Published: August 20, 2026 | Speaker: Chuck Hartman | Series: Biblical Theology Part 3 - The Kingdom of God - Part 2 | Scripture: 1 Cor 15:20-28; Colossians 1:9-18
Transcript
View Full Transcript →
0:08
That's like eating pre-blessed food, isn't it? Ain't nothing changed. So, everybody who's watching by video gets the unpraed for version.
0:26
Talking about the kingdom and I mentioned two weeks ago that There's never been a kingdom in human history that in any way is an
0:36
appropriate analog to the kingdom of God. And so in some respects, 21st century believers are at an advantage
0:48
to those from the 19th century and earlier. In other respects, we're we're not. And I want to talk about that because I think the first thing we need to do um
0:59
there's two things that that I think get in the way of understanding the biblical revelation of the kingdom of God. The first one is
1:11
that's a lousy pen.
1:31
We have presuppositions that are wrong. And in this we need not feel condemned because the disciples did too. In fact, all of second temple Judaism had precon conceptions about the kingdom
1:42
that were wrong. In fact, if if any had it right, it was old man Simeon and then he quickly died. So, and Anna, you know,
1:52
the two that that met the the baby uh in the temple, they may have had a and I'm sure there were others, but certainly the disciples the disciples had an incredibly political view of what
2:04
the kingdom was going to be, and that was fairly common. Um, but not universal among Jews. Some Jews didn't look for the kingdom at all, the Sadducees especially. But even now and and
2:15
throughout time with dispensationalism, but even covenant theology, replacement theology, um all sorts of different theologies that have pre presupposition,
2:26
preconceptions about the kingdom, most of which derive not from the Bible, but from our own political system,
2:36
political history. political history. So I think one of the first things we need to do is to kind of disabuse oursel of any notions that the kingdom of God
2:46
is analogous to. You know um Jesus did not say the kingdom of of heaven is like Nebuchadnezzar you know or Asher Bannerpool or you know
2:58
he he didn't point to any earthly kingdom and say this is what the kingdom of God is like. Frankly, if any political science majors have been listening to Jesus, they thought he was
3:08
off his rocker. The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. I mean, that's really weird. You know, what he said about the kingdom is so counterintuitive and certainly
3:22
counterexperient for human history that I think when we read those parables, we we ought to step back and realize this is something not like anything man has actually seen.
3:35
And we need to do that. At least I think we need to do that because as Israel was to be, the church is to be the representative of the kingdom. The
3:47
church is not the kingdom, nor was Israel the kingdom, nor will the kingdom be Israel in a future age. The kingdom transcends Israel. It transcends the
4:00
church. And yet during the the that dispensation, Israel was to be a representative of the kingdom and even through her kings, she was to represent
4:11
the one true king. The church has the same charter. same charter. So throughout the history of the church, the church has not done a really good job. And we're going to talk about that
4:22
this evening. In fact, I think we can we can address some of the major objections that have been thrown at Christianity by attributing them to a
4:33
misunderstanding of the biblical doctrine of the kingdom of God. I mentioned two weeks ago that you know the movie about Baldwin the four fourth the king of Jerusalem
4:44
the movie's title kingdom of heaven and and that's what um the whole idea of the crusades was
4:54
founded upon. So a very very wrong presupposition about what the kingdom was meant to be. So I think that's one thing we need to do. The second
5:18
when did the kingdom begin? And I mentioned this again two weeks ago just alluded to the the common views. The kingdom began when Jesus became preaching. The kingdom of heaven is at hand. or the kingdom began when God
5:30
called Israel out of Egypt and brought them to himself at Mount Si. I think both of those have elements of truth, but they are in fact progressive stages
5:43
of the kingdom. We talked two weeks ago about the fact that God in in my view God became king
5:53
when he created and the logic there is simply I don't have any verse to to point to but the logic there is a king implies a kingdom
6:05
implies a realm a king that has no realm and has no kingdom isn't much of a Now, we can't understand. I I think it's
6:16
impossible for us to understand creation. We're going to talk about that, Lord
6:27
willing, next week because the scripture does open the door um at least to questioning and surmising um what what was.
6:40
But there was nothing before God. Not in time, not in space. Both of which are creations of God or by God.
6:52
And so to say that God is king of himself is somewhat meaningless. In fact, it is meaningless.
7:03
So I believe that the kingdom did not begin when God delivered Israel and brought them to Sinai. Nor did it begin when Jesus John the Baptist and then Jesus came preaching repent for the
7:14
kingdom of heaven is at hand. The kingdom of God began when God said let there be light. what he did there was the fundamental
7:25
responsibility of any king and that is to bring order out of chaos and that's going to be a theme that that I think pervades the scripture and from
7:36
a biblical theological point of view undergirds the biblical doctrine of the kingdom of god. It is not political. It is not spiritual
7:48
or I should say it is not merely political. It is not merely spiritual. It is not merely invisible. It is not merely coming. It is not merely here. It is not merely past. All of those things
7:59
are nothing but facets of a multiaceted thing that we call the kingdom of God.
8:10
So if we boil it down to bringing order out of chaos, we've pretty much summarized Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.
8:21
Corinthians 15. That that is what Jesus is doing right now. He's reigning until all his enemies are made a foottool to his feet under his feet. In other words, he is bringing order out of chaos.
8:33
That also from a political and a um anthropological point of view helps explain how the world has changed
8:44
in the past 2,000 years and especially in the past 500. that the world today is nowhere like the
8:55
world that Jesus lived in, that Paul lived in. And we're going to talk about that some this evening. What what is going on in the world and and it's not all good. I I don't want to be
9:06
misunderstood as some pie in the sky optimist about man's capabilities because anytime you see man advancing relative
9:17
to creation, in other words, subduing it, you also see he is advancing in wickedness and in the capacity of murder,
9:30
killing. Let's say it that way. All right. Maybe it's it's it's it's um officially sanctioned murder, but it nonetheless what whatever we manage. Here's a great example.
9:43
Um what was his first name? Haberitz. Fritz Habber Fritz Habber figured out how to fix nitrogen. In other words, draw nitrogen out of the
9:54
air. And the air is like 80% nitrogen. And by doing so, the Germans were able to synthesize
10:05
fertilizers, which meant the dwindling guano supply in South America was relieved. The birds could poop without pressure. Okay? They didn't have to send ships down. That was the fertilizer in the
10:17
late 1800s. But being able to fix nitrogen enabled uh farmers to use fertilizer and increase yields of crops.
