[Transcript represents full sermon's text]

       Now that Colossians 1 & 2 have been completed, today’s objective is to go through some appendices and elaborations of what has previously been stated so as to obtain a richer understanding. This will be completed this week and then also we’ll have another session next week. After that, we will move on to chapters 3 & 4, beginning in latter January.

       The first discussion that comes up is this: Is there a difference between the first century audience to whom Paul was writing to and our current day audience?

       The easy, obvious answer is certainly. But that is easy. Is there really a difference when it comes down to it, because, after all, the people back then had the sin-nature as do we? It seems best to understand the consciousness of people at that time as indeed having some understanding of things. There were the Greeks, and they were always seeking wisdom. And we remember what is written about in Acts 17, where Luke tells us, “Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new” (ESV). The speaker himself has been guilty of this at times, and there is also the love of going back over the same information again and again, so as to gain a better understanding. So, it’s not like the people of the first century were seriously deficit when it came to understanding intellectual things.

       That being said, there clearly was a difference. This becomes clear when reading the writings of the early church fathers. And before this is further articulated, an easy way that has been found is to read some of their commentaries through use of an app called ‘Catena.’ The app is available for Android and iOS devices. It contains a collection of writings on a verse-by-verse basis of various early church fathers, namely those from the second century through the fourth century. Their writings seem to show a clear indication that Christian thought wasn’t as vividly developed back then as it is in our day and age. This may seem obvious to some, especially those who are particularly learned in Christian theology, but to a lot of people this fact may not be known. As was discussed, some easy examples to go are the following. For one, the early church fathers believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary—Jesus’ mother. Again, this is the idea that Mary remained a virgin her whole life, after she gave birth to Jesus. And we know too that these early fathers had no understanding of the doctrine of the Rapture of the Church, which is part of premillinenial dispensationalism. They were what we would call today amillennial for the most part.

       Regardless, going roundabout back to our discussion on the Colossae audience or any early audience, which was worse, the sin-nature back then or the sin-nature now? That’s an interesting question. It depends on how it is viewed. Back then the entertainment was that of the crowd watching gladiators compete in an arena where wild-animals would be let loose. People would be killed by those animals right in front of the live crowd. In that sense then, it was very barbaric. We can also recall, as a form of the barbarism, what King Herod did when he was search for the child Jesus in Israel. Yet, to fast-forward to nowadays, we have football. Quite a bit different from people getting killed in an arena. Now someone might say that our current day football can be idolatrous, and it’s probably best to say that depends on the individual person and how they view that football. But it’s also true nowadays that we have the killing of unborn babies on a far and wide scale. So, while Herod did what he did, look at what is done today. While at times the barbarism seems greater back then, sometimes it doesn’t. To say that back then was more barbaric versus now really is a matter that can be debated either way.

       It was discussed how it could be possible that Paul became the primary apostle for both the Jewish people and the Gentile people. What further can be said regarding this?

       Certainly, this is just a theory. It may be the case, but there is no way to know for sure. Another way to look at it would be from a dispensational mindset. A dispensational mindset. The idea of dispensations comes to us from a man named John Nelson Darby in the 1800s. Indeed, it seems the 1800s were quite the time in theological development. Anyhow, while we are common with the differentiation between the Nation of Israel and the Christian Church, many are not so familiar with the idea that there were numerous different time periods in the Bible which defined the way in which God worked. We could note, for instance, that God, during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, was hoping to bring about the Millennial Kingdom. If we say that was his first objective, then that would explain why Jesus was addressing the Jewish people and perhaps why the disciples believed Jesus had come to the earth to be king. Someone might say that in the Old Testament God required both faith and works from people, and this picture is carried along until Jesus dies on the cross. When Jesus dies on the cross, the dispensation then switches to a faith only system. Works are no longer required, except perhaps to be water baptized.

