The danger of treating divine commands, appointed responsibilities, and everlasting covenants as nonessential matters of Christian obedience
Theological Abstract
The authority of Scripture extends beyond the doctrines necessary for salvation to encompass the whole counsel of God, including divine covenants, moral commands, church leadership, worship, and Christian conduct. This article examines the danger of employing the distinction between essential and nonessential doctrines in ways that diminish the authority of biblical instructions or promises.
Particular attention is given to the biblical principle of divinely established boundaries, as illustrated by Genesis 6:1–4, Jude 6–7, 2 Peter 2:4–10, Leviticus 10:1–3, and 1 Samuel 15:22–23. The article then considers the apostolic qualifications for pastoral leadership in 1 Timothy 2:11–3:7 and Titus 1:5–9, arguing from a complementarian interpretation that spiritual equality and gifting do not eliminate the distinctions God has established concerning pastoral oversight.
The study also examines the historic theological commitments of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa under its founding pastor, Chuck Smith, and subsequent developments concerning women in pastoral ministry and the interpretation of God's covenant promises to Israel. Particular attention is given to the continuing identity of national Israel, the faithfulness of God to His covenant commitments, and the church's responsibility to reject antisemitism.
Finally, the article examines the relationship between biblical obedience and grieving the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), maintaining that doctrines not essential to justification may nevertheless be binding upon believers and consequential for Christian conduct, church order, and fellowship with God.
The central argument is that the church possesses no authority to diminish or disregard divine instruction merely because a doctrine is classified as nonessential to salvation.
Introduction: A Personal and Theological Concern
In November 2026, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa publicly affirmed its practice of ordaining women to pastoral ministry. According to reporting on the announcement, Lead Pastor Char Brodersen explained that the congregation had been ordaining women for several years, presenting the announcement as clarification of an existing practice rather than the introduction of a new one.¹
The announcement generated concern among pastors and congregations associated with the historic Calvary Chapel movement.
For me, these developments are particularly personal.
I began attending Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa in the 1980s and remained there through 1994. During those years, I had the privilege of sitting under the biblical teaching of Pastor Chuck Smith. His ministry significantly influenced my understanding of the authority of Scripture, biblical prophecy, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the Christian's responsibility to obey God's Word.
One of the defining characteristics of Calvary Chapel was its commitment to systematic biblical exposition and the declaration of the whole counsel of God.
Pastor Chuck taught that Scripture, rather than religious tradition, cultural expectations, or personal preferences, must establish the church's doctrine and practice.
He also maintained that the pastoral office was reserved for biblically qualified men, interpreting 1 Timothy 2–3 and Titus 1 as establishing continuing qualifications for church leadership.
The present leadership has adopted a different position.
Questions have also arisen concerning the interpretation of God's covenant promises to Israel, the relationship between the modern State of Israel and biblical prophecy, and the broader direction of the church's theological teaching.
These concerns raise a question extending beyond any single doctrinal controversy:
What happens when Christians begin treating biblical commands and covenants as matters of greater or lesser importance according to whether they are essential to salvation?
The distinction between doctrines essential to salvation and those that are not can be useful.
But when that distinction becomes a means of minimizing the authority of God's revealed instructions, it becomes spiritually dangerous.
A doctrine may not determine whether someone is saved, yet still establish a responsibility that God expects His people to honor.
The issue is not whether Chuck Smith was correct about every doctrine he taught. Like every pastor, his interpretations must be examined against Scripture.
The issue is whether the church continues to submit its doctrine and practice to God's Word.
1. God's Word Establishes Boundaries That Must Be Respected
Throughout Scripture, God establishes boundaries governing His people's conduct, worship, relationships, leadership, and covenant obligations.
Moses instructed Israel:
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2, NKJV)
The immediate context concerns Israel's obligation to obey the Mosaic covenant.
Nevertheless, the principle is significant: God's people do not possess independent authority to revise what He has revealed.
Proverbs 30:5–6 similarly warns against adding to God's words.
Paul instructed the Corinthians not to go beyond what was written (1 Cor. 4:6). Although his immediate concern involved pride and factionalism, the passage reinforces the need to avoid elevating human judgment above divine revelation.
The church is entrusted with interpreting, teaching, and applying Scripture.
It is not authorized to replace Scripture with its own preferences.
This does not mean that every traditional interpretation is necessarily correct.
Christians must continually examine whether their understanding faithfully reflects the biblical text.
However, there is an important difference between correcting an erroneous interpretation and deliberately setting aside an instruction because it is inconvenient.
The authority of Scripture requires submission to what God has revealed, not merely agreement with those portions of Scripture that appear most important to us.
The Creator's Authority to Establish Order
The biblical doctrine of creation establishes that God possesses authority over everything He has made.
Creation is not independent of its Creator.
God establishes distinctions, assigns responsibilities, and determines the purposes for which His creatures exist.
Genesis 1 describes God distinguishing light from darkness, waters from waters, and land from sea.
These distinctions reveal an ordered creation governed by divine authority.
Humanity is likewise created with dignity, responsibility, and limitations.
Adam and Eve were entrusted with stewardship over the garden, yet they were forbidden to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:15–17).
Their freedom existed within boundaries established by God.
The temptation in Genesis 3 involved more than the desire for forbidden fruit.
It involved the rejection of God's authority to determine what was permissible.
The serpent challenged God's command, and humanity attempted to exercise moral independence from its Creator.
This pattern of rebellion appears repeatedly throughout Scripture.
The fundamental question is whether created beings will submit to the boundaries established by God or attempt to redefine those boundaries according to their own desires.
2. The Biblical Danger of Overstepping God's Boundaries
Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that religious intentions, personal desires, and perceived benefits do not excuse disobedience.
The Angels Who Abandoned Their Appointed Domain: Genesis 6, Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2
One of Scripture's most sobering accounts concerning the violation of divinely established boundaries appears in Genesis 6:1–4.
The passage describes the sons of God taking wives from the daughters of men, followed by the increasing wickedness that preceded the judgment of the Flood.