10:27
But you can also use uh nitrogen in explosives. And so fixing nitrogen out of air enabled the Germans and then later the British and later the Americans to
10:38
create more and more and more powerful bombs. Okay. So here's a good thing. You know, we can feed more people because we can get more crops from an acre of land and
10:49
that's more people that we can kill with the bombs that we make out of the same nitrogen. That that's man. That's fallen man. We're we're not capable. And I think this is a strong argument against
10:59
the theory that the church is going to somehow progressively bring in the kingdom and then Jesus will come back. No, that's I don't think that holds any water. Nonetheless, um
11:12
the responsibility of kingdom people and that's what Christians are. Their responsibility with regard to the kingdom as a concept is fundamentally to
11:24
bring chaos. I'm sorry, order. Bring chaos. Say that right or turn the tape off. U to bring order out of chaos.
11:36
Any questions? Any questions? Two. Hey Erin and then a really understand
11:52
but was there chaos before creation? Was there chaos before creation? Well, you'll have to hold on till next week then because I think if you if you read Genesis
12:04
read Genesis 2, you're reading chaos. You're reading terms that are you only ever used in the in the Bible to refer
12:16
to chaos and that in a chaos that is specifically as a result of judgment. It's very unique. The terminology being used there is very unique.
12:27
What is chaos? Chaos. All right. Chaos is disorder. is disorder. I see it as the opposite. I see it as the antithesis of No. That gets you into um the idea of
12:40
whence's evil, you know, where did evil come from? You know, it is a it is a very difficult thing to think about. But all of all of those things, chaos,
12:52
disorder, darkness, sin, wickedness, evil, they are all under the sovereign control of God. Yet he is not the creator of any of them. Is that a fair
13:04
statement? So the the the uh the presence of these things does not detract from his sovereignty. It merely fits into his purpose.
13:19
Yeah, that's a weird thing to say. But isn't everything controlled by a sovereign God? sovereign God? Even even Satan is controlled by God, is he not? he not? That's why I don't like the word chaos. Well, I don't know another word to use.
13:30
Um we could say disorder. um the the actual the word chaos is a Greek word so it has some merit in that
13:41
um so and and al also you you when you talk about order you talk about what's called cosmos called cosmos so typically in in this discussion you
13:52
have chaos versus cosmos chaos it it I I'd like the word to stay because I think we need to recog recognize just
14:03
how messed up we've made we've made this world and just how massive a task that Jesus both has and has accomplished.
14:16
He who spoke light into darkness has spoken into our hearts. He who made order out of chaos in the
14:28
beginning is making order out of chaos in our
15:10
Yep. Seems to me eventful because it's going to happen.
15:22
Except you you you said the train lead the station. Okay. All right. One is what happens when the train enters the station? When it comes to the st the train is at hand. It's at hand. Yeah. And you're ready to
15:34
receive it. You're ready to move into it and move with it. But it's been traveling. And so the kingdom didn't just start with Jesus. The kingdom was expected. I
15:46
I pointed that out two weeks ago that nobody asked Jesus, "What are you talking about?" Okay, everybody remember that? Uh I know everybody. What am I talking about? Half of you were weren't
15:56
even in diapers at the time. Different strokes. that that TV show Different Strokes. You remember that? What what you talking about, Willis?
16:06
about, Willis? You know, nobody said, "What you talking about, Jesus?" about, Jesus?" Nobody asked, "What are you talking about?" Because from Daniel, just from Daniel, we see the kingdom was already coming.
16:19
So to say the kingdom of is at hand is not the same as saying the kingdom begins. Oh, the the kingdom is at hand like the train is at the station. It's it's here now because the king is here.
16:32
John could say the kingdom was at hand because he was the forerunner to the king. But the kingdom could never be at hand until the king came. Even his parables talk about that.
16:44
That the the king goes off to a far country. You know, that doesn't mean he's no longer he's not king and he's not sovereign, but he's not here now. He's here. He's still here.
16:58
He's represented by the Holy Spirit. He said, "I will not forsake you nor leave you." Right? "But I will come and I will dwell with you. I will dwell in you." So, he's still here. And so, the kingdom is still here. Does that make any sense?
17:24
Okay. Well, you haven't gotten that Wi-Fi thing yet. Okay. Well, maybe when you get that I could just simply plug into it. Okay, [laughter] you just give me the password. We'll just be direct connected.
17:36
Um, well, I'm going to take the position that the kingdom began when God created a realm.
17:46
a realm. And I'm obviously going to take the position that in doing so, he overcame
18:07
Well, we have to talk about that. Okay. Um I I will say ahead of time that that we always interpret the the word beginning sheet chronologically
18:18
and that is not how the Hebrews use it. um beginning is not necessarily a calendar. It's the beginning of of a of a process.
18:32
What we have to deal with and and this is what we're going to talk about next week. So I don't want to get too deep into it this week. But what we have to deal with is the meaning of toou vabu formless and void
18:44
and the meaning of darkness that covered the face of the deep. Now, those are four words that are full of Old Testament significance, none of
18:56
which is good. We talked about when we we talked about the the Exodus and how the deep
19:06
represents wickedness and evil and rebellion, and it does biblically. Um, the deep is where Leviathan dwells. So the terminology in Genesis 1 1 and
19:20
two is at best troublesome. Okay? And we'll we'll talk more about that. But it it cannot be avoided is my point. You you cannot simply go in the
19:32
beginning God created the heavens and the earth and God said let there be light. All right? There's something in between there
19:43
that uses very significant terminology. None of the words of which can be given a positive spin. Okay, that's where we're headed.
19:57
What's that? What's that? We away. I hope. I hope. Um and so I maintain that the kingdom began when God spoke, "Let there be light." as really
20:07
the ultimate the ultimate restoration of order out of disorder or out of chaos. And again, I point to um 2 Corinthians 4:6 where Paul, I think, is
20:19
clearly alluding to Genesis 1:3. And there is no greater disorder than the human soul separated from God.
20:30
Is that a fair statement? All other disorder, Paul teaches Paul teaches in Romans 8, all other disorder derives
20:40
from that disorder, right? Except perhaps, and we really don't know what to say about this, the angelic hosts. Okay? You know, they're out there
20:52
and they're fallen. Some of them, about a third of them, okay? And we know that even Adam had nothing to do with that. So there there's something else going on
21:02
out there about which scripture does not give us enough I think to be dogmatic except as to its existence that there are powers and principalities and forces
21:13
of darkness in this present age and yes we battle against them and not against flesh and blood but of their origin we have no definitive revelation.