       Therefore, going back to the dispensation of the Millennial Kingdom theory, the hope for that kingdom would then extend even to after the cross. So, the hope is carried along until Acts 7. In this view, the confrontation of the Jewish leaders by Stephen represents their last chance to repent and immediately bring about the Millennial Kingdom. That is why Jesus is standing when we see the scene of him in Heaven at Stephen’s stoning. He is ready to come back, but unfortunately he has to retake his seat because Stephen is killed, and the Jews lose their last chance. God then focuses his attention on the Gentiles, and brings about the Apostle Paul to be apostle to the Gentiles. This means the Jewish Kingdom on the earth in which Christ reigns as King is delayed at least a couple thousand years. Again, this is just a theory that a few have proposed. The traditional view that more Evangelical Christians are probably familiar with would be that espoused by John MacArthur or even Jim Custer, where the ‘Saved by Faith’ dispensation goes into affect in Genesis 3 and continues all the way to the end. It is a much simpler and straightforward view. The multiple, or numerous dispensations has faith plus works in the Old Testament and Gospels, then faith only in the Church Age, and the back to faith plus works in the Tribulation period.

       What is interesting with respect to the multiple dispensational view is that it does seem to explain a lot of Biblical mysteries or questions which a lot of people have. For instance, it explains the whole debate of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and how we find from the difference in the epistle writers of Paul and John that all sins can be forgiven. Jesus clearly said that speaking out against the Holy Spirit was unpardonable; however, if that occurred in a different dispensation, where the rules were different, and now we, as humans, are under a different dispensation in how God works nowadays, that would explain why that sin would now be forgivable. But it also leads to concerns that people have. If we take the numerous dispensation view, it could mean that some of what Jesus taught in the Gospels isn’t directly applicable to the church. It would also mean, going all the way down the line, that the Great Commission is not applicable in the sense that we should evangelize because of what is written at the end of the Gospels. Now, it would still be the case that we should because of what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:18 and other places. However, the whole numerous dispensational view does redefine the Gospels and what is said there.

       Anyhow we went down a rabbit hole there, but it is an interesting one. The point in all this is that under the multiple dispensations view God eventually moves to the Apostle Paul being the primary leader, if you will, for the church. Jesus said that he would build the church on the rock of Peter, and then it would appear that Paul takes the primary place or focus. So under this view Paul becomes the filter through which everything else goes, even the teachings of Jesus. A lot people don’t feel comfortable with that—having Paul as the chief, and then everything else. But if Paul becomes chief, that would explain why in the Books of Acts we see Paul as the primary focus in the last half of the book with Peter phased out. It has even been argued that Peter went on to preach what Paul was preaching. Peter then would have left behind the Gospel of faith and water baptism for just faith, as Paul taught. To summarize then, it was faith plus works under Jesus, then faith plus water baptism under Peter and the other Eleven, and then just faith under Paul, and then Peter and everyone else followed.

       For more information on the grace by faith dispensation view, good teachers to refer to would be John MacArthur and Jim Custer. For the numerous dispensational view, probably the best explanation that has been seen is from Robert Breaker. He is a lesser known Bible teacher who has a YouTube channel. (You can search for the video titled ‘Following Jesus or How you are Supposed to Follow Jesus’ and another titled ‘The Great Commission?’).

       An idea that might be related to this whole discussion of dispensationalism is the age-old belief of whether the promises of God given to Israel in the Old Testament were transferred to the Church. Let’s go ahead and dive into this a little bit.

       The answer to this question seems strong on one-side, but there are definitely people on both sides of the debate. But the answer here would that no, God did not transfer the promises of Israel to the church. There are multiple things that could be cited as to why not. In no particular order, here are some. For one, in keeping with a dispensational premillennial view (that is, the view that the Rapture of the Church is going to occur pre-Tribulation, and then there will be a Tribulation period at after the Church Age where the Antichrist rules and reigns on the earth, and then comes the wrath of God), with that view it means that the promises to Israel are still in play. Another argument would be that God always does what he says he’s going to do. This means that what God says to one person or a group of people he will do—as long as the promise isn’t conditional—he will do it. So we would say that God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 of an everlasting kingdom on the earth for the Israelites wasn’t conditional. Even the disciples asked of Jesus right before he returned to Heaven whether he would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. And he didn’t say no—far from it. He simply didn’t tell them when it would occur—but he didn’t deny it would occur.