The identity of the “sons of God” has been debated throughout Christian history.
Three principal interpretations have been proposed: fallen angels who transgressed the boundaries between the angelic and human realms, descendants of Seth intermarrying with the ungodly line of Cain, and powerful rulers who took women for themselves.
The angelic interpretation finds support in the use of “sons of God” for heavenly beings in Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7, as well as in the related New Testament passages concerning angels who sinned.
Jude writes:
“And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 6, NKJV)
The Greek expression translated “proper domain” includes the term archē, which in this context can denote an original position, sphere, or domain. Jude also employs oikētērion, meaning a dwelling place or habitation.
The language emphasizes that these angels failed to remain within the sphere appointed to them.
They abandoned their proper domain and consequently came under divine judgment.
Peter likewise writes of angels who sinned and were delivered into custody for judgment (2 Pet. 2:4). He places this account alongside the judgment of the ancient world and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet. 2:5–6).
Jude's subsequent reference to sexual immorality and the pursuit of “strange flesh” (Jude 7) is frequently understood by proponents of the angelic interpretation as reinforcing a connection with Genesis 6.
Other interpreters understand Jude's reference differently, and the precise relationship between these passages remains disputed.
Nevertheless, under the angelic interpretation, Genesis 6 presents an extraordinary example of created beings refusing to remain within their God-appointed sphere.
The offense was not merely the violation of a social convention.
It represented rebellion against the Creator's established order.
The theological significance is profound.
Even spiritual beings do not possess authority to redefine the boundaries established by God.
Their power, position, and supernatural abilities did not grant them permission to abandon the sphere assigned to them.
If this interpretation is correct, the account reinforces a principle appearing throughout Scripture: created beings are accountable to the Creator for remaining within the limits He has established.
However, the angelic transgression must not be treated as a direct equivalent of the contemporary debate over women in pastoral ministry. The nature of the offenses, their covenantal settings, and the biblical instructions involved are different.
The legitimate connection is the broader theological principle that God's creatures do not possess independent authority to disregard His revealed order.
The question for the church, therefore, is not whether a particular boundary seems restrictive or inconsistent with contemporary expectations.
The question is whether God has actually established that boundary through His Word.
Saul: Obedience Is Better Than Sacrifice
In 1 Samuel 15, Saul failed to carry out God's instructions concerning the Amalekites.
When Samuel confronted him, Saul defended his actions by appealing to the possibility of offering sacrifices.
Samuel responded:
“Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.” (1 Sam. 15:22, NKJV)
Saul's mistake was not that he abandoned religious activity.
It was that he substituted his own judgment for God's command.
The principle is relevant whenever church leaders justify a practice primarily by its perceived benefits rather than its conformity to Scripture.
A ministry may appear compassionate, effective, inclusive, or culturally relevant.
Those qualities do not independently establish biblical authorization.
Nadab and Abihu: Unauthorized Worship
Leviticus 10:1–3 records that Nadab and Abihu offered fire before the Lord that He had not commanded.
The precise nature of their violation remains debated, but the account emphasizes the seriousness of disregarding divine instructions in worship.
Uzzah: Sincerity Does Not Eliminate Accountability
In 2 Samuel 6:1–7, Uzzah reached out to steady the ark of God.
His action may appear understandable, but the ark was being transported contrary to the prescribed instructions (Num. 4:15; 1 Chron. 15:13–15).
These Old Testament accounts belong to particular covenantal and historical settings. They do not establish that Christians should expect identical judgments today.
Nevertheless, they reveal a consistent principle:
God's people are not free to redefine obedience according to their own assessment of what seems reasonable or beneficial.
3. The Priority of Scripture: A Foundational Calvary Chapel Distinctive
For Calvary Chapel, the priority of God's Word was not simply one ministry preference among many.
It was a foundational principle deliberately established and taught by Pastor Chuck Smith.
In Calvary Chapel Distinctives: The Foundational Principles of the Calvary Chapel Movement, Smith devoted Chapter 6, “The Priority of the Word,” to the central place Scripture must occupy in the life and ministry of the church.
He began with Paul's instruction to Timothy:
“Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (1 Tim. 4:13, NKJV)
Smith then explained:
“Another primary distinctive of Calvary Chapel is our endeavor to declare to people the whole counsel of God.”³
This statement reflects Paul's declaration to the Ephesian elders:
“For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27, NKJV)
Paul did not understand faithful ministry as selecting only those teachings that appeared immediately relevant or universally agreeable.
His responsibility was to declare God's revealed truth.
The priority of Scripture therefore involves more than teaching from the Bible.
It requires allowing the Bible to govern the church's doctrine, worship, leadership, and conduct.
The Difference Between Affirming Scripture and Submitting to Scripture
A church may affirm the inspiration and authority of Scripture while adopting interpretations that depart substantially from its historic doctrinal convictions.
Such changes do not automatically demonstrate rejection of biblical authority. Sometimes closer study reveals that a traditional interpretation needs correction.
Nevertheless, doctrinal revisions must be established through careful biblical exegesis.
The church must demonstrate that its conclusions arise from Scripture rather than from cultural expectations, institutional considerations, or a desire to accommodate contemporary attitudes.
This distinction becomes particularly important when doctrines are categorized as essential or nonessential.
If a teaching is genuinely established by Scripture, its authority does not depend upon whether obedience to it is necessary for salvation.
The church does not possess authority over Scripture. Scripture possesses authority over the church.
4. The Danger of Dividing God's Word into Essential and Nonessential Doctrines
Christians have historically distinguished between doctrines essential to the gospel and matters on which believers may disagree.
This distinction serves a legitimate purpose.
Salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8–9).
A person is not justified by possessing a complete understanding of biblical prophecy, church government, or every theological controversy.
However, a serious problem develops when the distinction between essential and nonessential doctrines becomes a hierarchy of biblical authority.
A teaching may not be necessary for salvation while remaining necessary for faithful obedience.
Consider the difference between these statements:
“This doctrine is not essential to receiving salvation.”
And:
“This doctrine is therefore less important and may be disregarded.”