21:26
So we have to start in the beginning with what God did when he spoke light into darkness into darkness with the intention of ultimately through his son Jesus Christ speaking light in
21:38
the darkness of fallen hearts and through that speaking light into the darkness of a fallen world.
21:55
Any comments, questions? All right. So, these are the these are the things that I think I want to establish early on. And so, I'm going to attack the presuppositions first. And, you know, I have a statement up
22:06
here that that some of you would read and and cringe. Power to the people. That that is that is the mantra of
22:32
you find that it begins the same place as democratic republicanism. That we share a common ancestor and in that common ancestor there was a
22:42
common goal common goal and that goal was power to the people. So we being Americans um especially those of us who grew up
22:53
during the Cold War find communism to be even satanic
23:05
and certainly as it has been practiced in the in the history of communism especially the 20th century I think it is it's it's a horrible thing but it has the same philosophical roots
23:18
as our Republicanism. Okay. Now, it's like, you know, you you've got some you got some cousins in West Virginia,
23:29
West Virginia, right? Maybe you don't want to admit it, but 23 and me will prove that you got the same ancestor. And and that's what you can do. You can
23:39
go um you can go back from Markx from Markx or John Stewart Mill who was who was
23:53
socialist. You can go back to Hegel and then from Hegel you can come forward to a lot of conservative philos philosophy of the 19th century but you
24:05
can go further back to John Lockach Jean Jacqu Rouso and the enlightenment of the 17th century.
24:15
17th century. So what's going on here in our in our history, our political history, is that we actually derive.
24:51
these two men and and and many others. I'm just picking on these two. Lock is the I'll start with Rouso. Rouso is the one who theorized about natural man,
25:04
man without any form of government. And that was his ideal state. He called it the state of nature. that man without any form of government is is ideal. Every single man, that's
25:17
the point. Because in the 17th century, people weren't talking about individual rights, individual individuals. The only individual that mattered was the king.
25:29
He was the only individual and everyone else was in him. And so when Rouso starts talking about the individual, the individual, he gets banished.
25:40
This is not a safe conversation to have in the 17th century. So with Rouso we have this idea of natural man
25:59
a state of nature. This is ideal. But nature is cruel. Nature is dangerous. So man developed a social contract where he agreed to give up some of his
26:10
liberty in order to provide greater security for a larger number, a community and later a a city or a city state. This idea of the social contract is often pointed to by
26:23
our founding fathers that that you you get together and you decide on laws that will increase the great give the greatest security at the
26:34
least cost of personal liberty. So that's Rouso Lock. Lock came up with the idea of the right of rebellion
26:52
Rouso. And these were these were dangerous things to say at that time. But and many others were saying the same thing or similar things. And these were the voices and the writings
27:04
that our founding fathers read, studied, and incorporated into the US Constitution. But these are also the men that Carl
27:16
Marx read and Friedrich Engel read and they came up with something different. Okay? But they were all reading the same source material.
27:27
source material. That's why I say it there was a common ancestor that led to two vastly different and yet strangely similar offspring.
27:40
Republicanism and communism. Right now, where I'm heading with this is the idea that came out of the Enlightenment that the emphasis is on
27:55
the rights the rights of the individual.
28:09
Now, I I would personally trace it further back, but we don't really have the time to do that. But in in our philosophy class at Milton, we would trace it further back to the Reformation. And from there, we trace it further back
28:19
to scripture. But the thing about the res reformation is it fundamentally restored the individual's right of access to God through Jesus Christ. It
28:31
removed the layers of mediators that had been built up through the middle ages and gave power back to the people both to read and interpret their scripture
28:42
but also to pray and commune with God without anyone in between except Jesus Christ. that that is a powerful um paradigm
28:53
um paradigm and it's it's the reason that Protestant nations have been freer on average than Catholic nations and remain so.
29:05
So, you know, we can go even further back, but we're only going to go to the Enlightenment because that's where we get uh the the more political aspects of this philosophy of this thought. So
29:27
you know, we look at communism and we look at it through the lens of either the Soviet Union or communist China, both of which either had or or have
29:37
oppressive governments. oppressive governments. We also look at communism through the lens of Americanism and of personal individual rights that are unknown
29:50
through most of human history and even in the world today largely unknown. So we have to realize that when we look at communism we're looking at it correctly
30:00
and we're looking at it practically and in the way it actually happened but we're not looking at it on the basis of of its theory. There there's nothing actually wrong with the theory of communism except the
30:12
fact that it's impracticable with fallen man. Okay? But the idea behind communism is not in and of itself
30:22
offensive. In other words, it's it's meant to provide for everyone. Now, what it ended up doing because of its inefficiencies, its inherent inefficiencies, is it
30:33
lowered almost everyone to a state of abject poverty. abject poverty. and it raised the state to a supreme
30:43
power. But that's not intrinsic. That's not essential to the political system or economic system known as communism. Is that a fair statement?
30:54
You know that that's the result of Malcolm. That's the result of Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin. Okay. That that's what they did with it. But I mean, frankly,
31:06
if you've read if you've read Markx
31:16
Independence, you you might surmise that Markx could have written it because both views. Okay, so communism is allegedly power to the people.
31:33
That was the battlecry during the Bolevik revolution in 1917 that we were going to raise the workers, raise the surfs, raise the peasants and bring down the aristocracy.
31:45
And and even more important and more central to this whole idea is we're going to bring Oh, wow. Where these
31:58
faint colors come from? We're going to bring
32:12
down the king. We're going to topple the king. So, how does 1917 differ from 1776
32:24
in that political idea? I mean, how many of you have read the Declaration of Independence? I mean, the whole thing
32:39
Yes. And we did. Yes. Yes. That the the influence of God and and I I'm going to say it that way because it's not actually the influence of Christianity,
32:50
of Christianity, but the influence of God stabilized a an idea called human rights. that the absence of God. Now, we're going back to the beginning, right? We're actually
33:01
going back to Genesis because in Genesis, we find out that man is created in the image of God. And we're going to see as we go through that book, especially the first three chapters,
33:12
that the uniqueness of the biblical pattern is the democratization of that image. That's something we're going to talk
33:23
about in future weeks. It was not uncommon for man to claim to be the image of God in the ancient near east. But who was that man within a society? It was the
33:37
king. Right. king. Right. Right. It wasn't everybody. The king was the embodiment of the national god. But scripture and Christianity flowing out
33:49
of scripture democratizes that. All men and women, all human beings are imagebearers. So, you're absolutely
34:00
right. That's where that's where they diverged. And and believe me, I'm not I'm not advocating communism. I'm just saying in its theoretical form, but
34:11
frankly, we're a long way from our theoretical form. If you read the Constitution, you find out how far we are from our theoretical form. Well, it
34:21
looks good on paper, but without God, it cannot be good. Not even approximately. even approximately. But I want to make sure that we don't um
34:32
we don't look at two common two common lines of political disscent and and look at the one and see how godless it is
34:43
and then look at the other and claim that it is godly. You don't become godly by simply not being godless. being godless. Does that make sense?
