Play

“Questions and Answers 124”

Allen Dvorak
06/09/24 - Sun PM

The following transcription is computer-generated and may not accurately reflect the contents of the audio. Please verify the content before quoting.

(Transcribed by Congregate. Always check document for possible errors and inaccuracies in automated transcriptions.)

Scripture reading is from 23 Corinthians chapter 7.

We'll start reading in verse 25.

Couple of explanatory notes before I jump in.

Paul is addressing essentially every marital status in which people put themselves.

And when it comes to verse 25, he addresses virgins, or as other versions say, the unmarried.

Only the English Standard version and the expanded Bible say the betrothed.

So that's what's on the screen, but I'll be reading from the Lexington from the Legacy Standard Bible.

Um, by the way, that word that is translated virgins or the unmarried is According to Strong, it's a maiden, by implication, and unmarried daughter.

It's also used though in Revelation 14, referring to men who have not had intimate relations with women.

So picking up in verse 25 now, 1 Corinthians 7.

Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who, by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.

I think then that this is good because of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

Are you bound to a wife?

Do not seek to be released.

Are you released from a wife?

Do not seek a wife.

But if you, but if you.

Sorry, but if you do marry, you have not sinned.

And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned, yet such will find trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

But this I say, brothers, the time has been shortened.

So that from now on those who have wives should be as those who have, should be as though they had none, and those who cry as though they did not cry, and those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, and those who buy as though they did not possess.

And those who use the world as though they did not make full use of it, for the form of this world is passing away.

In early church history, there were some who taught that all matter.

Including our human bodies, which are made obviously of matter, that all matter was inherently evil.

And of course, from that initial premise, some people went off one direction and they said, since it doesn't make any difference, the spirit's what's going to be saved, the body's going to be uh destroyed anyway, so, you know, don't worry about uh taking your pleasure in the body.

But others went a different direction.

They became ascetics.

Some of them even taught that the celibate or unmarried state was better than being married.

And Paul's letter to the Corinthians, and particularly First Corinthians chapter 7, has been used to support that idea, that it's better not to marry, that that's a superior spiritual condition or state.

And so this evening, I asked the question, is that really what Paul was teaching in 1 Corinthians 133?

Our study this evening, as you probably have already guessed, is a question and answer sermon.

Occasionally, I devote, for those of you who are visiting with us, perhaps, occasionally I will devote a sermon to the answering of questions that have been submitted to me or that have come up in Bible classes, etc.

The questions that I put together in these sermons are not necessarily related, although this evening I'm going to try to relate the two questions that we're going to discuss at the very end so that you can see a connection between them.

They're on different topics and what you might consider to be radically different topics, and I think there is a connection to them.

The answers that I give my own that I give are my own answers.

They don't represent any kind of uh uh an official position of the elders or of this congregation.

They're simply my understanding of what the New Testament teaches about various questions that I'm asked.

So, the two questions that I want to talk about this evening, the first one is, as you've guessed, has to do with marriage, and we'll be looking at 1 Corinthians 7.

Uh, Gary was determined to preach my sermon before I got up here, but I'm gonna preach my sermon anyway.

But the second question has to do with demon possession.

You're probably wondering what could be the possible connection between marriage and demon possession, and I'm not going there.

I'll show you what I think the connection is later between those two topics, but those are the questions that I want to try to discuss this evening.

The first question, if I can frame it, uh, says, why did Paul write to the Corinthians that it is good not to marry?

In order to talk about that question, and particularly the latter part of 1 Corinthians 7, I really want to spend some time just surveying the entire chapter because Paul's going to discuss, as Gary noted, virtually every marital state that a person can be in, and he's gonna say some things about uh marriage and its purpose, its admissibility, all the way through the chapter.

So we're going to begin with just a survey of 1 Corinthians 7.

I'm gonna be brief about this because in the adult class in the auditorium, we've been studying in 1 Corinthians and we talked about some of these things at length.

I don't know that we need to review all of that.

You may have noticed uh that the first verse of chapter 7, Paul says, it is good for a man.

Not to have sexual relations with a woman.