The first may be theologically correct.
The second does not necessarily follow.
Salvation Is Not the Measure of Every Biblical Obligation
Jesus declared:
“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, NKJV)
Jesus did not present obedience as the means by which sinners earn salvation.
Nevertheless, He consistently connected genuine discipleship with submission to His teaching.
Paul likewise teaches that believers are saved by grace and created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:8–10).
Grace does not eliminate the responsibility to obey God.
It establishes a new relationship in which obedience becomes the appropriate response to divine mercy.
The Christian must therefore avoid reducing biblical instruction to two categories: teachings necessary for salvation and teachings that may be treated as optional.
Scripture contains many commands that are not conditions for justification but are nevertheless binding upon believers.
The Danger of Diminishing Divine Covenants
The problem becomes especially serious when the same approach is applied to God's covenants.
God's covenant promises do not derive their authority from their place within a human system of doctrinal priorities.
They derive their authority from the character and faithfulness of the God who made them.
When God declares a covenant to be everlasting, that description must be examined carefully and taken seriously.
Christians may disagree concerning the covenant's fulfillment, its relationship to Christ, and its application to Israel and the church.
However, those disagreements do not authorize believers to minimize or dismiss the covenant itself.
The essential question is not whether a divine promise is necessary for personal salvation, but whether God has spoken and whether His Word remains trustworthy.
5. God's Everlasting Covenant with Israel
One of the clearest examples of God's covenant faithfulness appears in His promises to Abraham and his descendants.
Genesis 17:7–8 describes God's covenant with Abraham as everlasting and includes the promise of the land of Canaan to his descendants.
The passage contains two related commitments.
First, God establishes an enduring covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendants.
Second, He identifies the land of Canaan as their promised possession.
The repetition of the term everlasting is significant.
The Hebrew word ʿolam can refer to enduring or perpetual duration, with its precise force determined by context.
Therefore, the interpreter must consider not only the word itself but also the covenant's subsequent development throughout Scripture.
The Covenant Reaffirmed to Israel
First Chronicles 16:14–18 recalls God's covenant with Abraham, His oath to Isaac, and His confirmation of that promise to Jacob and Israel.
The passage identifies the land of Canaan as the promised inheritance and describes the covenant as everlasting.
This repetition establishes that the promise was not an incidental feature of Abraham's personal experience.
It became part of Israel's continuing understanding of God's covenant faithfulness.
The same promises are developed in Genesis 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 15:7–21; 26:2–5; and 28:13–15.
God's Faithfulness and Israel's Disobedience
Scripture does not deny Israel's repeated disobedience.
Indeed, the Old Testament contains extensive accounts of covenant violation, divine discipline, exile, and judgment.
Nevertheless, the prophets also speak of restoration.
Jeremiah 31:31–37 announces the new covenant and connects Israel's continuing national identity with God's established order of creation.
Ezekiel 36:22–28 describes God's future work of cleansing, spiritual renewal, and restoration.
The Lord declares that He acts for the sake of His holy name, which Israel had profaned among the nations.
This is significant because God's covenant faithfulness is not presented as dependent upon Israel's perfect obedience.
His promises ultimately rest upon His own character and purposes.
The Question of Fulfillment
Christians disagree concerning how these promises relate to the coming of Christ, the church, and the future restoration of Israel.
Some understand the land promises as requiring a future national fulfillment involving ethnic Israel.
Others understand their ultimate fulfillment through Christ and the inheritance of the renewed creation.
These interpretations must be evaluated through the whole of Scripture.
However, the language of Genesis 17, Jeremiah 31, and Ezekiel 36 presents a substantial challenge to interpretations that effectively eliminate any continuing significance for God's covenant commitments to Israel.
From a premillennial perspective, the most natural reading preserves a future fulfillment of the national and territorial promises while recognizing that Israel's ultimate spiritual restoration occurs through Jesus Christ.
The important principle is that God's covenants must be interpreted according to Scripture rather than diminished because they are classified as secondary matters.
6. Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, National Israel, and God's Covenant Promises
A second example of the theological concerns surrounding Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa appeared during the August 12, 2024, broadcast of Pastor's Perspective on KWVE radio.
The program originated under Pastor Chuck Smith and has long been associated with the Calvary Chapel movement.
During the broadcast, Char Brodersen responded to a caller asking about the Jewish people and their relationship to the biblical homeland.
According to a transcript reproduced by Mark Jefferies in an August 15, 2024, article published by EmergentWatch, Brodersen stated that the land ultimately belongs to Messiah and that God will restore it to Israel under Messiah's authority.⁴
He also expressed his belief that the present State of Israel does not constitute the fulfillment of the biblical prophecies and promises concerning Israel.
What Do Brodersen's Remarks Imply About Modern Israel?
Although Brodersen's comments do not explicitly deny the Jewish people's historical descent from biblical Israel, I believe they raise a troubling theological question.
Does he regard the modern Jewish nation as the continuing national Israel to whom God made His covenant promises, or does he understand biblical Israel and the present Jewish nation as fundamentally distinct in their relationship to those promises?
This distinction is far more consequential than a disagreement concerning the timing of prophetic fulfillment.
Scripture repeatedly identifies God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants as an enduring commitment (Gen. 17:7–8; 1 Chron. 16:14–18).
The prophets anticipated Israel's restoration following periods of judgment and dispersion (Jer. 31:31–37; Ezek. 36–37).
Paul explicitly rejected the suggestion that God had permanently cast away His people (Rom. 11:1–2).
From a premillennial understanding of these passages, the Jewish people today remain the historical descendants of national Israel, and God's covenant purposes for them have not been revoked.
This does not mean that the modern State of Israel has fulfilled every prophecy concerning Israel's restoration.
The prophets describe a future spiritual renewal and national recognition of Messiah that has not yet occurred in its fullness.
Nevertheless, incomplete prophetic fulfillment must not be confused with the absence of continuing covenant significance.
The present Jewish nation's existence and its relationship to the historic homeland may be understood as significant developments within God's unfolding purposes without suggesting that every action of its government enjoys divine approval.
