14 When Christians Sue Each Other (1 Corinthians 6:1-8)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome back to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is the podcast where we explain not only what scripture means but how we figure it out. Today we're going to be studying First Corinthians chapter 6 verses 1 through 8. This is the 14th talk in our series on the book of 1 Corinthians. The lecture notes for today's talk are on the link below the podcast, and you can find them on the website. Just go to wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 1 4. And while you're there, take a moment to check out the website. There's no charge, no spam, no ads, only Bible study. Thanks for listening today. Well we are continuing our study of 1 Corinthians. He's not yet responding to the written requests from their letter. In the first four chapters, Paul addressed the issue of their lack of wisdom, which was causing divisions and factions in the church. Then in chapter five, he addressed the issue of a member of their church openly living in rebellion to God's law, and that brings us to chapter six. The passage we're going to look at today, chapter six, verses one through eight, seems to be a tangent from the discussion. It's like Paul takes a sharp turn. He was talking about the need for the church in Corinth to confront the man in their church who was living in blatant sexual immorality, and all of a sudden he starts talking about not taking each other into secular lawsuits, but rather handling those disputes among yourselves. The interpretive challenge is figuring out what is his flow of thought. How does this passage follow what he has just said? And a lot of people think it doesn't, think he's just starting over with a new topic. I think this passage does fit the flow of thought, but it takes a little work to see the connection. First let me read it and then we'll talk about how it fits into the context. So this is first Corinthians chapter six verses one through eight. Does any one of you, when he has a cause against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with the matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother and that before unbelievers? Actually then it is already a defeat for you that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, you do this even to your brethren. So this passage and Paul seem to be taking a left turn here, which presents us with two interpretive problems. First we need to figure out the connection. How does this section fit with the flow of the letter? And that's always an important Bible study question. If a passage seems completely out of place and unrelated to the flow of the book or the letter, there's a very good possibility that we have misunderstood it. Paul was dealing with sexual immorality in the church, so we have to figure out why would he start talking about lawsuits. And the second problem is we want to understand exactly what Paul is advocating. What should we do in response to this? Should we set up church courts to handle disputes among us? I mean, what are we to take away? And there's also an application problem in that I suspect this passage seems irrelevant to many of you because you're not in lawsuits with one another for the most part. Does this passage have anything to say to me if I've never taken another believer to court and I don't intend to? This is probably not a topic most of you have been worried about all week. Well, I'm going to argue that while it may not be obvious how this passage is related to what Paul talked about so far, if we stop and think about it, there does seem to be a theme that Paul is not moving on to a totally new topic. There seems to be a thread running through chapters five and six. To figure that out, let's go back and look at the context. The larger context has three big sections. The first section is the passage immediately preceding these verses where he's talking about sexual immorality. Then we have the section we're looking at today, which is the middle, and then in the next section, which follows our passage, he's talking about sexual immorality again. So in the previous section, he tells them they need to deal with the man who is openly, defiantly living in sexual immorality. That's the section where he's addressing the man who's having an affair with his stepmother, most likely while his father is still alive. And he says, You need to confront this man and tell him his choices are incompatible with the Christian faith. Then in the section that follows our passage, he returns to this idea of sexuality and he defends the idea that there is a right and wrong when it comes to our sexual conduct and there is a way we ought to conduct ourselves sexually. So those passages seem to flow from one another. If we took out this section of the lawsuits, you could see how that first discussion of the man having an affair with his stepmother could lead into the section that follows our passage. So we would expect that this passage on lawsuits to be related to the same theme. We have this analogy we call the water under the bridge. If you're standing on a bridge over a stream and you look to your left and the water is flowing, say north to south, and then you walk to the other side of the bridge and the water is still flowing north to south, you expect that the water under the bridge that you can't see to also be moving north to south. That's the idea here. If we didn't have this passage in the middle, it would be easy to see how those two sections fit together, but we do have this passage and we expect it to fit the flow of thought. So that gives us a clue that our middle section is probably related to the topic in some way. Second, notice that we find similar language before and after our section. In chapter five, this is five verses nine through eleven, he writes, and I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people. I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world or with the covetous and swindlers or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of this world. But actually I wrote to you not to associate with any so called brother if he is an immoral person or covetous or an idolater or reviler or a drunkard or a swindler, not even to eat with such one. So in chapter five we have this list, and his point was that any so called brother, any person who claims to be a believer, but is committed to pursuing the things on this list, that person needs to be called to account. Then right after our section on lawsuits, we see a similar kind of list in chapter six verses nine and ten. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. The list in chapter six is basically the same list that we saw in chapter five with a few additions. So we get this list in chapter five, this stuff about lawsuits, then we get a similar kind of list again in six ten. That suggests that there is some kind of argument running through these sections. He starts with this warning about how those pursuing immorality and living a life characterized by the things on the list ought to be warned and called into account. Then we get the passage we're going to study today, and he concludes, don't be deceived, those who pursue immorality and a life characterized by this list are not going to inherit the kingdom of God. So there's a strong and easily identifiable connection between those ideas. But what's the connection? What does lawsuits have to do with any of it? Well notice this language about judging insiders and outsiders. Paul introduced this topic back in five nine by saying, You misunderstood my previous letter. I didn't mean that you should withdraw from the world, but that you should confront a so-called brother who was actively pursuing a life of immorality. So he says, When I wrote to you not to associate with immoral people, I wasn't advocating that you no longer have anything at all to do with unbelievers. I wasn't advocating that you withdraw from the world, that's not what I meant. I was talking about not encouraging a person who is in rebellion to God to believe that all is well with God. So if you have an immoral person in your midst who is blatantly disregarding the truth of the gospel, you need to set that person straight and not let him continue deceiving himself. I wasn't talking about judging outsiders, I was talking about judging insiders. So I wasn't talking about judging nonbelievers, I was talking about judging believers. Notice the concluding verses of chapter five. This is five, twelve, and thirteen. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. And those verses lead into our section about not going to outside courts to judge conflicts in the church. So this idea of judging appears to be the bridge that connects our section. He says I wasn't talking about judging those outside the church, I was talking about judging those inside the church who claim to be believers but are not in fact living like it. And that language leads right into this section about how would you dare go to outside courts to settle disputes between believers inside the church. So you can begin to see there's some kind of connection there. So that's the immediate context. Let's look at the larger context. If we step back and we look at the big picture of Corinthians, Paul has been confronting the Corinthians with the implications of the gospel. That's really the fundamental picture behind everything he has said so far. In the real life situations they've been facing, they have to make decisions about what they believe, what being a believer looks like, what they stand for, how the gospel changes their lives, who they're gonna count on, and what choices they're gonna make. So we say we are called together in the name of Jesus, what does that mean? Can we take the name of Jesus and make it include any idea or any philosophy or trend or fad? Or does it have a specific content such that being part of Christ means this thing and not that thing? I think Paul's been arguing that the gospel has specific content. Being a believer means something specific, and Paul has been confronting them with the claim that the gospel means specific things about how I view myself, how I view sin, what I expect from God on what basis, and how I should live my life if I claim to be a follower of Jesus. And Paul's been challenging them that in some of the ways they have been living their lives, they are not living in keeping with the gospel. In fact, the choices they are making, like this casual attitude toward the man having an affair with his stepmother, those are red flags. Being a believer has implications for how I understand my sexuality and how I conduct myself because I believe that God created sexuality for a purpose and I seek to obey him in that. We believe there's only one God, and so we refrain from idolatry. We refrain from worshiping any other God or any part of creation. We believe that we are stewards of our wealth, not owners of it, and that has implications for how we handle material things and wealth. We believe we need God's mercy, therefore we strive to be merciful people ourselves. We recognize that none of us can stand before God's judgment apart from the blood of Christ, and we seek to extend that mercy that God has shown us to others. So being a Christian means I hold to truths that characterize the message of Christ, and that message is different than what the world thinks. The world thinks those kind of views are foolish, but we believe they represent the wisdom of God. And that's the kind of thing Paul's