I've not put ESV on all of the citations or quotes, even partial quotes that I'm using this evening as we survey the chapter, but they're from the ESV unless they're otherwise indicated, and I will point out one quote where we're going to look at the new King James version instead.

But I would point out that in the ESV this phrase is in quotation.

Mars, suggesting that the translators at least, thought that this was a statement that Paul was quoting from the Corinthians and not necessarily Paul himself teaching this.

The New King James Version translators took a different view, and they did not put quotations around this statement.

And so it appears as though Paul is saying, it's good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.

In the context, Of 1 Corinthians 23, I'm not sure that there's a great theological difference between those two viewpoints.

And that will become more clear as we go through.

I do support the ESV's uh view of that particular passage.

Paul was not against marriage.

I think that's one of the points we want to make abundantly clear as we work through this chapter.

In the beginning of the chapter, in verses 2 through 6, he talks about one of the important purposes or functions of marriage.

It helps to satisfy or serves the purpose of satisfying the sexual needs of husbands and wives, and that then reduces the temptation to commit sexual immorality.

He says to avoid sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, each woman have her own husband.

Paul will actually make a comment in verse 7, as I myself am.

And it's a little unclear to me whether he's talking about his unmarried state when he says, I wish all were as I am, whether he's talking about, I wish everybody was in the single state or whether he's talking about.

the ability to control oneself and not to burn with passion as he discusses a little bit later.

In fact, in verse 9, he will say, but if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Now Paul does say in verse 8, Incidentally, that it was good to remain single.

But it's always important for us to observe the greater context of statements that are made in scripture.

Sometimes the greater context can radically change either the meaning or the application of a statement that is made by an inspired writer.

Now, a little bit later on in verses 10 to 16, Paul's gonna give instructions to married people.

He'll talk about marriage in general, uh, that divorce should not be uh something pursued, and he'll even talk about mixed marriages.

That, that section is really not germane to the answering of the question that we have this evening.

I'll not belabor the information that he has there.

But I do I want to run through the chapter now and look about at some additional counsel that Paul gives regarding getting married.

And so first of all, I want to look at verses 26 and 27, part of the reading this evening that Gary did.

I think that in view of the present distress, it is good for a person to remain as he is.

So if you're single, if you're unmarried, then it's good for you to remain the way you are.

He says, Are you bound to a wife?

Do not seek to be free.

Are you free from a wife?

Do not seek a wife.

In other words, stay unmarried.

And he says some other things that are somewhat cryptic, vague.

He doesn't explain them, but they are hints that he's talking about some special circumstances that would have been present at the time that he wrote this epistle.

For instance, if you look at verse 53, he says, The appointed time has grown very short in verse 31 in the latter part of that verse.

He says, for the present form of this world is passing away.

Things are changing.

And so there are some hints that there are some special circumstances going on.

In 1 Corinthians 7:38.

Paul says, so then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

So Paul says it's OK if people get married, but Those who do not marry, who are single and then do not get married, they do even better.

And that sounds a lot like Paul saying, listen, it's better not to get married.

That's the question we're looking at.

Is the celibate state always better than the married state?

And then finally in verse 40.

He says, yet in my judgment, she's happier if she remains as she is.

He's addressing widows in verse 40, and they are given permission to marry only in the Lord.

We'll say more about that in just a few moments.

But then he also says, yet in my judgment, she's happier if she remains as she is, an unmarried woman, a, a married woman whose husband had died.

She was a widow.

Well, what was the present distress that Paul has mentioned and uh seems to give some indication of in various verses?

And the answer is he doesn't explain.

Paul was not forbidding marriage.

If you look at verses 36 and verse 38, we've already looked at them, at least verse 38 in particular, but he did indicate that he wanted the Corinthians to be, as he says in verse 143, free from anxieties.

Because of the present distress, it would be better not to marry.

I want you to be free from anxieties.

This is verse 35.

I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

What Paul will explain then, beginning in verse 32 and running down through verse 34, is that married people have a different focus, at least in part, than those who are single.

Here's the passage in question.