My concern is that Brodersen's language appears to place considerable distance between the modern State of Israel and the Israel described in Scripture.
Whether he intends that implication requires clarification. Nevertheless, I believe the implication itself deserves serious theological scrutiny.
The Covenant Precedes Israel's National Obedience
Genesis 17:7–8 establishes God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants long before the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
First Chronicles 16:14–18 reaffirms the covenant as an enduring commitment.
The prophets distinguish between Israel's disobedience, the consequences of that disobedience, and God's ultimate purposes for restoration.
Therefore, the fact that Israel has not yet experienced the fullness of messianic restoration does not, by itself, demonstrate that God's covenant promises have been canceled.
From a premillennial understanding of Scripture, the present existence of the Jewish people and their return to the land may be understood as historically significant in relation to biblical prophecy without claiming that every promised aspect of restoration has already occurred.
The distinction between an initial historical development and complete prophetic fulfillment must be maintained.
Romans 11 and the Faithfulness of God
Paul addresses Israel's relationship to God's promises in Romans 9–11.
He acknowledges Israel's present unbelief while rejecting the conclusion that God has permanently cast away His people.
Paul asks:
“Has God cast away His people? Certainly not!” (Rom. 11:1, NKJV)
Later, he declares:
“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Rom. 11:29, NKJV)
These statements must be interpreted within Paul's larger discussion of Israel, the Gentiles, unbelief, mercy, and salvation through Christ.
Nevertheless, they provide significant support for the continuing faithfulness of God toward His covenant people.
Paul's argument does not establish that every action of the modern Israeli government is morally justified.
Nor does it require Christians to offer unconditional political support to any nation.
The biblical promise of covenant faithfulness must be distinguished from approval of particular governmental policies or military decisions.
Yet political disagreements should not determine the interpretation of divine covenants.
The faithfulness of God to His promises is a theological question that must be answered from Scripture, not from approval or disapproval of contemporary political events.
A Necessary Warning in an Age of Antisemitism
This question has implications beyond theological disagreement.
It arises during a period in which Jewish communities have experienced serious antisemitic harassment, intimidation, vandalism, and violence.
The Anti-Defamation League's 2025 audit reported 6,274 antisemitic incidents in the United States that year. Although the total declined from 2024, it remained substantially higher than levels recorded before October 2023, while physical assaults reached a record high.⁵
The relationship between anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism requires careful distinctions.
Criticism of Israeli government policies is not inherently antisemitic. Christians may disagree with particular military actions, political decisions, or governmental policies without expressing hostility toward Jewish people.
Likewise, disagreement over the prophetic significance of the modern State of Israel does not automatically constitute antisemitism.
Nevertheless, theological language that appears to sever contemporary Jewish identity from biblical Israel can carry troubling implications when interpreted or misused within a climate of hostility toward Jewish communities.
Christian leaders therefore bear a particular responsibility to speak carefully.
The church must not provide theological justification for hostility, discrimination, or violence against Jewish people.
Nor should it permit legitimate disagreements concerning modern Israeli policies to become occasions for denying the dignity, identity, or historical continuity of the Jewish people.
Paul's warning to Gentile believers remains particularly relevant:
“Do not boast against the branches.” (Rom. 11:18, NKJV)
In Romans 11, Paul warns Gentile Christians against arrogance toward Israel.
Whatever one's interpretation of the relationship between Israel and the church, this warning should produce humility rather than contempt.
The church must never allow its theological disagreements concerning Israel to become an excuse for indifference toward antisemitism or hostility toward the Jewish people.
This is especially important for pastors whose public statements may influence thousands of listeners.
A theological interpretation may be offered in good faith while nevertheless being misunderstood or employed by others in ways the speaker never intended.
For that reason, clarity concerning God's covenant faithfulness and the continuing identity of the Jewish people is not merely an academic concern.
It is also a pastoral responsibility.
Chuck Smith's Love for Israel: A Personal Reflection
Although Pastor Chuck Smith did not directly address the relationship between Israel and the church in Calvary Chapel Distinctives, his convictions concerning Israel were unmistakable to those of us who regularly attended Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and received his biblical teaching.
I attended Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa from the 1980s through 1994.
During those years, I never questioned Pastor Chuck's understanding that the Jewish people of the modern State of Israel were the historical descendants of the national Israel described in Scripture.
Nor did I question his conviction that God's promises to Abraham and his descendants remained valid and that the modern restoration of Jewish national life in the historic homeland held prophetic significance.
His love for Israel and his confidence in God's covenant faithfulness were recurring themes in his ministry.
He taught biblical prophecy from a premillennial perspective and maintained that the church had not permanently replaced Israel in God's purposes.
For Pastor Chuck, the promises of Genesis 12–17, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36–37, and Romans 9–11 were not merely historical accounts of a people whose national identity had become theologically irrelevant.
They were expressions of God's continuing faithfulness.
I believe Pastor Chuck would have been profoundly disturbed to hear his grandson speak in a manner that appears to distance the present Jewish nation from the Israel of biblical prophecy.
That judgment is my personal assessment, based upon years of listening to his teaching. I cannot claim to know how he would have responded to a particular statement made after his death.
Nevertheless, the contrast between the theological convictions I remember and the implications I hear in Brodersen's remarks is deeply troubling.
The issue is not simply a departure from the convictions of a beloved founding pastor.
Chuck Smith was not the final authority on biblical interpretation.
Scripture is.
But his insistence upon the priority of Scripture included a conviction that God's promises must be interpreted faithfully, even when their fulfillment extends beyond the present age.
If God has made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his descendants, the church must exercise extraordinary caution before adopting interpretations that appear to diminish the continuing significance of that covenant.
The Danger of Treating God's Covenants as Secondary
This controversy returns us to the central concern of this article.
When Christians categorize doctrines as essential or nonessential, they may unintentionally create the impression that certain portions of God's revelation are less deserving of careful interpretation and faithful adherence.
The distinction between essential doctrines of salvation and other biblical teachings is legitimate when properly understood.