34:55
Okay. And there there is a tendency within our country especially, but it was also very popular during the heyday of the British Empire. There's a tendency to divonize
35:09
a political or economic system that is nothing more than the creation of fallen man. even though it may be tremendously
35:20
better than the other one. And I do believe that our form of government is the best in human history. And I believe our constitution is the greatest political document ever written by men,
35:33
but is not inspired. And capitalism and republicanism and democracy are still operated by fallen human
35:43
beings. Okay? So, we need to look at things with our eyes wide open. And that's why I'm trying to to to lay this in front of you because I think we need to realize that even our form of
35:54
political society derives from an era that was um not necessarily ungodly but tended in that direction and
36:06
certainly led in that direction. A you don't think
36:22
I would say James Madison most certainly was influenced by Christian principles. Yes, James Madison absolutely was and his primary um the primary principle that um motivated him was the doctrine
36:35
of sin and he created a form of government that enabled human political sin that's what he was dealing with to actually counteract itself and he wrote
36:46
about this he wrote about it in the federalist papers so yes there that's what Katherine was saying the the the point at which these two views diverge bifurcate is one under a
36:59
paradigm of a god who is the creator and the moral governor and that's about all I can say in general about what our
37:09
founding fathers believed very few of them can be classified as evangelicals by their own writings okay um on the other hand you have a
37:21
system whereby god was completely reed Ed and athem atheism was embraced. There's no way that those two offspring could develop over the generations in
37:33
the same way. And one of them manifested the ungodliness of atheism while the other retained the dignity of a theistic society. Eric,
37:45
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Speaking of influence of God influence their writing, not as much as lock did. Have you read
37:56
their writings? Constitution. You won't read you won't read the name of God in it. I don't think you have to. No, you don't have to. But you have to read their writings.
38:06
Yes, you do. What I wanted to say was that along the same lines I think that say I think
38:17
I think I think that God can even use those who don't believe everything wait I've also said that it's the greatest document political document
38:28
ever written in human history. The one thing I will not allow is for anybody to interpret me as denigrating the Constitution or the tremendous, brilliant statesmen who framed it. That
38:42
they absolutely were. The word inspired in a Christian context means Paul, Peter. Okay, I'm not inspired when I write the notes, but I hope they're beneficial. I hope they're accurate. To
38:54
say uninspired is not the same as saying wrong. That's ridiculous. I mean, these guys that they read, they studied, they studied human nature, and they wrote
39:06
much about their discoveries, but I think each one of them would admit that they were far more influenced by the Enlightenment Philosoph.
39:22
That's their their own writings. Yeah. I do not think many of them of I think some of them a lot of them were preachers. Witherspoon. Yeah. Wither. And I would have I would probably put Witherspoon in the the camp
39:35
of I I would take him to be as much as I could tell an evangelical. But when I when we talk about the founding fathers and the framers of the
39:46
Constitution, the the the phrase tends to narrow down to the men like Madison and Hamilton, Adams, and Franklin. by their own
39:59
circles and their own churches and their own people. own people. Benjamin Franklin was not influenced by his church. his church. These men were deists.
40:09
We we cannot sanctify their the fact that they were for the most part deists. On the one hand, we can say that even a
40:20
deist is a theist and believes in a god who ordered all things. And the idea of the enlightenment during that dur the western European enlightenment that came over to North
40:32
America was that God has given us a pattern of order but he has also given us a rational mind and that the height of wisdom is to
40:44
associate the human rational capacity with the divine order as displayed in nature. That that is not Paul. Okay. It it's not
40:56
it's certainly not Markx and certainly not Lenin. And I and again I want to agree with Katherine that the adoption of atheism set that entire wing off into
41:07
a demonic path. But I also think that we we need to we need to read history as it actually was. These these men believed in a godordered
41:23
universe. Very few of them believed in the deity of Jesus Christ. Deas was one who believed the the cosmic clock maker clock maker that God created everything and
41:34
subjected it to natural laws like gravity kind of wound it up. And the nice thing about a clock maker is God could every now and then come in and rewind it, you know, so God is not completely out of the picture. Um but
41:47
but that was the that was the uh the religious philosophical environment of the 18th century and that's the the the atmosphere in which our founding fathers
41:59
breathed. I I I visit their homes. We were at Montichello last month. Okay. I'm not fond of Thomas Jefferson, but he was a brilliant man. Okay. Uh I've been to um
42:12
John Adams house in Brainree, Massachusetts. love his library. James Madison, his his Melier in Virginia, Washington's, you know, these
42:25
are these men. There's no other country that I can think of except maybe Republican Rome that could put together a group of men like these men. I I I I
42:35
mean, I speak very highly of them. I teach about them. I read about them. And I go visit their houses. So I I I'm not denigrating them, but we have to let history be what history is.
42:47
We cannot rewrite it and they believe what they believed and they wrote what they believed and for the most part they they cannot be uh
42:59
attributed evangelicalism. But they were still brilliant statesmen, brilliant readers, and they came up with a brilliant form of government that I wish
43:10
we still had. And if you wonder what that means, you'll have to attend US history next year. Or actually government, we're teaching that this semester.
43:23
Yeah. Yeah. He took out miracles and the deity of Christ. And and nobody I don't think anybody pretends that Jefferson was a Christian. Um there's some argument that um I mean there's there's a gradation.
43:35
You know, they they they did all talk about God. Um, but their their favorite word for God was not Jesus. Anybody know what it was?