Look at verses 32 and 34.

He says, I want you to be free from anxieties, as we noted.

The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.

His focus is pleasing God.

But the married man, by contrast, is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.

I do not believe that Paul is saying that a married man can't be a good Christian, that he is consumed or anxious about worldly things.

I think all he's saying is, married men have obligations to their wives, and they're gonna focus on some of those obligations, and that means that their attention is then divided between their wife and the Lord, at least to some extent.

And the unmarried or betrothed woman.

So now he'll talk about the female side of the equation, is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit.

She's not married, she didn't have to take care of a husband, shouldn't have to be concerned about his needs.

But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband.

And again, I don't think Paul is criticizing either the husband or the wife for focusing on their responsibilities to their spouses.

That would be awkward, wouldn't it, in light of what he writes to the Ephesians in chapter 5 and in other places about the responsibilities of husbands and wives in a variety of matters.

If the present distress that he mentions but doesn't elaborate on, if it was some kind of persecution, then remaining single would avoid strong emotional ties that are a part of marriage that might tempt one to compromise his or her faith.

Let me illustrate it this way.

If Tonight, after Debbie and I get home, and we've come into the house and we're kind of relaxing, there's a knock on the door, and we look and there's a man in an official uniform, and he, when we opened the door, he says, I'm here to arrest your wife.

We understand she's a Christian.

And so she's going to be interrogated.

With beatings.

And we're taking her right now.

How do you think I would respond to that?

What would be my emotions as I'm hearing him describing what he's intending to do right now?

I know good and well that that's difficult for us to imagine in our society, we have freedom of religion and protection of the law, etc.

due process.

But in the first century, And in some of the times in the 2nd and 3rd and even into the beginning of the 4th centuries.

That's exactly what happened to Christians sometimes.

Government officials came to doors and hauled people away.

How will you respond to that?

If that same official says to you, I will leave your wife alone if you will recant your faith in Jesus Christ. Wow.

Now I have to choose between my loyalty to the Lord and my love and consideration for my wife.

You see how that would be difficult.

And she looks at me.

Wanting to know what decision I'm going to make.

What decision would you make?

Paul says, I want you to be free from anxiety.

I don't want you to have divided allegiances, at least in the sense of having legitimate responsibilities in two different relationships, marriage and your relationship, your fellowship with God.

It would be better for you not to be married.

You don't have to worry then.

There's no leverage.

For an official to come and say, either you Worship the emperor.

Or we're gonna kill your wife.

Or vice versa.

It would go perhaps both ways.

I want you to notice the difference.

In the ESV and the New King James in verses 113 to 38, and Gary commented a little bit on that.

I want to reread them, but the part that I want you to pay real close attention to is the text in red.

If anyone thinks, this is the ESV on the left, if anyone thinks that he's not behaving properly toward his betrothed, so that's a woman who's been promised to be married.

If his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes, let them marry, it's no sin.

So we're talking about a woman who has agreed to be married and her prospective husband in that translation.

But whoever is firmly established in his heart being under no necessity, but having his desire under control and has determined this in his heart to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.

So I've, I'm gonna use Debbie as an example again.

So Debbie and I have agreed to get married.

But under the circumstances, because of the present distress, I've decided this is not a good time for us to get married.

There are gonna be some anxieties, as Paul talks about it.

Things are changing.

They're gonna be challenges.

It would be better for us not to marry, and I'm confident that I can control my passions.

Paul says, you do well if you don't marry.

So then he who marries his betrothaled does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

Talking about the groom, prospective groom, and the prospective bride.

The new King James version.

In verse 38, I'll not uh read the other.

Verse 38 says, so then he who gives her in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage does better.

And so the translators of the New King James Version seemed to give the impression that we're talking about a father and his daughter.

The father was the one who would arrange the marriage in many cases.

He would be the one who might have set up this arrangement, the wife or the daughter rather, to marry somebody, and he's the one who can say, not now.

And Paul says he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does even better. Why?

Because of a present distress, because of some special circumstances.

Paul is not intending to say every place and in all times under all circumstances, it's better if you don't marry.