But God's covenant promises do not become less trustworthy because understanding their fulfillment is not a condition of salvation.
Nor do His commands become optional because Christians disagree over their interpretation.
The danger arises when theological categories intended to preserve Christian unity are used to minimize the significance of God's revealed Word.
The church must recognize the difference between acknowledging legitimate interpretive disagreements and treating divine instruction as inconsequential.
God's covenant promises to Israel deserve careful interpretation precisely because they concern His faithfulness.
Paul's declaration remains foundational:
“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Rom. 11:29, NKJV)
The question is not whether Christians must support every decision of the modern Israeli government.
The question is whether God remains faithful to the promises He made.
A church that begins treating God's covenant commitments as matters of diminished importance risks obscuring one of Scripture's most fundamental revelations: the absolute faithfulness of God to His Word.
7. Women in Pastoral Ministry: The Biblical Question
The November 2026 announcement concerning women's ordination raises another question about biblical authority.
The issue is not whether women possess spiritual gifts or whether they may serve Christ faithfully.
Scripture teaches that men and women are created in God's image (Gen. 1:26–27), receive salvation through faith in Christ (Gal. 3:26–29), and participate in the ministry of the church.
Women served prominently in the New Testament.
Priscilla helped instruct Apollos (Acts 18:26). Phoebe served the church at Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1–2). Lydia demonstrated hospitality and support for the ministry (Acts 16:14–15).
The question concerns the qualifications and responsibilities associated with the pastoral office.
The Pastoral Office: A Divinely Established Boundary
The biblical question concerning women in pastoral ministry is not fundamentally a question of equality, intelligence, spiritual maturity, or personal gifting.
It concerns the authority of God to establish qualifications and limitations for particular responsibilities within His church.
Scripture affirms that men and women are equally created in God's image (Gen. 1:26–27), equally dependent upon salvation through Jesus Christ, and equally recipients of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:26–29; Acts 2:17–18).
Yet equality of spiritual standing does not necessarily imply identical responsibilities within the church.
Paul writes:
“And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (1 Tim. 2:12, NKJV)
The significance of this instruction becomes clearer when examined within its literary context.
Paul does not simply express a preference concerning the organization of the Ephesian congregation.
He appeals to the creation order:
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” (1 Tim. 2:13, NKJV)
He then proceeds to describe the qualifications for bishops or overseers in 1 Timothy 3:1–7.
The complementarian interpretation understands these passages as establishing a continuing distinction between the spiritual equality of men and women and the responsibilities assigned to the pastoral office.
The restriction is therefore understood not as a judgment upon women's spiritual worth or competence but as a boundary concerning the exercise of authoritative teaching and oversight in the gathered church.
Paul's Instruction Concerning Teaching Authority
The immediate literary context of 1 Timothy 2:12 continues into the qualifications for overseers in 1 Timothy 3:1–7.
Under the historic complementarian interpretation, these passages establish continuing distinctions concerning authoritative teaching and pastoral oversight within the gathered church.
Egalitarian interpreters argue that Paul's prohibition may address particular circumstances in Ephesus or a specific form of improper authority.
These arguments deserve careful consideration.
Nevertheless, the complementarian interpretation understands Paul's appeal to creation and his subsequent instructions concerning overseers as evidence that the restriction is not merely temporary.
The Qualification: Husband of One Wife
Paul states:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach.” (1 Tim. 3:2, NKJV)
He repeats the qualification in Titus 1:6.
The Greek expression mias gynaikos andra is commonly rendered “husband of one wife” and can be understood literally as “a one-woman man.”
The phrase emphasizes marital faithfulness and sexual integrity.
Within the complementarian interpretation, its male-oriented language also reinforces the understanding that pastoral oversight is entrusted to biblically qualified men.
This conclusion rests upon the combined teaching of 1 Timothy 2:11–3:7 and Titus 1:5–9 rather than upon the expression alone.
Spiritual Gifting Does Not Eliminate Biblical Qualifications
A woman may possess extraordinary biblical knowledge, exceptional teaching abilities, administrative competence, and a genuine desire to serve Christ.
Scripture provides numerous examples of women who served faithfully and significantly in God's purposes.
Nevertheless, spiritual gifting alone does not establish eligibility for every ministry office.
The same principle applies to men.
A man may be a gifted speaker, successful administrator, or influential ministry leader and still fail to meet the biblical qualifications for pastoral oversight.
Paul requires that an overseer be above reproach, faithful in marriage, self-controlled, able to teach, and spiritually mature (1 Tim. 3:1–7).
The church cannot legitimately set aside these qualifications simply because an individual possesses unusual abilities or because a congregation desires that person to serve.
Under the complementarian interpretation, the male qualifications for pastoral oversight are not arbitrary institutional restrictions.
They reflect an order established through apostolic instruction.
The issue is not whether a woman is capable of performing pastoral functions. The issue is whether Scripture authorizes her to occupy the pastoral office.
The Influence of Contemporary Cultural Movements
The modern debate concerning women's ordination developed alongside substantial changes in society's understanding of gender, equality, authority, and institutional leadership.
The women's liberation movement challenged longstanding restrictions upon women's participation in public life, professional employment, education, and religious institutions.
Some Christian advocates of women's ordination have explicitly connected their arguments to broader concerns about gender equality.
Others have reached egalitarian conclusions primarily through their interpretation of Scripture, including their understanding of Galatians 3:28, Acts 2:17–18, Romans 16, and the historical setting of 1 Timothy 2.
These distinctions matter.
It would be inaccurate to assume that every Christian who supports women pastors is motivated by secular feminism rather than biblical conviction.
Nevertheless, the influence of contemporary cultural assumptions upon biblical interpretation remains a legitimate concern.
Pastor Chuck Smith's opposition to women occupying the pastoral office reflected his understanding that the apostolic qualifications were binding upon the church.
From my recollection of his teaching, he was also deeply concerned about the influence of the women's liberation movement upon Christian attitudes toward the pastoral office.
I share that concern.
The church must be particularly cautious when its doctrinal revisions appear to parallel changing cultural expectations.