       If one means that the church simply is blessed as a result of Israel’s rejection of God’s plan of Christ as King, that certainly would be true. The whole Church Age we are in now demonstrates that, with God saving the many, many Gentile peoples from their sins. If we look at Acts chapter 10, where the Holy Spirit is poured out even on the Gentiles, this means that all people can have that perfect, continual fellowship with God the Father at all times. There doesn’t have to be separation from God for anyone. That’s amazing. And then, of course, the times of the Gentiles have seen a lot of prosperity, but also a lot of hardship (we don’t want to forget that). But that prosperity has been where a lot of communities have been able to dwell free from persecution, like here in the United States, and even to the point where it can be argued that the whole American nation is the result of a Christian beginning. That’s a very unique thing, one that perhaps even God didn’t expect. To have a country that has its foundation on Christian principles is pretty remarkable. The success of the society has shown that it certainly works very well and has lead to countless blessings.

       While we are on the subject of America, let’s discuss what some of the challenges are that are brought about by an individualistic society (hence, America) versus a more collective society. Paul spoke of the interwoven-ness of the Colossian believers, and that was compared with the common experience of many in church-life today.

       While Thomas Jefferson’s independence has created an environment where everyone can believe whatever it is that they want to believe, it has also created an environment where people are more independent of each other as a result. Think about it. If we get to choose whatever we want to believe as far as religion goes, that means there are going to be all kinds of religious positions. That leads to greater division. And it’s not being argued here that there should just be one, or something like that. But the independence is greater. To zero-in further on what the Evangelicals face, it is the separation in simply how we live that creates that independence from each other. It’s not like it was, say, a hundred and fifty years ago, where everyone lived in walking distance of each other and a church or two was in the center of town. Now, everyone drives to church (his or her church of choice), stays an hour or two, and then drives home. A lot of people don’t even see each other during the week, unless they go to a Bible study or something like that. So, that’s the challenge. Whereas a hundred and fifty years ago, people, at least in America, where generally more moral, it’s also true they all lived in the same town together. So the townspeople were basically the church people. They were one and the same. Not so nowadays.

       And the personal experience of the Amish-Mennonite church was brought up as regards this, and indeed, those folks have solved at least part of the problem, if not even more than part of it. That was the beautiful thing about attending that church. That commonness, that more of a oneness that everyone shared. (For those who missed it, the speaker attended this church for a year's time during the last half of last year and the first half of this year). While the church members did drive cars and thus live in various areas, sometimes a half-hour from the church, it was true that the church played as the center focus of their lives. Whereas the common Evangelical might see the church as one element or event of their busy lives, for the Amish-Mennonite person the church was center in that church would be attended usually twice a week at least and then all community events and even most friends were those from the church. So people would spend time with each other during the week. All social events, get-togethers, hanging out, whatever, usually involved people from the church for those people. People even worked with each other from church. So, it was more that the church was like extended family for these people instead of something along the lines of coworkers, if you will, for the Evangelicals. Sure, Evangelical experience can be somewhat like this, but the personal experience has been that it is way more distant and not as close.

       Moving along, now we will discuss the subject of prayer a bit further, and how it works, and why it seems that God sometimes does not answer our prayers.

       It seems that it really does come down to how one views time as well as the future when discussing this subject matter. A strange way to begin this topic, it may seem, and of what relevance does time really have as pertains to this. But it comes down to whether things that are going to happen have already happened in God’s eyes—that is, is everything predetermined, or foreordained it might be said? If it is, it is easy then to come to the conclusion that prayer is simply a ritual, a practice one partakes in in order to make God happy by being obedient to a command. And the elaborate solution to this problem is to say that God foreordains people to pray, so that they pray for what he wants to happen to happen, so that what God wants actually comes to pass. In this case, even the prayer itself is predetermined by God. Under this articulation of prayer, nothing happens in the world which God does not ultimately want to happen. Any evil then that occurs is because God wants to bring about good, and he uses that good to help his people.