He's talking about a specific set of circumstances, which unfortunately, he doesn't describe in great detail for our benefit.

But I can tell you, I think there could be possible situations nowadays where it would be better for some people not to marry if they can maintain their sexual purity, it might be better under those circumstances not to marry.

I think that's what Paul's talking about with respect to Corin.

Now, at the very end of the chapter, Paul talks about uh widows.

Actually, he introduced widows and unmarried way back early in the chapter, indicating it was better that they can marry, but it'd be better if they didn't, if they were just as he was.

But he says widows can marry.

Yet only in the Lord.

That expression, that phrase in the Lord is an expression that you will find many, many times in the New Testament.

In fact, uh, in preparation for studying texts like this, I went through and found every example of that phrase in English translations in the Lord, both in the ESV and then there are some additional ones in the New King James version, even beyond the ESV.

And what you'll find is that it doesn't always mean the same thing.

In the Lord sometimes means uh in a relationship that's Essentially guided by scripture.

Sometimes it can mean a person who is in the Lord.

Which is it here?

And I'm not going to belabor the point.

Uh, it can mean according to the Lord's instructions or pattern, or it can be a reference to marrying a Christian.

I really, in light of the context, I favor the second view that he's telling widows that they need to marry a Christian and not someone who is not in the Lord.

Well, let me give you my answer to this question.

Although Paul has advised, and we've looked at some of the passages where he clearly states that not marrying under those circumstances was a good thing, he did not forbid marriage, nor did he say that the celibate state was in every way, in every circumstance, a superior spiritual condition.

He did suggest celibacy because of some present distress, which he didn't specifically identify.

Whatever the present distress was, it was apparently, it would apparently make it more difficult for married people to give their undivided devotion to the Lord.

And Paul is stressing that that's what he wants people to do, to give their undivided devotion to the Lord.

Well, that's the first question, but here's the second question.

When the Bible says that Satan entered Judas, was it speaking figuratively or literally?

And if it's literally, who are we to say if Judas acted of his own volition, or was he a victim of demon possession?

The wording on that is just a little bit awkward, but I think you understand the point.

I want to leave it the way it was.

The passage that's being referenced here is Luke chapter 22 in verse 3.

Of course, Jesus and his disciples are in Jerusalem.

And it's the last week of Jesus' life, Passion Week.

And the text says, then Satan entered into Judas called Isaria, who was of the number of the 12.

Now, frequently, when I get a question submitted to me, sometimes people give me a bunch of information, uh, comments, or even additional questions.

Uh, I've actually had questions that when you went through and read them, they were longer than my answers are.

But those comments also helped me understand where people are coming from.

And so I'm gonna share with you uh some comments that were made by the questioner.

Um On this occasion The questioner said the word entered used there in Luke 223.

According to Strongs, is ace eromai, meaning to enter, to go into, etc.

There are other definitions.

The reason I believe this means a physical entry of something is because of verses that use the same Greek word verses such as, and he cites two of them, Acts 10:25.

When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.

Peter entered the house of Cornelius, Literal entering, going into.

And then another passage in Luke 23:51, and when he came into the to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him except Peter and John and James and the father and mother of the child.

So the argument that's being made is that the same word that's translated entered in Luke 22:3.

is used in Acts 10:25 and Luke 8:51 in a literal way to talk about someone or someones who are coming into something.

And so it suggests that Judas, or maybe I should say it this way, that Satan literally entered Judas.

And so we would probably say Judas was then demon possessed.

A little bit more in the way of comment.

Both of these verses contain the same Greek word.

And when we look at these verses, I believe it shows the meaning of a literal entering of a room.

Well, let, let me say very quickly, uh, the questioner is correct.

It's the same word in each of those verses, it's the same verb.

And I believe in the two passages that were cited, Acts and Luke, that it is a literal physical entering into a room.

That's the meaning of the word in those passages.

Before I give you what I think is going on here, let me make some observations about demon possession that I think will be helpful in answering this question.

Was Judas demon possessed, or was he just under the influence of Satan or Satan entered him in some other way?