been talking about. The Corinthians have refused to judge the sexual immorality in their midst, and by judge I mean to be discerning, I don't mean to be self-righteous or judgmental, but they have refused to evaluate it in light of the Christian worldview. They're not exercising the necessary discernment to figure out when something fits with God's worldview and when it doesn't. So I'm not talking about condemning each other or judging in that sense, I'm talking about accurately assessing the situation. The underlying theme we've seen so far is this worldliness of the Corinthians and their unwillingness to embrace a distinctly Christian lifestyle. They are unwilling to adopt a Christian perspective on life to evaluate their specific circumstances. That was the deeper problem behind the strife and divisions in the first four chapters, and I think it's still the underlying problem in the issue of confronting this man living in sin. There's a streak of rebellion here. They don't want God to change their lives. They have a view of sexuality and they don't want God to come along and tell them anything different. And we can see this same rebellious attitude in this issue of lawsuits. They don't want the Christian worldview to tell them how to reconcile a dispute. For example, if you owe me money, I want my money. I don't want God to come along and talk about generosity or the eternal value of forgiveness, I want my rights in full. Well, how can I guarantee that I get my money? I'll take you to court and I'll get the coercive power of the state behind me. Well, can you begin to see this underlying fundamental issue? The basic theme that ties these topics together is the worldliness of the Corinthians. And by worldliness I mean their refusal to let the Christian gospel change their lives, their actions, their choices, and influence the way they live their lives. It started with their view of wisdom in the first four chapters, then he talked about their view of sexuality, their view of lawsuits, and then back to sexuality, which we'll see in the next section. And the string that ties it all together is their refusal to use a Christian worldview to evaluate their circumstances. So with that in mind, let's see if we can figure out this passage. I want to back up to five twelve. We're gonna take it slow, and let's do five twelve through six one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. Does any one of you when he has a case against his neighbor dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not the before the saints? So as I said, I think this language of judging insiders and not judging outsiders is the transition to chapter six. Here's a broad paraphrase of how I would reconstruct Paul's thinking going back to five nine. He's saying, You have misunderstood me if you think I was telling you to pass judgment on unbelievers and refuse to have any dealings with them. We shouldn't find it surprising that unbelievers pursue a pagan lifestyle and participate in a variety of immoral practices. They don't believe. I can't call them to account for being inconsistent with their beliefs because they don't believe the gospel. They are being consistent with their beliefs. They live in keeping with what they say they believe. But if someone claims to be a believer and claims to embrace the teachings of Christ and continues to live like the pagans, you should call that person to account for his inconsistency. That's a situation you need to address. As believers, you have a distinct perspective from the rest of the world. If someone claims to embrace the gospel and yet pursues a lifestyle that's in rebellion to the things of God, you need to make clear to her that this is hypocrisy and her belief is in question. We ought to continue to encourage each other to believe and hold each other accountable. To show you the appropriateness of judging those inside the church, let's turn the situation around. Suppose you need someone to judge for you. Suppose you have a conflict with another believer and you need someone to settle the dispute. Would you dare go to unbelievers for this judgment? They have an entirely different set of values and priorities from those of us that follow Christ. Why would you seek their discernment? Why would you expect them to render a judgment that's in keeping with the values and the priorities of those who follow Christ? For example, we might value the relationship of a brother or a sister in Christ more than money and gold. They would probably value the gold more. We might value forgiveness and mercy more than retribution and punishment. Why would we expect unbelievers to render a judgment in keeping with the values Christians hold? I think that's the kind of thinking that's going on here. And given the attitudes we've seen in Corinth, it's not surprising that they would seek a pagan court to settle a dispute between brothers. They haven't given much indication that they would hold the things of God above the things of the world. So from their worldly perspective, if I have a dispute with one of my brothers and he owes me money, my worldly perspective says I ought to get every last dime I'm owed. And if getting every last dime I'm owed is my goal, then of course I'm going to go to the worldly courts. That's what they believe. They'll see I'm right and they'll force my brother to pay up. If I go to the church elders, well, they might do something silly and say I have to forgive him and I might never get my money then. I mean, let's just keep church for Sunday morning songs and let's talk about how much God loves me, but don't let it affect my bank account. We can't let this guy get away with swindling me. Money is money, church is church. Let's just keep them separate. I want my money, not my brother, so I'm gonna go to the court most likely to give me what I want. I think that's the underlying attitude that's going on here, and that's the attitude Paul is trying to correct. Paul is bringing in another example of how Christians think differently. We use the Christian worldview to evaluate and assess any situation we find ourselves in. So we view sexuality differently than the world does, we view wealth and financial disputes differently than the world does. It's not the world's perspective that we should value and hold dear and strive to follow, it is God's perspective. It is God's perspective that we should seek to learn and figure out how to apply to our lives. So I think that's the connection. But now it gets a bit stranger. Let's look at six, two, and three. Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? All right, this gets a little weird. At first glance, it sounds like he's saying, When Christ returns, we're going to judge the world and angels, so we're competent to judge each other now. Well, the logic of that escapes me. That just doesn't seem to follow. I'm not sure what he means by judging the world and angels. But taking that at face value, how do we get from there to being competent to judge each other now? Judging angels in the future doesn't give me the wisdom of Solomon now. So what's going on here? Here's my best guess. I'm not sure I've got this right, but this is my best guess. Guess, so take it with a grain of salt. Consider the relationship between our lives now and the hope of the gospel. The Bible is full of exhortations that are based on our understanding of where we're headed. The promises of God and the hope of the gospel make a difference in how we think about our situation now. One of the big themes in the Bible is that our lives now are an educational process. We are in this process where the trials and the hardships of life confront us with choices, and those choices reveal the maturity and the depth of our faith. And as we go through life and we make more choices, we grow in understanding and maturity. As we study the scriptures and we pray and we learn and we seek God, we gain a greater understanding of what He values and how He set up right and wrong, and we seek to live our lives more and more in keeping with that. Faith is a long journey toward the same goal. We grow in wisdom and maturity and we live in a broken world in light of the revelation of God. To the rest of the world our choices may seem foolish, but God is teaching us powerful lessons. When Jesus comes back, we will be vindicated in those choices. Everyone will see that Jesus is in fact Lord and that the promises of the gospel are true, and though we look foolish now for following that straight and narrow path of the gospel, everyone will eventually see that the gospel is true and those who followed Jesus were on the right path. In that sense, believers will stand with Christ and say to the world, You went the wrong way. You were wrong, we took the right path. Now, we don't take the right path because we're smarter or better than anyone else. We take the right path because God in His mercy put our feet on it. It is part of His gift to us. So I'm not saying we'll judge the world because we were better, smarter, greater people. We will judge the world and that by the grace of God we will have gained the right perspective on the world and creation and the gospel. And the facts will show we were in the right. So we will judge the world in that sense. And I think that's probably what he means here. Now I don't really know what he means by we will judge angels. I don't think that he means we'll judge angels in the sense of Michael or Gabriel kind of angels. I just not sure how that could be true or where Paul would have learned that information. He could mean that we will judge the fallen angels in the same way we will judge fallen humanity, the way I just described. The fallen angels will be in the same boat as fallen humanity, and we will stand with Christ to say the gospel is true, Jesus is Lord, and the path you chose is wrong. That is one option. There is another option, and this is the one I'm leaning for, but it requires a non-typical use of the word, and I could be talked out of this. This is my understanding right now, but I hold it very lightly. I could be talked out of this as I learn and get more information. But notice the contrast. In six two, he talks about being competent to judge minor disputes between Gentiles. He uses this phrase the smallest law courts, by which I think he means the small little matters, the mundane, the ordinary easy stuff. Then he says in six three, do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? Notice the end, how much more matters of this life? The contrast seems to be between everyday ordinary matters and disputes in this life as opposed to judging angels. That contrast is a what, not a who. The contrast is in what you're judging, matters of mundane ordinary life versus extraordinary matters. The contrast we expect is in the kind of disputes, not the people involved in them. The flow of thought seems to be if we are able to judge on these grand angelic issues, how much more should we be able to judge the small issues of everyday life? We'd expect this grand angelic issues to be the kind of dispute, not the people. To make sense out of the context, the angels ought to refer to the issues, to the types of dispute, not the parties involved. Is that possible? But can this Greek word translated angels, which is just the Greek word angoloi, mean that? Well maybe. As I understand it, this word basically means a messenger, and depending on the context, it can be a human messenger or a divine messenger. If Caesar sends out a herald to announce his latest decree, that herald