       On the flip side of this, there is the view that what is going to happen in the future hasn’t actually happened yet, or, that it is not predetermined because it is actually unknowable. So, God himself cannot know for sure what is going to happen since what hasn’t happened doesn’t exist. This is a different view of time from the commonly accepted understanding. The way God has created the world, then, means that what hasn’t happened yet cannot even for sure be known about in his own mind. An example of this could be cited when Jesus is hanging on the cross, and he said he was thirsty. John records, “After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst” (John 19:28, ESV). Under the traditional view of time, Jesus would have automatically said this because it was preordained to happen. But under the untraditional view, Jesus has to actually say, “I thirst” in order to make the Scripture become fulfilled. It isn’t that the Scripture automatically becomes fulfilled as if it has already happened, but it has to be brought about by God so that it will be fulfilled.

       Anyway, the point is that either God is open to the prayers of his saints or he isn’t. In other words, does what we pray for actually affect what God does? If all prayer is foreordained, it technically doesn’t. We are simply praying for what God foreordained us to pray, thereby accomplishing his will anyway (which then really isn’t our will). But if God doesn’t foreordain prayer, then we are able to present things before God that actually come from our hearts, our own personal desires, and thereby bring things to his consideration of whether he wants to seek to accomplish whatever it is. And this would mean that we could persuade God in a certain direction. This isn’t because God is dumb and we are smarter, but it would be because this is the way God has setup the world so as to empower and allow human beings who know him to actually persuade him. This has all kinds of implications. It means that there may be things we want that God will actually put forth effort toward that he originally wouldn’t have focused on if we hadn’t prayed for it. It means he really cares about what we desire. It also means that if we fail to pray, or perhaps don’t pray sufficiently about something, there is lesser hope for whatever it is to happen.

       This brings up the next thought of what are some things that can block a desirable answer to prayer?

       This area was discussed in length talking about prayer toward the beginning of Colossians 1. And it would seem that there are basically four areas that come into play with prayer, and these are Satan’s power, our power, randomness, and God’s power. So, basically, four powers in the universe. Let’s go over each of these again one-by-one. Satan can block our prayers from being answered simply by getting in the middle of things. This may not be visible to the naked eye. That is, he may do things behind the scenes that we aren’t even aware of which block our prayer from being answered. We too can block our prayer by practicing sin in our lives, being unforgiving toward offenders, not doing the right thing at the right time, and acting negligently. It is also believed that randomness is part of our current world makeup. The idea may be surprising to some, but the idea is illustrated in Scripture. A common example is seen in Luke 13 when Jesus discussed the tower that had fallen in Siloam on eighteen individuals. He brought this up, though, it may have been poised to him on a previous occasion that isn’t recorded. But he seems to imply that these types of things can happen to anybody—that we better be right with God because we could die. Randomness. Of course, lastly, we know God can block a yes to our prayer because he doesn’t want whatever it is, and he simply just doesn’t work toward it.

       Now it is believed that sometimes it can be combination of these factors that actually block prayer, It may not simply be one of them in play. To assume that it is always our fault when things don’t go our way—when our prayers aren’t answered —is to be unwise because at best there is a one in four chance that we are at fault. It seems better to assume, unless it is obvious, that we weren’t at fault—that whatever prayer doesn’t get answered is because either Satan interrupted and prevented it, or things just naturally didn’t go our way, or that God didn’t want whatever it was. As pertains to things not naturally going our way, it could be asked as to why God didn’t interfere with the natural to accomplish whatever it was. And we need to remember that God cannot always go against the natural, for then the world wouldn’t be the world. For instance, if a person prays for safety every morning before driving to work, that doesn’t mean that God then has to make the natural always go in the person's favor. He may, on occasion, but he always has to let the world be the world. If a tree falls on the person's car right as they take a parking place at work, that isn’t God’s fault. He cannot always just go against the natural order. He may at times, but he cannot all the time.

- Daniel Litton