Well, the first thing I would say about demon possession is that I don't see in the scriptures any clear indication that demon possession occurred because the host, the person possessed, invited the demons.

Now, maybe you find a passage or you think there's a passage where that's uh the implication, but I don't know of a passage.

Secondly, those who are described as possessed by demons or unclean spirits or sometimes just by spirits, they appeared to have no control over their actions.

They engaged often in irrational behavior.

I'm going to give you three examples that obviously there are more examples of demon possession in the New Testament.

And by the way, I believe demon possession was a real thing.

I think people were possessed by demons.

I don't think this is accommodative language.

I don't think this is, you know, describing mental issues by uh.

Describing them to demons.

When the Bible says so and so was possessed by many demons, I accept that record by the inspired writers.

So let me give you three examples.

Of demon possession so that you can see how they are described in scripture.

The first one has to do with the two gathering demoniacs.

All three of the synoptic gospels record this story, although they don't all talk about two individuals.

One focuses on the 2, the others on the 1.

This is in Mark's account, 53st 5 verses, and then we'll drop down to verse 15.

Jesus has crossed the Sea of Galilee with his disciples.

He's now over on the east and perhaps uh the southeast side uh of the Sea of Galilee.

So they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerrocenes, and when Jesus had stepped out of the boat immediately, there met him out of the tombs.

A man with an unclean spirit.

Unclean spirit's just a synonymous term for a demon.

He lived among the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles and pieces.

No one had the to subdue him.

Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains, he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones.

And I want you to think just for a moment with your imagination, what was going on here.

This is a guy who's living among the tombs where the dead bodies were.

And so he's living constantly in a place that's unclean, that we wouldn't want to spend time with, and nobody can restrain him.

He breaks chains, he breaks shackles, and he's crying out and he's yelling and screaming and all of this.

And he's cutting himself.

This is the individual that Jesus encounters when he reaches the shore there where this story takes place.

Well, you probably remember the way that the story transpires.

Jesus is gonna cast out the demons, plural of this man.

They'll go into some swine, swine will run down the, the cliff and into the lake and be drowned.

And this gets back to the people in town nearby.

And they come out to Jesus, and so we pick up in verse 15, they came to Jesus and they saw the demon possessed man, the one who had had had the legion.

He had many demons.

Sitting there, clothed.

Uh, he's been running around naked.

Um Is the description that we get from one of the other uh gospels, clothes and in his right mind, they were afraid.

As, as much as they had seen some sort of supernatural power by this man possessed by all of these demons, now they are witnessing power that is even greater than that.

Jesus has come and cast out all these demons, and here's this guy who couldn't be controlled, who was just a wild man, and he's there now he's clothed.

You wouldn't have known that he wasn't one of the apostles.

He was just sitting there in his right mind.

You realize the implication of that statement?

Apparently, while he was possessed by the demons, he wasn't in his right mind.

He was acting irrationally.

Well, we've read it, so it's not hard to imagine that description.

Well, the next story is in Luke the 9th chapter beginning in verse 37.

This story takes place shortly after the transfiguration, uh, in the mountain in northern Galilee.

Jesus has come down with Peter, James, and John, rest of the disciples are there at the foot of the mount.

And there's an interaction there between Jesus and the disciples, and a man whose son was demon possessed.

So we pick up in Luke chapter 9, verse 37.

On the next day when they had come down from the mountain, a great crowd met him.

And behold, a man from the crowd cried out, Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he's my only child, and behold, a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out, it convulses.

So that he foams at the mouth and shatters him and will hardly leave him.

Sounds a little bit like the way I preach.

And I begged your disciples to cast it out, but they could not.

Jesus answered, oh faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you and bear with you?

Bring your son here.

While he was coming, the demon threw him to the ground and convulsed him, but Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the boy and gave him back to his father.

One of the other accounts of this same story indicates that the spirit, this unclean spirit that possessed this boy, sometimes would cause him to cast himself into water and cast himself into fire, as though to destroy him.

That's not rational behavior.

And that's the way demon possession is described in the scriptures, that people are acting in ways they're not in their right minds.

