disbelieving the OT is an acceptable option for struggling Christians.

Critiquing Andy Stanley's conflation of applicability of OT law with the truthfulness of the OT

Peppiatt's Quotation-Refutation Theory on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

[Lucy Peppiatt](logosres:LLS:9781498201476;ref=bible.1Co14.34-35) (now [Peppiatt Crawley](logosres:LLS:9781498201476;ref=bible.1Co14.34-35)) argues vv. 34-35 are not Paul's words but the Corinthians'

Podcast Q1: The "Law" That Doesn't Exist (Impact 9/10, Reconsideration 7/10)

"Brett, verse 34 says women should be silent 'as the Law also says.' You mentioned this was about order, but which law is being referenced here? There's no Old Testament passage that commands women's

Commentary: Adam's Responsibility — Knowledge and Omission, Not Leadership Rank

Ardavanis says: > "God holds Adam responsible... this is Adam's failure to lead. His sin was that he passively followed his wife's leadership." He also says: "We read in **Ro 5:12** that sin entered

Faulty Summary of Human History — Kings, Priests, Prophets, Authors

At 11:56, he tries to summarize human history by saying that there were all male kings with one exception, all male priests, all male ongoing prophetic offices, all male authors of scripture and so fo