However, the presence of cultural influence does not, by itself, prove that an interpretation is incorrect. The decisive question remains whether the interpretation faithfully reflects Scripture.
Christian Liberty Does Not Authorize the Church to Redefine the Pastoral Office
The distinction between essential and nonessential doctrines becomes particularly consequential at this point.
A congregation may argue that disagreement concerning women pastors does not determine whether someone is saved.
That observation is correct.
Salvation rests upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, not upon a believer's understanding of church government.
But the fact that a doctrine is not essential to salvation does not mean that the church may disregard the biblical instructions governing that doctrine.
If Paul's restrictions in 1 Timothy 2–3 and Titus 1 establish continuing qualifications for the pastoral office, the church has no authority to suspend those qualifications merely because the issue is considered nonessential.
To do so would confuse the conditions of salvation with the responsibilities of obedience.
This is precisely the danger addressed throughout this article.
A biblical command does not become optional because obedience to it is not a condition of justification.
The church must therefore determine through careful exegesis whether Scripture establishes a boundary concerning pastoral authority.
If that boundary is established by God, neither cultural pressure, personal gifting, institutional preference, nor an appeal to Christian liberty provides authority to cross it.
Sexual Morality and Pastoral Qualifications
The qualifications for pastoral leadership also require moral integrity.
Within the traditional evangelical interpretation of Scripture, the biblical understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman informs the sexual standards expected of church leaders (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4–6).
An individual engaged in an ongoing sexual relationship contrary to that understanding would not meet the moral qualifications for pastoral oversight.
This applies consistently to adultery, heterosexual immorality, and same-sex sexual conduct.
The biblical text does not establish that merely experiencing same-sex attraction automatically disqualifies a person from Christian fellowship or ministry.
The church must apply biblical standards consistently rather than condemning one category of wrongdoing while overlooking others.
The pastoral office is not governed simply by spiritual gifting, personal aspiration, or institutional approval. It is governed by qualifications established in Scripture.
8. Missionary Ordination and Congregational Teaching at Costa Mesa
Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa's leadership has stated that women had received ordination credentials before the November 2026 public announcement.
However, a distinction must be made between commissioning women for missionary service and recognizing women as pastors exercising authoritative teaching and governing responsibilities within the local congregation.
My understanding is that there were limited instances of women receiving ministry credentials in connection with missionary service overseas.
The circumstances and nature of those credentials require further documentation.
Nevertheless, the distinction is important.
The New Testament recognizes numerous forms of ministry without treating every responsibility as equivalent to the office of elder or overseer.
Sarah Yardley and Teaching at Costa Mesa
Sarah Yardley has served in Christian ministry in England for many years and has maintained connections with Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa.
She has also taught at Costa Mesa in gatherings where men were present.
This raises questions concerning the nature of the instruction she was authorized to provide.
The mere presence of men whenever a woman teaches does not necessarily establish a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. Acts 18:26 records Priscilla and Aquila explaining the way of God more accurately to Apollos.
However, authoritative doctrinal instruction delivered to the gathered congregation presents a different question.
Under the historic complementarian interpretation, the church must distinguish between permissible forms of instruction and the authoritative teaching responsibilities associated with pastoral oversight.
The issue cannot be resolved merely by changing the title assigned to the person teaching.
The responsibilities being exercised are as important as the title being used.
This concern is not an accusation against Yardley's character, sincerity, or spiritual gifts.
It concerns the responsibility of church leaders to ensure that congregational teaching conforms to the apostolic instructions.
9. The Cumulative Consequences of Doctrinal Change
Doctrinal changes do not necessarily occur in isolation.
They may influence how Scripture is interpreted in other areas of theology and Christian practice.
The controversy concerning women pastors involves the interpretation of apostolic instructions about church leadership.
The controversy concerning Israel involves the interpretation of divine covenants and prophetic promises.
These are distinct theological questions, and disagreement on one does not automatically determine a person's position on the other.
Nevertheless, they raise a common question:
Does the church approach Scripture as the authority governing its conclusions, or does it increasingly allow other considerations to determine how Scripture is understood?
The Cumulative Danger of Treating Biblical Teachings as Secondary
The distinction between essential and nonessential doctrines can become dangerous when it is used to diminish the obligation to obey God's Word.
A church may begin by identifying a doctrine as nonessential to salvation.
It may then conclude that disagreement over the doctrine is relatively inconsequential.
Eventually, the church may treat practices historically understood to violate Scripture as acceptable expressions of Christian liberty.
This progression is not inevitable, nor should it be attributed to a particular congregation without evidence.
Nevertheless, the theological danger is real.
The authority of a biblical command does not depend upon its relationship to justification.
Likewise, the trustworthiness of a divine covenant does not depend upon whether understanding its fulfillment is necessary for salvation.
Biblical Prophecy and Christian Conduct
Paul connects the expectation of Christ's return with encouragement, watchfulness, and holy living (1 Thess. 4:13–5:11).
John connects the hope of seeing Christ with personal purification (1 John 3:2–3).
Christians who hold differing eschatological interpretations may share these commitments.
Nevertheless, interpretations of prophecy influence how believers understand God's future purposes, His faithfulness to Israel, and the fulfillment of His promises.
For this reason, biblical prophecy should not be dismissed as spiritually inconsequential simply because Christians may disagree about its details.
10. What Does It Mean to Grieve the Holy Spirit?
Paul writes:
“And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” (Eph. 4:30, NKJV)
The Greek verb lypeō, translated “grieve,” conveys sorrow or distress.
The immediate context concerns sinful attitudes and behavior, including falsehood, corrupt speech, bitterness, anger, malice, and unforgiveness (Eph. 4:25–32).
Therefore, Ephesians 4:30 must first be interpreted within Paul's ethical instructions to believers.
Nevertheless, the broader teaching of Scripture connects the Holy Spirit with truth, holiness, and obedience.
Jesus identifies Him as the Spirit of truth (John 14:17; 16:13).
The Spirit inspired the prophetic Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:20–21).