is an ongoloi, he's a messenger. If God sends Gabriel to announce the birth of Jesus, he's an ongoloi, he's a messenger. In this case, he is a divine messenger from God. Now some scholars have argued that there are places in the New Testament where Paul uses this word to represent the message of God as opposed to the messenger. And you can see how that would happen. The messenger becomes synonymous with the message, and then the word that meant the messenger becomes synonymous with the message. And in fact, I think we're going to see one of those places when we get to 1 Corinthians 11, which is the head covering passage. Paul says in 1110, therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. This is another very difficult passage that we're going to get to. But if you take that as a divine messenger, it is really difficult to make sense of it in context. But if you think of it as the message, that is, the messenger has become synonymous with the message, well, Paul just quoted two passages out of Genesis. And if this is one of those places where the messenger is standing for the message, it makes a lot of sense that he would be saying because of the message. Because of these passages I just quoted and the argument I just made from them, this is my conclusion. Okay, now we're gonna get to that passage eventually. But I just wanted to bring it in to show this is one of those places where that argument really makes sense to me. Now let's go back to 6.3 and think about it our context. What if that's what he means here? So do you not know that we will judge messages from God? How much more matters of this life? If we're being given wisdom and understanding from God such that we will be able to discern the difference between grand theological truths and heresy, how much more should we be able to judge the smallest matters of mundane life? If we can adjudicate the differences of opinion about a statement from God, because God through His Holy Spirit and grace has given us wisdom and maturity, how much more should we be able to understand the mundane issues of ordinary life? Well, that makes a lot of sense to me. I think that's what Paul is getting at, that we as believers are gaining this godly perspective on wisdom now. So the Christian worldview is the right worldview, and eventually the rest of the world will see that it is the right worldview, and we can use that perspective now. And using that perspective is the very thing Paul has been encouraging them to do throughout the letter. We ought to have enough of the right perspective and wisdom to see clearly how to settle disputes and to see that more clearly than any human court who lacks that godly perspective would see. By contrast, then, those outside the church don't have the right perspective, they lack the wisdom from God. So who is more competent to discern right and wrong among believers? Those on the wrong path or those on the right path? Of course, it's you guys on the right path. You're growing in that wisdom and pursuing the right path, and therefore you are competent to judge these issues, not the secular courts. What can some unbelieving judge teach you when God Himself is teaching you wisdom? Why would you let the world judge you now? I think that's the line of his argument. Now it does depend on a rather tenuous understanding of the word, and so therefore I hold it lightly. I could be talked out of it, but that's the view that makes the most sense to me now. Going on with four through six, so if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren? But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers. Notice the irony here. The Corinthians have been defining wisdom in a particular way and judging Paul for lacking it. We have seen that through the first four chapters. They have set themselves up as the arbiters of who and what is wise, claiming that Paul is not wise, and so here when he says, Is there not one wise man among you? I think there's a dose of irony in it. You Corinthians have set yourselves up as the font of wisdom and you can't find one wise person to settle a dispute between you. I think Paul's suggestion here of what they ought to do is fairly simple and straightforward. I don't think he's advocating that we need to set up a formal church court system. He's saying if two of you in the church have a dispute, find a third wise person to help you sort it out. This is just like when the kids fight, they go to mom to settle the argument. When two brothers or sisters in the church have a dispute, can't you find one older, wiser, or more mature person in the church to help you straighten it out? I think that's his advice. And then his last comment in seven and eight, actually then it is already a defeat for you that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and you do this even to your brethren. First let's be clear what Paul is not saying. Paul is not saying that it is virtuous to let injustice triumph, and that the righteous person will lay down and let evil run its course. The virtue is not being passive and letting evil run its course. The virtue is being loving. The virtue is seeking the other person's good. Why am I so quick to seek every dime owed me? Maybe it would be better for my sister to be shown grace and mercy. Maybe there's something more important than getting my money back. If I have a chance to offer undeserved and unmerited favor and it furthers and enhances someone's journey of faith or demonstrates grace to a watching world, that's probably more important than getting back my hundred bucks or whatever. Why not rather be wronged when I have a chance to show the love of Christ? Why not rather be defrauded when I am given the chance to show mercy and grace? I think that's the argument here. Maybe it would