43:48
Providence. That was their favorite word for God. Providence. Okay. Now, that's that is significant. But that's that's that's actually um and
43:58
I had a feeling that you know I was going to ruffle some feathers because you know whenever you speak negatively
44:09
you're interpreted as as somehow dissing the great founding fathers but I admire them immensely and I have read their writings and I
44:20
just can't I can't say that I don't know that John James Madison was a Christian. Now, if we get if I get to
44:30
heaven and there's James Madison, I'll be thrilled, be thrilled, but I don't think so. By his own writings, I don't think so. So the point being is that retaining
44:42
theism and a theistic structure to society made a world of difference between the other branch of the family that rejected theism and adopted
44:53
atheism. And and that's the only point I I want to to gain here. I don't want I really don't want to try to prove to you the the personal faith of any of these men. Um or
45:06
[sighs] the way I'm using the word inspired is the biblical way. I understand we could talk about an inspired composer or an inspired art. That's fine. And these men politically
45:16
speaking were indeed inspired and they were in for me inspiring. But I'm talking about the god breathed. Okay? That's all I'm
45:27
talking about. I want to limit the definition that I'm using of that word so that not to not to disrespect any of them, but they were not god breathed.
45:38
Okay. So, in fact, frankly, I think that for me makes the constitution even more amazing because it is a really brilliant document. All right. But my my point I'm
45:48
trying to make is that this was the goal the ultimate goal of Marx and the focus in Marx was the people
46:02
that the the proletariat would raise up and that the people would govern the country communally. country communally. Horribly impractical but Marx was a
46:15
Lenin was not a philosopher. He was a revolutionary. And so he did not bring power to the people. He brought power to the pullet
46:25
bureau which meant power to himself and a handful of cronies. And what happened to the people? Well, they end up no better off under him than under the zar.
46:36
Okay. So, yeah, it didn't it didn't work. But let's look at republicanism.
46:48
And I never get these prepositions right. Is it of the people, by the people, and for the people? Yeah. Good. Okay. So
47:07
isn't that kind of the same thing as power to the people in the sense of governmental power or authority? It is derive to derive not from God
47:18
through the king but from the people. So here's where there's a commonality between the two strands. A commonality that could not stay
47:29
together because of their adoption on the one hand of a theistic universe and on the other an atheistic one. But nonetheless the some of the the pittheist phrases that are associated
47:42
with each involve the people. And so what did what did we do?
48:00
Right. We didn't just topple the king. Our constitution forbids any American citizen from holding an aristocratic
48:17
We brought down the aristocracy. We replaced it with a meritocracy. A man is only worth what he does. He has no hereditary worth at all in in our
48:27
system in our constitution. It is it's explicitly within our law. So when one of our leaders and I don't know how many I know Ronald Reagan was kned
48:40
when he came back to the states he was not referred to as Sir Ronnie
48:51
constitution. Okay. He was he was a knight of the guarter or something or other over in in Great Britain. But when he came back here, he was President Reagan or Mr. Reagan. Our titles are almost
49:05
like French Revolution, citizen Reagan. We we don't have titles because we we we we didn't just
49:16
overthrow a king, we overthrew a concept, the same concept that communism overthrew. So I'm simply trying to show that we
49:28
live in an era that is largely dominated now by two political thought systems. On the one hand led by the United States is
49:39
democratic republicanism. democratic republicanism. But on the other hand led by now I guess China you have communism. Now it it's
49:50
remarkable how many communist countries actually have the word democratic in their name their name and republic as well that their official
50:01
I don't even know what China is is but isn't it something like the the people's republic of China. Okay. And I think there was one in Africa. I don't know if it's still the same one. Um that was
50:14
democ I think it was Congo when it was communist or something. Democratic Republic, you know, of of Congo or something like that. It's like it's still it's still it's still there. Okay. But it's not
50:25
democratic, you know. So the the words are bandied about, but when when we, you know, again, I just think Katherine hit the nail on the head. You know, you left God and we didn't. Now, we didn't
50:36
necessarily follow him perfectly or even remotely perfectly, but at least he was there and is still there as a a a paradigm of order versus the state as a
50:49
paradigm of order. And that's that's where the starkkest contrast is between these political systems is who is ultimate. In the communist system, the state is ultimate.
51:01
In a western republican system, God is ultimate. Now, we're losing that, but I don't know. We're losing it in practice, in the public forum,
51:12
but frankly, I don't think we're losing it in the minds of most Western people. Does that make sense? You know, we still have a at least in our country, we still
51:22
have a basic and very healthy distrust of government. of government. Now, they don't have that in Europe, especially England. They love their government, and it's so messy. Their
51:33
government's worse than Italy's. I mean, that's a challenge. To have to have more prime ministers in fewer years than Italy is really an
51:43
accomplishment. I think the word chaos can be used there. Okay. Um I think they're going to vote for Larry the cat next. So, the point I'm trying to make with
51:55
all of this is that this is what brings us into the 21st century. This this is our particular heritage. And and so we could ask the question,
52:12
what does a 21st century man or woman, I'm using that in the generic way, know
52:27
What do we know about kingdom? So my point being is that we are starting off starting off with a fairly ingrained heritage over the last the last 300 years
52:40
300 years of anti- monarchism. And even our kings today in most of the world are nothing more than figureheads.
52:58
Most people know about World War II and read about World War II, and World War II is certainly a very important time of of history, of history, but World War II is was not nearly as
53:12
institutionally disruptive as World War I. In fact, World War II is largely considered to be just World War I part
53:23
two. But World War I, which again is not not nearly a study because we didn't really have much of a part in that. We came in kind of at the end and helped clean up, but we we we
53:34
didn't we didn't really we were not in the leading up to it. We were actually fairly isolated from Europe and and wanted to remain that way. And our way
53:45
of life and our political system was was very much different than that of old Europe. And so historically what we talk about
54:17
the end of these regime the end of the ancient regime. It's just the French word is what's always used. And what was the old regime? The old regime was hereditary monarchies. Now, I'm sure most of you
54:28
know that that um the the the three leaders of of Great Britain, of Russia, and of Germany were cousins. And many of the other smaller nations
54:40
that were involved in World War I were also descended from Queen Victoria. And and so it was like a big family
54:50
squabble. They were they were all related. In fact, before the war actually started, famously letters going back and forth between uh George V in England, Nicholas
55:01
II in Russia, and Wilhelm II in Germany. And it was George, Nikki, and Willie. That's how they addressed their letters. They used to yacht together. Um there's
55:12
this painting or portrait or photograph of all the monarchs that attended was it Victoria or Edward's Victoria's funeral? Uh it was one of the
55:23
last times that may and maybe it was later one of the last times they all met but they they they used to vacation together because they were all relatives. And so in 1919 with the end of the war
55:35
and the treaty of Versailles, you have the the largest number of
55:45
annihilated as at any point in time in history. Okay? You you have already in 1917
56:01
the fall of the Russian Empire. Now, what a lot of people don't know is that both England and the United States sent troops to Russia to try to maintain and put the Zar back on the throne.