They don't seem to be in control of their actions.

I'm beating this dead horse for a reason that you will see in just a few moments.

Let's look at the 3rd story here.

It's in the 11th chapter of Luke.

This is actually a parable that Jesus tells, but we can learn a little something about demon possession by the parable.

Jesus says, when the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest and finding none, it says, I will return to my house from which I came.

And when it comes, it finds the house, that's another way of describing the previous host, the man.

It finds the house swept and put in order, then it goes and brings 23 other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first.

Here's what I want you to note about this.

Here's a spirit possessing this man, and the spirit leaves.

Can't find any place a host.

Comes back and enters this man.

Without any kind of difficulty, apparently.

My observation is That demon possessed individuals appeared not to have control over their actions.

They often engaged in irrational behavior, and I don't believe they were demon possessed because they invited the demons into them.

There's no clear evidence of that.

It seems in the New Testament.

Well, so what?

Well, if Judas was in fact demon possessed, if the phrase, Satan entered Judas indicates that Judas was demon possessed, then I don't believe that he was responsible for his actions any more than the gathering demoniac was responsible for his actions.

He was irrational.

People tried to control him, they couldn't control him.

If Judas was demon possessed, And I don't think he's responsible for his actions.

Now I want to look at another story, just very briefly, but it's one that you're familiar with.

It's the story in Acts the 5th chapter of Ananias and Sephira.

We're looking at it because there's some language there that is similar to the language that we're talking about in Luke 22:3.

But a man named Ananias, verse 22 of chapter 25, and his wife Sephirra sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge, he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it, laid it at the apostle's feet.

But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?

While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?

And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?

Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart?

You have not lied to man, but to God.

When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it.

So a couple of points here.

Ananias is held responsible for the lie that he told, although Peter says, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?

But then he also says, why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart?

You have contrived this deed in your heart.

We didn't read it, but if we kept reading in the text there in 214, we find out that Sahira was also held accountable for what happened here.

So Ananias and Sahira, were they demon possessed?

No, I don't believe so.

I believe they were influenced.

By the desire for material gain to do what is evil.

And in that sense, Satan filled their hearts.

They contrived to try to deceive the apostles and by implication, the Holy Spirit as well.

And God killed both of them for their actions.

Judas also was held accountable for his actions.

Did you know that?

In the first chapter of Acts.

As the apostles are seeking to replace Judas with somebody else, the text says in verse 211, now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness.

And falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

The reward of his wickedness was the pieces of silver.

That were used to buy the potter's field.

His wickedness was the betrayal of Jesus Christ.

And his actions are described as wickedness, not irrationality, wickedness.

He's held responsible for what he did.

I want to compare Luke chapter 22.

We're gonna actually look a little bit further in the text.

With John chapter 25 and verse 143, both of them will appear on the screen, so you don't necessarily have to turn your Bibles if you don't want to.

Look at Luke 214 and verse 22.

We already looked at verse 2, but I want you to see what comes next.

Then Satan entered into Judas calleduscariot, who was of the number of the 12.

He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him, that is Jesus to them.

And they were glad and agreed to give him money.

So he consented and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of a crowd.

Satan entered Judas, and he went and made arrangements to betray Jesus. Cape.

In John the 13th chapter, the scene is that Jesus is with his disciples, there, there at the last Passover, and the institution of the Lord's supper.

And the text says in verse 2, during supper, when the devil had already put it in the heart of Judas Iscariot Simon's son to betray him.

So Luke 22:3 says, Satan entered Judas, and he went and talked to the Jewish leaders to make arrangements to betray Jesus.

John 13 says, when the devil had already put it in the heart of Judas's carry, that sounds like influence, but not necessarily demon possession.

And that took place.

Before he went to the Jewish leaders to make arrangements to betray Jesus.

I want to say something very quickly.

Uh, my time's running out, but I want to say something about the literal and figurative uses of words.

You remember the argument that was made by the questioner that you've got a couple of passages and you could multiply them, but there were two passages that use the same word uh entered or enter the verb enter in a literal fashion.