He produces spiritual fruit in believers (Gal. 5:22–23).
His ministry glorifies Jesus Christ (John 16:14).
Consequently, knowingly resisting God's revealed truth is contrary to the Spirit's sanctifying work.
The Spirit and the Word Cannot Be Separated
The Holy Spirit does not authorize believers to disregard the truth He has revealed.
The New Testament recognizes spiritual gifts while establishing instructions governing their exercise (1 Cor. 12–14).
The possession of a spiritual gift does not eliminate the obligation to obey the biblical instructions concerning its use.
Likewise, a church cannot establish the legitimacy of a practice merely by asserting that the Holy Spirit has led it in a particular direction.
Such claims must be examined in light of Scripture.
The Holy Spirit does not authorize the church to disregard the apostolic instructions He inspired.
Resisting and Quenching the Spirit
Stephen accused his hearers of resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).
Paul instructed believers not to quench the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19).
These passages arise in different contexts and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Nevertheless, they demonstrate that human beings can respond wrongly to the Spirit's work.
When Christians knowingly resist God's revealed will, they act contrary to the purpose of the Spirit who indwells them.
This should produce serious self-examination, particularly among those entrusted with teaching and leading God's people.
11. Grieving the Spirit and the Loss of Fellowship with God
One of the most serious consequences of disobedience concerns the believer's fellowship with God.
A distinction must be maintained between salvation and experiential fellowship.
Paul teaches that believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13–14).
Jesus promised that the Helper would abide with His disciples forever (John 14:16).
Consequently, grieving the Holy Spirit should not automatically be equated with losing salvation.
Nevertheless, sin can disrupt fellowship with God.
John writes:
“If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” (1 John 1:6, NKJV)
He also teaches that confession brings forgiveness and cleansing (1 John 1:9).
The believer's standing in Christ rests upon God's saving grace.
The believer's enjoyment of communion with God is affected by obedience, repentance, and the ongoing work of sanctification.
Persistent disobedience may diminish spiritual sensitivity, hinder prayer, damage relationships, and weaken the believer's enjoyment of fellowship with God.
These consequences should not be confused with a formula in which every difficulty or spiritual struggle indicates divine displeasure.
Nevertheless, Scripture consistently connects obedience with fellowship.
Jesus declared:
“If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15, NKJV)
Love for Christ and obedience to His Word are inseparably connected.
12. Can an Entire Church Grieve the Holy Spirit?
Revelation 2–3 demonstrates that Christ evaluates the doctrine, conduct, love, and faithfulness of congregations.
The church at Ephesus was commended for testing false apostles but rebuked for abandoning its first love (Rev. 2:1–7).
Pergamos was confronted over tolerated false teaching (Rev. 2:12–17).
Thyatira was rebuked for tolerating teaching that encouraged immorality (Rev. 2:18–29).
These passages demonstrate that a congregation may continue functioning as a religious institution while facing serious spiritual problems.
Church attendance, financial resources, ministry programs, and institutional influence do not necessarily establish divine approval.
Nevertheless, Christians should exercise caution before declaring that the Holy Spirit has withdrawn His presence or blessing from a particular congregation.
Only God knows the hearts of its leaders and members.
What Scripture establishes is that churches remain accountable to Christ for their teaching and conduct.
13. The Responsibility of Pastors and Teachers
Church leaders bear a particularly serious responsibility before God.
James writes:
“My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” (James 3:1, NKJV)
Paul instructed Timothy:
“Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine.” (1 Tim. 4:16, NKJV)
Pastoral responsibility extends beyond communicating encouraging messages.
Pastors must teach sound doctrine, correct error, protect the congregation, and model obedience to Scripture.
Paul instructed Titus that an elder must hold firmly to the faithful Word so that he may exhort believers through sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).
These responsibilities require humility as well as conviction.
Pastors are not infallible.
They must remain open to correction when Scripture demonstrates that their interpretations are mistaken.
However, humility does not require treating every theological position as equally valid.
The question is not whether a doctrine is popular or culturally acceptable.
It is whether the doctrine is true.
14. Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and the Responsibility to Preserve Biblical Fidelity
The controversies surrounding Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa illustrate the importance of distinguishing institutional continuity from doctrinal continuity.
A congregation may retain its name, buildings, history, and organizational identity while substantially revising the convictions historically associated with its ministry.
The Calvary Chapel Association's Heartland Regional Team publicly expressed concern that Costa Mesa's position on women pastors departed from convictions that shaped the movement under Chuck Smith.²
Those concerns deserve examination.
However, the ultimate standard is not the teaching of Chuck Smith or the position of the Calvary Chapel Association.
It is Scripture.
If the historic complementarian interpretation accurately reflects Paul's instructions, then a church authorizing women to exercise the pastoral responsibilities restricted in those passages has crossed a biblical boundary.
If that interpretation is mistaken, the church must demonstrate the error through careful exegesis.
Similarly, if God's covenant promises to Israel retain the national and territorial significance expressed in Genesis 17 and the prophetic Scriptures, then interpretations that diminish those commitments must be examined critically.
The matter cannot be settled merely by appealing to Christian liberty, spiritual gifting, contemporary cultural expectations, or the fact that faithful Christians disagree.
Disagreement establishes the need for examination.
It does not eliminate the possibility that one interpretation is incorrect.
The Cost of Doctrinal Change
The consequences of doctrinal change are not always immediately apparent.
A revised understanding of pastoral authority may influence the church's approach to other apostolic instructions.
A changed interpretation of biblical prophecy may alter the emphasis placed upon God's covenant promises and the future restoration of Israel.
A diminished commitment to Scripture's authority may affect how moral and ethical questions are addressed.
These consequences should not be assumed automatically in every congregation.
Nevertheless, they demonstrate why doctrinal changes deserve serious examination.
What begins as a disagreement over one biblical passage may ultimately reveal a more fundamental disagreement over how Scripture exercises authority in the church.
15. How Should Christians Respond?
Christians concerned about the doctrinal direction of their church should respond with discernment, humility, and fidelity to Scripture.