56:13
And we we did not want what was going on over there because thesar represented order and we did not want disorder in Russia. We also wanted them to stay in the war
56:24
because them leaving the war allowed Germany to take all the troops on its eastern front and move them all the way to the western. And in 1918, they almost won the war. And so we were trying to to
56:35
to pick back the pieces over there in Russia. But the AustriaHungarian Empire,
56:53
formerly the Holy Roman Empire, dating back to AD 800, you know, been around a long, long time, gone. The Ottoman, once in control of almost the entire
57:04
Mediterranean and the Middle East, gone. Now we have the secular republic of Turkey or what is it called today? Turkey. I don't even know how you
57:14
pronounce it but they changed their name. Um it's gone. Okay. So the these empires are being destroyed finally. Uh the youngest of them
57:25
the German Reich gone replaced by a republic a democracy the VHimar Republic. Those that
57:35
survived, like the British, had long since been turned into a constitutional monarchy. And so, George V had no actual political power during that war. The power was
57:48
held by the prime minister. And those were the men, and there were several of them during the war. I think two um Lloyd George, Axewith, and Lloyd
57:58
George. Those were the men who ran the the government and the military establishment. George just kind of played with his stamp collection. And so
58:08
what you had left is a bunch of constitutional monarchies, constitutional monarchies, which many of them still have. Spain, for example, although it had a
58:20
republic for a while from the 30s on until the 60s. Uh the Netherlands, that's that's a mon Belgium is a Norway,
58:31
Sweden, these are all monarchies. But their kings and queens have no political power. In in other words, the the true meaning of a human
58:42
kingdom by 1919 was gone for most of the western world. Now, for Americans, that was good news. We we were never fond of them anyhow.
58:54
And so, we we applauded the the rising up of of this Republican spirit. Um, but what did it do to our reading of
59:04
scripture concerning the kingdom of God? Well, I think this is where we see a a paradigm shift within the church and its
59:15
interpretation of the kingdom. During the Middle Ages, the early Middle Ages, and especially the the era of the Crusades, the kingdom of God was largely viewed in
59:27
the same with the same lens as men viewed the kingdoms in which they lived. the idea, for example, of the Holy Roman
59:42
Empire. Going to step back a little bit.
59:55
The idea of the Holy Roman Empire was to rebuild European civilization as it once was under Imperial Rome.
1:00:07
But the emperor would be side by side with the pope. The the doctrine of the two swords. Pope Galatius in I think the seventh century maybe the sixth early on talks about the
1:00:20
the spiritual sword or the sword of the spirit. Ephesians 6 but also the civil sword. Romans 13. And his doctrine was you these these two swords. One is held
1:00:31
by the civil magistrate and one is held by the pope. Now, of course, Galatius thought that his was the more powerful sword. And usually the Holy Roman Emperor thought that his was the more
1:00:41
powerful sword primarily because his was real and he could actually kill people with it. The Pope occasionally had real swords too um but they never were very good at fighting. But the idea of the
1:00:53
Holy Roman Empire was um the idea of the kingdom of Christendom.
1:01:08
Now, this is what led to the political and military conflict with Islam that led to the Crusades because the the the mindset of that time was that the kingdom of God was
1:01:21
co-extensive with the reach of the church. And so, as the church reached out further, so the kingdom of God spread. Is that logical?
1:01:33
So the emphasis here is on the word
1:01:46
meaning a a territory of dominion. And there were there was really nobody who talked much about the kingdom of God being within you or the kingdom of God is God's rule in your heart. Because
1:01:58
during this era, prior to this era, there was very little focus on individual. You were born and baptized into the church.
1:02:10
And as long as you maintain a life in connection with the mother church, you would be given final uncction and you would be buried in s sacred ground.
1:02:23
your your life was secure in Christ because it was secure in the church. You were born a citizen of the kingdom because you were born in Europe. You
1:02:34
know, you were physically born within the realm of the either the king of France or the Holy Roman. And this never actually came about. It they tried, but you know, it never quite worked. The
1:02:44
closest they got to it was Napoleon, and he crowned himself. So, um, you know, but the idea was still of of a realm that united the civil sword and the and
1:02:55
the ecclesiastical sword together, not in one hand, at least never really worked that way. Um, but together doing the will of God and advancing the
1:03:06
kingdom of God. Question. When all of this falls apart, when all of these empires finally reach the end of their life,
1:03:19
and actually this almost happened in 1848 when revolutions erupted all over Europe, but the monarchies were able to band together and put down the revolutions. There was actually a
1:03:29
revolution in the Vatican and the pope had to leave. He was exiled, okay, in 1848. He had to flee. But the king of France for some reason or the government of France, I'm not sure it was a king.
1:03:41
They actually put him back on Yeah, it was a king. Louisie Phipe, I think, put him back on the throne in the Vatican. And they they brutally suppressed all of
1:03:52
these revolutions in 1848. But what they didn't do was suppress the spirit. And by 1914, 1919, it had reached its apex and all of these kingdoms fell. Well,
1:04:04
with that fell the idea of an earthly kingdom of God. And in the same period of time, the lat later 19th century and into the first
1:04:16
half of the 20th century, this is where you start to see more and more scholars talking about the kingdom of God is within you. The kingdom of God is God's rule in the individual heart.
1:04:28
what you what you're dealing with here then my pen um
1:04:52
a spiritualized kingdom. Now the effect of this is to uh remove the idea that the kingdom of God as it is in this age inaugurated through Jesus Christ in
1:05:04
his resurrection his resurrection ruled by Jesus Christ as he sits at the right hand of the father and governed by the Holy Spirit that he has poured out among men. Okay, that's that's the
1:05:16
kingdom of God in this age is not about the political order. It is only about the moral order. So
1:05:29
it's not so much a spiritualizing of the kingdom as it is a moralizing of it. And you get movements like temperance and abolition and public education and how
1:05:40
to to better the human plight. So that that becomes the emphasis of kingdom work. Alongside of this, of course, is still
1:05:52
evangelism. But with within the the church's focus as a corporate entity, the church kind of lost its voice. Now, this is most powerfully manifested in
1:06:02
the 1930s the 1930s with the German church, which seemed to completely lose its voice as Nazism rose to power.
1:06:15
But that's part and parcel of German theology starting back in the 19th century where we moved from the idea of a realm
1:06:25
to the idea of a rain. We move from a concrete geographical extent geographical extent to an abstract spiritual meaning.