be better for me to say, I believe I'm right on this issue, but I care about you and I'm willing to forgo my rights. That's not being passive, it is actively seeking the other party's good. And remember, it's not always the best thing to let it go. Sometimes I need to hold the line. Paul just gave an example of that in the previous chapter. It was better for the man pursuing sexual immorality to confront him with the hypocrisy of his choice than to let it go unchallenged. It was better that he not be deceived about the gospel than that I maintain this conflict free relationship. So there's a case where seeking the other person's good meant you confront them and you hold the line. In these lawsuits, it seems he's suggesting the best option is most likely to forgive and let go and show grace, to be defrauded. The next best option might be to find a wise, mature believer to help you sort it out, but going to the Gentile court is a fail. Why not just work it out with mercy and love and grace? But rather than doing that, they're hurting back, they're seeking vengeance, and they're not forgiving, and they do that with their brothers. So he's saying, look, your goal is to win, not to show love and grace and mercy. So the principle seems to be actively seeking what's best for the other person and then trusting God for the rest. I let go of my rights in a dispute when that would bring about grace and redemption, and I hold the line when that would bring about grace and redemption. And in both cases, I trust that God will work. So Paul's confronting them with this why are you trying to win? Whose good are you pursuing? What are your values here? Why not just drop it? And if you're going to pursue it, why are you turning to secular judges whose perspective is the least likely to be in line with the gospel? You've already lost the battle because you're pursuing the wrong goal. And if that's not bad enough, you're actively seeking to wrong and defraud each other. So Paul's, I think, implying there, they're not even in the right. They are in the wrong in the dispute and they're still pursuing it. And that even with their brothers in the church. So I don't think Paul is arguing for an ecclesiastical court system, but rather I think he's arguing for seeking wisdom from a wiser person who is further along on this journey of faith. The problem with setting up an institution is that the institution can become corrupt over time. There's no guarantee that those who are in the position of judicial authority in the institution are going to be the wisest people at any given moment. A court is only as good as its judges. If the judges are corrupt or unwise, then having an institution is not going to help, and institutions tend to become corrupt over time. And even if they were wise, perhaps they're too far removed from the situation, and it would be better to have someone who is not only wise, but is familiar with the people involved in the situation in the case. So I don't think he's arguing you need an organized ecclesiastical court system to settle the disputes. You just need wise, mature believers who are willing to think like believers to help others sort it out. One more thought just to wrap this up. Notice how much this depends on Paul's belief that the gospel is true and that it makes a difference. Paul had great confidence that the message he preached is true, that Jesus is the Son of God and that he will return to judge the world and gather his people. I mean if we stop and think about that, none of us would make an argument that includes, don't you know you're going to judge right from wrong eventually? But Paul does. In fact, he makes arguments like that all the time because he's convinced the gospel is true. And we make these arguments in normal life. If I get on a bus in the middle of July that's headed to the beach, and the person sitting next to me is dressed in snow gear, I could legitimately say, you know, your choices don't make sense. This bus is headed to the beach. The way you're dressed doesn't make any sense because we're headed to the beach, and maybe you forgot where we're headed because if you knew we were headed to the beach and you believed we're headed to the beach, you would have dressed differently. The way you're living, the choices you're making doesn't make sense. And that's the kind of argument Paul is making. His argument is grounded in the idea of where we're going. The gospel is true and we are headed to judgment day. And in light of that, you want to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. You want to be seeking mercy and grace and humbly submitting to the truth of the gospel. And look, you're not doing it. Wake up and pay attention. Consider the implications of the gospel. Because right now you are dressed for snow and this bus is going to the beach. So make your choice. Get off the bus or change your clothes. And that's really the line of argument Paul's been making up to this point, and it's one we would do well to remember. Thank you for listening to Wednesday in the Word. This is the podcast that explains not only what a passage means, but also tries to teach you how to figure it out. I really appreciate you listening to this podcast, and I have three favors to ask. Please subscribe to the podcast, leave a positive rating and review on your favorite podcast platform, and tell a friend. If you support the show by subscribing and leaving a review, it really does help others find the podcast. And of course, if you can only do one thing, telling a friend is best. Our theme music is graciously provided by my friend and favorite musician Reggie Coates. I invite you to listen to more of his music on heartfeltmusic.org. I'm Chrisson Murata, and I'll see you next week at Wednesday in the Word.