The Bereans examined the Scriptures to determine whether the teaching they received was true (Acts 17:11).
Their example demonstrates that biblical discernment is not rebellion against spiritual authority.
It is an expression of responsibility before God.
Believers should carefully examine the relevant passages, consider their historical and literary contexts, and evaluate the reasoning offered by church leaders.
They should distinguish between genuine interpretive disagreements and the deliberate rejection of clear biblical instruction.
Where concerns remain, respectful questions and appeals for clarification are appropriate.
Church leaders should welcome sincere biblical examination rather than treating disagreement as disloyalty.
At the same time, those raising concerns must avoid personal hostility, exaggeration, and unsupported accusations.
The goal is not to win an institutional dispute.
It is to honor Christ and preserve the faithfulness of His church.
Conclusion: The Whole Counsel of God Is Not Optional
The controversies surrounding Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa raise a question extending far beyond women in pastoral ministry or the interpretation of God's covenant promises to Israel.
Does the church possess the authority to determine which portions of God's revealed Word deserve obedience and which may be treated as matters of lesser importance?
Throughout Scripture, God's people are called to submit to His revealed will.
From the angels who abandoned their appointed domain, to Saul's disregard of God's command, to Nadab and Abihu's unauthorized worship, Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that divine boundaries are not subject to the preferences of created beings.
The church must not confuse spiritual liberty with freedom from God's revealed order.
Christian liberty is freedom from the condemnation of sin and the bondage of attempting to earn righteousness through the law. It is not freedom to disregard the instructions of the Lord who redeemed us.
If Scripture establishes qualifications for pastoral leadership, those qualifications deserve obedience. If God has established an everlasting covenant with Israel, His promises deserve confidence. And if the Holy Spirit has revealed these truths through Scripture, the church must not diminish their authority by assigning them to a category of doctrines considered less important.
The distinction between essential and nonessential doctrines remains useful when identifying the truths necessary for salvation and the proper boundaries of Christian fellowship.
But it becomes dangerous when used to diminish the authority of divine commands or covenants.
A teaching may not determine whether someone receives salvation while still carrying substantial consequences for Christian conduct, church order, and fellowship with God.
The church's responsibility concerning Israel is especially significant in the present climate of antisemitism.
Christians must reject hatred and hostility toward Jewish people while carefully distinguishing God's covenant promises from the policies of any contemporary government.
Theological disagreements concerning Israel's prophetic future must never become justification for diminishing Jewish identity, excusing antisemitism, or disregarding the continuing significance of God's promises.
For those of us who received our biblical instruction under Pastor Chuck Smith, this concern carries particular weight.
His love for Israel, his confidence in God's covenant faithfulness, and his commitment to declaring the whole counsel of God helped shape our understanding of Scripture.
Yet the ultimate responsibility is not to preserve the opinions of Chuck Smith.
It is to remain faithful to the God whose Word he taught.
The Holy Spirit indwells believers, leads them into truth, and works to produce holiness.
He is grieved by sin and disobedience.
Therefore, the Christian life cannot be reduced to determining how much biblical instruction may be disregarded without forfeiting salvation.
The appropriate question is how believers can faithfully honor the Lord who redeemed them.
Jesus declared:
“If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15, NKJV)
Chuck Smith's emphasis upon declaring the whole counsel of God reflected an important biblical conviction.
The church is not called to select only those portions of Scripture it considers most important.
It is called to teach, understand, and obey the Word God has given.
Where Scripture has been misunderstood, correction is necessary.
Where Scripture has spoken clearly, obedience is required.
And where human preferences conflict with God's revealed will, the church must choose faithfulness over accommodation.
God's authority is not divided into essential and nonessential portions. Every word He has spoken deserves faithful interpretation, reverence, and obedience.
References
1. Anugrah Kumar, “Pastors React after Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa Says It Ordains Women Pastors,” The Christian Post, November 8, 2026, https://www.christianpost.com/news/pastors-react-to-calvary-chapel-costa-mesas-ordination-of-women.html.
2. Josh Blevins and the Calvary Chapel Association Heartland Regional Team, statement concerning Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa's ordination of women, November 6, 2026, cited in Kumar, “Pastors React.”
3. Chuck Smith, “The Priority of the Word,” in Calvary Chapel Distinctives: The Foundational Principles of the Calvary Chapel Movement (The Word for Today Publishers, 2004), 59.
4. Mark Jefferies, “Calvary Costa Mesa Lead Pastor Dismisses Israel's Present Right to Their Homeland,” EmergentWatch, August 15, 2024, accessed November 10, 2026, https://emergentwatch.wordpress.com/category/calvary-chapel/. The article attributes the remarks to Char Brodersen's August 12, 2024, appearance on KWVE's Pastor's Perspective. A recording excerpt is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivFFos5tkjw.
5. Anti-Defamation League, Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2025 (2026), https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit-antisemitic-incidents-2025.
Scripture Index
Old Testament: Genesis 1:26–27; 2:15–17; 2:24; 3; 6:1–4; 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 15:7–21; 17:7–8; 26:2–5; 28:13–15; Leviticus 10:1–3; Numbers 4:15; Deuteronomy 4:2; 1 Samuel 15:22–23; 2 Samuel 6:1–7; 1 Chronicles 15:13–15; 16:14–18; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Proverbs 30:5–6; Jeremiah 31:31–37; Ezekiel 36–37; Zechariah 12:10–13:1.
Gospels and Acts: Matthew 19:4–6; Luke 6:46; John 14:15–17; 16:13–14; Acts 2:17–18; 7:51; 16:14–15; 17:11; 18:26; 20:27.
Pauline Epistles: Romans 9–11; 16:1–2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 12–14; Galatians 3:26–29; 5:22–23; Ephesians 1:13–14; 2:8–10; 4:25–32; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:22; 1 Timothy 2:11–3:7; 4:13–16; Titus 1:5–9.
General Epistles and Revelation: James 3:1; 2 Peter 1:20–21; 2:4–10; 1 John 1:5–9; 3:2–3; Jude 6–7; Revelation 2–3.