1:06:38
And the the focus then is the kingdom of God ruling within our hearts. And then we live our lives in that light, which means social
1:06:50
activism, public education, those types of things. And that's what the church is supposed to be about. But the church is not supposed to be about the political
1:07:01
arena. Well, this this gets into the argument between the division of church and and state which was largely in our country even though it's actually within it's not in our constitution. It's in the
1:07:14
Russian constitution, Russian constitution, not in ours. Nonetheless, it's in our it seems to have it it seems to have
1:07:24
grown like a cancer within our within our political psyche. The idea that religion is a man's personal thing. Keep it to yourself. I'm happy for you, but don't bring it into
1:07:35
the public square. Okay, that that's all part and parcel of this. And so arguments can be made and have been made in favor of both concepts. Is
1:07:45
the kingdom I mean the kingdom of God's at hand. The kingdom of God is here. Is it territorial? it territorial? Is it political? Or you know the kingdom of God is is
1:07:56
within us. Jesus says that the kingdom of God is within you. Which is it? Or is it either or with so many of these?
1:08:07
It's not either or that there's an element of truth in both. But that that element of truth becoming the sole truth is thereby corrupted.
1:08:19
And I would say that in both cases the emphasis has been on either political or social realities
1:08:30
that the church faces in any generation far more so than any biblical teaching on the concept of the kingdom.
1:08:41
Does that make sense? It's like we get an idea and we run with it, but we run so far that we forget where the idea first came from.
1:08:52
And if we were to stop and analyze what we're thinking about it now, we realize, well, that doesn't sound like any of Jesus's parables, Jesus's parables, what do what do they actually mean?
1:09:25
this come from the church. Oh yes. Okay. Oh absolutely. I mean this would this would be the writings of um say Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Okay. Uh this would
1:09:37
be the writings of Adolf Horn in the 19th century. You you have a you have a paradigm shift just like we did. That's what I'm trying to maybe summarize that
1:09:47
we saw a paradigm shift in the history of political order. Okay? And and it started originally with the reformation in the idea of man's
1:09:57
individual approach to God. But by the enlightenment it had it had jettisoned the teachings of the reformers and it picked up the teachings of the
1:10:12
atheists like Voltater. Okay. He he was not a believer and and they but they still emphasized they were they were again deists. They did not jettison God completely. Very few of them did. But they emphasized the individual right of
1:10:24
the human being. Not because he bore the image of God, but rather be because he was the most advanced animal on this planet and therefore he he was the noble
1:10:37
savage is what Rouso would say. Okay. So man gets elevated. Um that part actually comes somewhat from the re R renaissance. But um and so you get you get this idea that eventually bifurcates
1:10:49
into two diametrically opposed views. in fact militarily opposed views in the 20th century. 20th century. But that that rise into the next hundred
1:11:00
years really was exclamation point in 1919 where the old order was swept off the scene not just politically but
1:11:12
philosophically as well. We don't think in terms as as individuals who are not involved in the government as average working stiffs.
1:11:23
working stiffs. We do not think of the world as someone in our same situation would have thought 300 years ago. Does does that make sense?
1:11:34
our role in the world, our ambition in the world, what we think we can become or our children can become. That's all because this happened. That's
1:11:45
why I say World War I was far more eventful, impactful than World War II. World War II was more horrific, although not by much, but in in extra ways,
1:11:56
especially the Holocaust. But in terms of political philosophy and just general western civilization, World War I is phenomenal in its impact.
1:12:06
It was like the exclamation point of all that teaching. And it had both elements, didn't it? didn't it? The communist revolution was in 1917. It ended Russia's role in the war, but it
1:12:19
was it was um it was motivated, it was it was fueled by the war and the fact that Russia wasn't doing very well. Okay. So it was part of that whole paradigm or that that whole complex of
1:12:31
events that we call World War I was also the Bolevik revolution that was in there as well. But out you know out of it comes the VHimar Republic and and Woodro
1:12:41
Wilson with his brilliant 14 points and his idea of democracy and self-determination. So on the one you have you have Lenin. On the other hand you have Wilson. They're like the poster
1:12:54
children, you know, but it all comes down to this era in the early 20th century. And when that happened in the western world, it was a paradigm shift in terms
1:13:06
of how individuals think of themselves in society, in society, but also how individual believers think of themselves in the kingdom.
1:13:17
Now, I'm not suggesting that we go back to marching on Jerusalem. You know, we we should never adopt the errors of any view. But I also don't
1:13:27
think that it is biblical for us to completely negate the idea of some geographical influence of the kingdom as
1:13:38
it now is.
1:13:50
I think if we do that, then we're simply taking the truth that the kingdom of God is within us and making that the whole story. Just like in the middle ages they took the truth of the geographical spread of
1:14:01
the gospel. This gospel will be preached to the end of the earth and then the end will come. That's geographical, right? Okay. All authority has been given under me in heaven and earth. Therefore, go.
1:14:12
That's geographical. That's geographical. Heaven and earth. Go. So the marching orders, the commission is geographical, but that doesn't mean that we mount our horses
1:14:24
and ride against the the Muslims and recapture Jerusalem recapture Jerusalem or Washington. or Washington. The example of crusades, I think.
1:14:44
At that time there was a concept of And that was basically how it was
1:15:08
Yeah. What were they thinking? But again, to not be arrogant in our modernity and recognize concept of kingdom was shaped by their
1:15:19
context and ours is shaped by our context. our context. That that kind of summarizes what I've been trying to say. We we can't condemn what they did or why they did it
1:15:36
because they they knew no better. It took the passing of of another thousand years thousand years almost 900 years before we knew better and got rid of all of this garbage.
1:15:48
Okay? But but throughout most of human history, including the time in which Jesus spoke and Paul wrote, this was the paradigm under which
1:15:59
everybody lived. everybody lived. And that was providential. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have read their Bibles. That's what I'm trying to say.
1:16:10
Our paradigm Our paradigm offers no more clues to the meaning of the kingdom of God than did the ASEAN regime.
1:16:23
The kingdom of God is not a democracy. It is not communism. Is that fair?
1:16:36
It has elements of communism. It has elements of of democracy. It also has elements of monarchy. Okay? It has elements and and man has never he does not create his sin next
1:16:56
But what is important is to recognize that the system itself is error. the scriptures are not. And so the idea of of not being conformed to the world but being
1:17:08
transformed by the renewing of our mind means that it doesn't matter if we were living in this paradigm or in this paradigm. The source of source of wisdom is the
1:17:21
scripture. And it it's not history. It's not historical documents. It's not historical movements. historical movements. It's scripture. It's scripture. So that the republicanism of our era
1:17:33
does not bring us any closer to understanding the kingdom of God than the Holy Roman Emperor did to our compatriots in that era. So this was not a discussion to say,
1:17:45
"Oh, this is so much better than that." In ways this was better. There was a concept of lege obedience. There was a concept of living in a a
1:17:58
kingdom order and you knew who that who was within that order. Now, one of the problems was there were too many in that order, but but you still had that concept of what a king was, but you also
1:18:12
lost the idea of an individual's relationship with God through Jesus Christ. That was lost. We've regained that, but we've lost this.