The same word is used in Luke chapter 23 in verse 3, Satan entered Judah, Judas.

So, are we to assume that it's literal in each case, that, that's kind of the implication of the argument.

Well, it's common, I think we understand, for the same Greek word possibly to be used in a literal physical sense in one context and in a figurative way, in another context.

In fact, when you go to a lexicon or a definition, that definition is just the beginning of deciding or understanding what the meaning of that word is.

Context will help you determine whether it's literal, figurative, or whether it's more than a word may have a range of meanings, possible meanings, and the context will help you understand which one is the right one.

Context is key.

But I wanna give you an illustration of how you can take a word that is used in a literal way, in some verses, and then it's clearly used in a figurative way in another verse.

Here's the word.

It's the word dwell.

This is the passage in Revelation chapter 2 and verse 13.

It's in the midst of the letter to Pergamum.

And the Lord says to the church, the Christians there, I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is, yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith, even in the days of Antius, my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

Well, do you understand Jesus to be saying that that's where Satan got his mail?

That, that, that's, that was his dwelling place.

Satan lived at Pergamum, or do you understand that that was the place of great influence by Satan?

I think that's clearly the idea.

But that same word is used over in Acts 2 and verse 5.

Now, there were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.

What's the meaning there?

Well, it means literally, physically, they were living, dwelling in Jerusalem.

Same word.

Here's another example in verse 14 of the same.

Word in the same chapter.

But Peter, standing with the 11, lifted up his voice and addressed the men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem.

Let this be known to you and give ear to my words.

All who dwell in Jerusalem, word is used in a physical literal sense, in Acts 2 and verse 5 and Acts 2 and verse 14.

So should we assume that it's used literally in Acts in Revelation 2:13, that Satan literally lived at Pergamum, or should we understand that in a figurative way because of the context?

See what I'm saying?

Context is key.

And often the definition of a word is determined by context.

Well, the slide that you've been waiting for.

Is this one.

This is my answer to the question.

I don't believe that Judas was possessed by Satan in any miraculous way.

And incidentally, he possession, I believe, was a miraculous.

It was supernatural activity.

I believe that Judas fell under the influence of Satan the same way that people do today.

He was tempted to do evil for material gain.

And as despicable as his actions were, he did not appear to be acting the way that demon possessed people did.

He coveted, he made a deal, he planned the deal, and he carried out the, the task.

He executed the plan.

That doesn't sound like demon possessed people, at least as they're described in other passages.

I think he was under the influence of Satan.

The principle behind Paul's counsel to not marry in the present distress is that we want to be able to give our undivided devotion to the Lord.

That's really the lesson that I want you to take from the discussion of First Corinthians that we had.

And I'm gonna suggest to you that it is when our loyalties, our devotions are divided, that that's when Satan has the greatest chance of influencing us, of filling our heart so that we end up committing evil.

If you want to resist the influence of Satan, then make sure that your heart is undivided in your devotion.

To the Lord That's the connection between these two questions.

The marriage question and demon possession, I think you see the uh the connection that I'm making.

Are you ready?

Are you ready for the Lord?

I don't know what the present distress was.

I don't know if it's persecution.

I don't know if there was something else going on there in, in Akea or in Corinth.

But what I do know is that there's a day coming when the Lord's coming back.

And only those Who are totally devoted to the Lord are going to be welcomed into the eternal kingdom of heaven.

Are you ready?

Have you obeyed the gospel?

Are you living daily?

Devoted to Christ above all other things that might Legitimately call for our attention.

But Jesus Christ comes first.

If you're not living that way, you need to change your life.

If you're not a Christian, you need to obey the gospel.

You need to allow the Lord to cleanse you from your sin.

What a wonderful thought that everything that you have ever done that was wrong, God just says, it's gone.

You're not held accountable for it any longer.

And you have the hope of being with your Creator.

Who not only made us but loves us.

has planned for our eternity, for our blessings.

And you have the opportunity to be with that God for eternity.

If you need to obey the gospel this evening, don't wait.

We invite you as we stand and sing.