1:18:23
Okay? We've regained the idea of independent access to the throne, but we've lost the idea of submission, of obedience.
1:18:34
of obedience. Is is that fair? Is that does everybody understand what I'm trying to say? That these are just simply the movements, maybe the the wars and rumors of wars, you know, these are the
1:18:44
movements of human history governed by a sovereign God, and we providentially live in this era and not that era.
1:18:57
But there was a benefit in understanding when in this era there's [clears throat] also one in this era. But more so there was a detriment to understanding in both eras. And we see that play out historically.
1:19:09
We say the crusades, okay? We look back on them and say that's not what Jesus meant. But then we see the social act action or social activism here and moralism and that's not what Jesus meant
1:19:23
either. So neither group, neither age can claim, oh, we were closest to the kingdom because I would say that neither of them spent much effort being close to
1:19:34
scripture. And what the scripture says is particularly where we're eventually going to head up end up is the the parables. You know, you you just
1:19:44
you read the parables and you don't read any of this in them. At least I don't. Katherine, evidence of the obedience to
1:19:57
in our lives in our lives today. What would be the evidence of our obedience in in our society?
1:20:09
I would say this is I'm I'm going to offer this answer this off the cuff because that's kind of the whole purpose of this course, but I I I want to give a summary of it and it's where I started.
1:20:21
I think that in whatever capacity God has providentially placed us
1:20:31
placed us in his name, we bring his order out of
1:20:42
I think that's what Paul talks about when he says that whatever you do, do as under the Lord. Church do that in a societ So,
1:20:56
how do we You know, the same thing could be asked, how could Israel do such a thing in the midst of the ancient near east? You know, that world was was just so holy, pagan, and brutally dark. But God
1:21:09
set a light in the midst of him and said, "This is what you'll do. Um, you will obey his commandments. You will walk in his ways. and you're rising up and you're sitting down, okay? It you
1:21:21
you will you will have his word as frontlets to your eyes. You will wear them on your and I don't mean literally. I think that but but the idea of just immersing yourself in God's word
1:21:32
and then by his spirit and by his grace putting that into practice in your life. I think that is how we are salt. That is
1:21:42
how we are light. That's how we are levven. And that's how the church is salt and light and leaven. I don't think the church the church can ever be stronger than its members.
1:22:00
Okay? So I I said this two weeks ago. I I don't know that what God's will is for this age. In other words, I don't know that we will actually see the church revived.
1:22:13
But I do believe that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a power of the restoration of order.
1:22:27
You know, it I I could go on and on and start talking about the influence of Protestant Christianity in the Western world, but in terms of the of what God what God commanded man when he gave him that first
1:22:40
royal commission, royal commission, be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth, and have dominion over
1:22:56
We've largely accomplished much of that in the last 300 years. Not for the glory of God, but as a result of I believe of the preaching of the gospel and then the influence within
1:23:09
society of believers living by scripture. It what it does is it inculcates into a society principles that then are held and benefit people
1:23:19
who don't even believe in their source. Does that make sense? Christianity benefits. It has an overflowing blessing even to those who are not believers.
1:23:31
So I think that even a Christian in a neighborhood can have a overflowing blessing. I mean, it might be just as simple as cutting your lawn and you know it just I don't know just
1:23:48
it sounds silly but just being paragonss of order in an incredibly disordered world. God is not the god of disorder. Paul says in first Corinthians he's not the god of disorder. He's not the god of chaos is actually the word.
1:24:00
Okay. And so that's a very simple answer and I think it needs to be fleshed out and I don't claim to have all the answers as to how it will be fleshed out. I don't think that's given to any
1:24:11
one of us in any and I don't think it's given to any one generation of the church. I don't think we should look back to the Puritans for example and say oh they got it right or look back to Calvin in Geneva and say oh he got it
1:24:22
right. No, he did be they probably did the best they could in the age in which they lived. they lived. And and how they were able under this paradigm to do it is not going to be the
1:24:33
same as how we do it in under this paradigm. But they need to be in accordance with the scripture. And I think the first thing to do in the scripture is to
1:24:45
understand what is the kingdom of God. So I don't think that answer your
1:25:49
or I think I think it is I mean I think that that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes out of the mouth of the father okay that that's that is our bread that and he is
1:26:02
the word he is the logos in the beginning was the word and he said in John 6 he says I am true meat my blood is true drink okay and if you partake of
1:26:13
me you will not be thirsty you will not be hungry so I I think you're touching on something. He also says in John 15 that that he who abides in the vine will bear much fruit. And what is that fruit?
1:26:24
Well, you go then you go to Galatians. You know what is the fruit of the spirit? It's very orderly. Love, joy, peace, patience, self-control. Okay, it it's not
1:26:37
disorderly. I think Christian marriages should be paragonss of of of order. And again, we get into a whole discussion of what that looks like. And
1:26:48
not everybody agrees with what that looks like. In fact, I think some people think that order is one of communist oppression. You know, it's that's not it. The the
1:26:58
order that we we seek is not of our own making. I think we seek God doing it. Okay? And I think we see God doing it in Genesis 1 verse3.
1:27:10
I really do. And so it does come back to the word. I appreciate that comment, Lauren, because I think that nothing that the church does apart from
1:27:21
the word of God will do anything but green bring greater disorder into the world. When those who are charged with bringing order out of
1:27:35
disorder do so within the power of their own understanding and not the power of God's revelation, they actually compound the disorder and they call darkness light when it
1:27:47
isn't light at all. Well, let's close in prayer. Father, we do pray that you would give us wisdom to understand your word and to understand your works, to
1:27:57
understand how you are bringing order out of disorder. And you have done so in our hearts by the Holy Spirit that you have given us. And help us to be
1:28:08
witnesses to that order and that light and even to be light ourselves. We pray that you would do this in your church that the world might not ignore
1:28:21
your church but that your church would indeed have a voice and that voice would be the voice of God through his word. We pray this for your glory and for the exaltation of Jesus Christ in whose name
1:28:33
we pray.