Very good. Thank you. Chapter 18 of John. Let's pray. Father, we thank you that we continue in your word. What a glorious word it is as we've learned about the Savior who came and who died for us and has redeemed us, taken us out of the kingdom of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of your love. What a wonderful God you are. You are the God who takes care of us from beginning to end. We pray that as we look at your word we would get to know it, live it, love you all the more. We thank you that you are the God of truth, that your kingdom is the kingdom of truth, and that we are the people of the truth. Teach us that we pray in Jesus' name. We are in chapter 18 of John's Gospel. We have been looking here and we are right now in the trial of Jesus. Chapters 18 and 19 of the trial of Jesus. And along with the crucifixion. So we have also been looking at the denials of Peter. Peter denies Jesus three times, right? We know that. And we last week analyzed the different gospel accounts of the denials, and we saw what some people might want to say are contradictions, but they're not really contradictions. The pastor dealt with a similar issue today with the Gadarene demoniac, because the stories seem to tell different stories. Very good. Thank you, J.B. So, oh, by the way, those of you who passed the test last week, what was the test last week? Mr. Flebiak passed the test. What was the test? Yeah. How come they have three hole punch? I brought a three hole punch. OK, so come on up afterwards. We'll three hole punch your paper. OK, so like you passed the test. He's a recent college graduate. Right. We call those RCGs. You know, some businesses do so. They don't even know what a three hole punch is. They don't even know where the three-hole punch is. So we are now looking at the denial of Peter and the trial of Jesus and you see that we've done the first line there in the notes. In verse 19 Jesus is asked about his disciples and his teaching. So let's look at that. The high priest then asks Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Now you'll notice that we have in verses 15 through 18. So in verses 15 to 18 we have Peter's first denial. And then we have, what are the verses for the last two? It begins in verse 22 and goes to 27. So in 22 to 27 we have Peter's second and third denial. And we have this section that John inserts here that the other Gospels do not. So we have this section here where part of Jesus' trial and he's before the high priest. So the high priest proceeds to ask Jesus some questions. The high priest then asks Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Now, we might want to say, well, why did he do that? You know, he'd never heard of Jesus. He doesn't know who Jesus is. Well, obviously he did. Jesus had been around a while. But is this some sort of attempt of a formal trial, and what are the witnesses, and what are the arguments, and those kinds of things? Perhaps that's the answer. So Jesus answers how? How does he answer? So what's the point? What does he say? I spoke openly. If you want to know, this is a trial situation, there's a lot of witnesses out there that know that. Historically, and just as a side note, the Reformed faith has been very much against what they would call secret organizations. Masonic Lodge is one of them. And part of the problem is because of the secrecy of the organization. Because the point is we as the people of God are very open about what we believe, who we are. We don't have a set of knowledge that we said public and then once you become a member you gradually get introduced to the secret stuff. Do you know any religions that do that? The Mormons do. They have a whole set of doctrines that you don't learn until after you become a member. And they gradually teach you more and more about it. And you have to take vows that you won't tell people about them. So we don't do that. We're very open in what we believe. Whether it's popular or not is not important. We want to be open about what we believe. And Jesus is saying the same thing. Now, there's a couple of references here. Jesus claims to have taught openly. See the Old Testament background. I want us to look at Isaiah 45, 19 and 48, 16. to look at the Old Testament background and see what Jesus is doing when he claims that. So let's go to Isaiah 45 and look at these verses in their context. Now, let's first look at the verse, then we'll get the context. 45, 19. I have not spoken in secret in a dark place of the earth. I did not say into the seat of Jacob, seek me in vain. I, the Lord, seek righteousness. I declare things that are right. So, so the first line there says, you know, I did things openly, but let's go back a verse to begin the paragraph. For thus says the Lord who created the heavens, who is God. who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited. I am the Lord and there is no other. Then he goes on. I have not spoken in secret and in dark place of the earth. I did not say to the seed of Jacob, seek me in vain. I, the Lord, speak righteousness. I declare things that are right. So Jesus, in a sense, is claiming to do what God is claiming to do here. Speak very openly. Let's turn over a couple pages to chapter 48, verse 16. Come near to me, hear this, I have not spoken in secret from the beginning, from the time I was there, and now the Lord God in His Spirit has sent me." Now let's look at that in this context. Also go back down to verse 12, back up to verse 12. Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel my called, I am he, I am the first, I am also the last. Now, being the first and the last, does that remind you of something? What does it remind you of? Revelation. Jesus says that. I am the first and last, Alpha and Omega. When Jesus did that, he is quoting this. Let's go on. Indeed, my hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand is stretched out to heavens. When I call to them, they stand up together. In both of these two passages, we see the creative act of God is what he claims. I am the one who made this world. That is who I am. And then he goes on and says, and notice implications for what Jesus is saying. All of you assemble yourselves and hear who among them has declared these things. The Lord loves him. He shall do his pleasure on Babylon and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I have spoken. Yes, I have called him. I have brought him and his way will prosper. Come near to me. Hear this. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and his spirit have sent me. So Jesus is claiming to be the one who speaks openly. He claims to be the one who has sent him. What does it say here? The Lord God and his spirit. Does this look sort of like a hint of a Trinitarian thought? Doesn't it? Now, let's do a quick Hebrew lesson here. Mine prints it this way, the Lord God. So these are uppercase, lower, lower, lowercase, and then upper, upper, uppercase. Does yours translate that way or print it that way? Now, what are the translators telling us when the name of God is all uppercase in contrast to like that. Yes, the issue you have is you have Yahweh's typically translated Lord, but you wouldn't translate this the Lord, Lord, because this word is the word Adonai, which in English is spelled A-D-O-N-A-I. And this is my Lord. Not in the sense of just the sense of the Lord God, but this would be somewhat like in the English time, you know, what, four, five, six, eight hundred years ago, you would talk to the king or the duke, and somebody would say, yes, my lord. Okay, that's what you would do. This is what Diane's, how she addresses me. Right? Well? What did Sarah, how did she talk about her husband, 1 Peter 3? Isn't that what she said? There's a daughter of Sarah right there. Okay, the point here is that... Okay, let's go. What was that? Yes, you're right. So I guess, a few more years. Anyway, the point here is that this is, in the context here, it looks like a Trinitarian statement, and it's the Lord God and His Spirit, a reference to Yahweh, Right? Jehovah and his spirit are the one that is sending me. But who is the me? The me is the one who made the world. God made the world. So you see, there seems to be a Trinitarian hint here, way back in Isaiah. What's Isaiah's date? Oh, about 700, 750 BC. So when you say, or somebody says to you, there's no Trinitarian in the Old Testament, there is some hints of it. It's not as well developed as the New Testament, but this seems to be a hint of it. Let's go back to John. So Jesus thus says, I spoke openly to the world, I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing. Why do you ask me, ask those who have heard what I have said to them, and did they know what I said? Now does this mean Jesus never had a private discussion with his Buddhist apostles? No, he did. There were many times when they had private discussions. So what's the point here? In secret I said nothing. Okay, so in other words, did he tell the apostle something that he wasn't willing to other people to tell? I don't think so. What else? And we are the people that are open people about what we believe. What was that? It's recorded, right? They wrote things down, didn't they? Okay. So I think the point that Jesus is saying here is, what I've said, I've been very open about, who I am, what I teach, what I believe, whom I claim to be, all of those things. And if you need witnesses in your trial, you go ask them. So it goes on. When we have said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand saying, do you answer the high priest like that? So he slapped him on the face. Now, I don't think you want to slap the Lord God on his face. But he did. But what is Jesus' answer? If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if not, why do you strike me? Now let's look at Paul. Paul has a similar situation where Paul is slapped Yeah, he didn't respond the same way. He didn't respond the same way? No. OK. Acts 22. OK. That's my point. What's going on here? OK. Now Acts 22. Let's go back to the end of 21. Let's get ourselves some context. OK. Verse 30 of Acts 22. So then we go to Acts 23. OK, so 2230, the next day, because he wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews. He released him from his bonds. This is a Roman centurion. That's what he is, a Roman commander, and commanded the chief priests and their council to appear and brought Paul down and set them before them. Then Paul looked earnestly at the council and said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God and to this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. So the first difference we see here is what? In Jesus' time we don't hear a command from Ananias. Here we see Ananias commanding that Paul be slapped. And then what does Paul say? Paul says to him, God will strike you, you whitewashed wall. For you sit to judge me according to the law, and you command me to be struck contrary to the law? Now, what does he mean when he calls him a whitewashed wall? Well, what walls did they whitewash? Sepulchers. Yeah, tombs, right? Sepulchers, little buildings that they put dead bodies in. Not particularly complimentary. Because somebody, you know, inside of you is dead man's bones. And you're whitewashed. What does that mean? That means you're awful on the inside, and you put a coat of white paint on it just to make it look nice. But on the inside, you're really evil and wicked. Okay? So, not quite so nice. Okay? Now, what does he mean? What did Paul mean, say, you commanded me to be, you claim to judge me according to the law, but yet contrary to the law, you command me to be struck. Didn't they have back then punishments? Remember how many times could you beat somebody with a rod? Forty. No more than forty. So what we would call corporal punishment was legitimate back then. So why does Paul say you're doing this contrary to the law of God when you claim to judge me by the law of God? Private Roman citizen. He wasn't convicted. No conviction yet. The trial had not concluded. The sentence had not been given, right? So then, how do they react? Those who stood by said, do you revile God's high priest? Now let's go back to the statement about Jesus. Do you answer the high priest like that? That's what they say to Jesus. And then he says, do you revile? Now did Jesus revile the high priest? Did he call him a whitewashed tomb? No, Paul does. Paul's language is much more impolite. Rebellious, nasty, sarcastic. You got any other adjectives for me? Do you revile God's high priest? Then Paul says what? Brothers, I didn't know he was a high priest. For it is written, you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people. Where is this statement? Paul says, it is written. What does that phrase, it is written, mean? It's in the scriptures. It's written down in the scriptures. It's a way of quoting the scriptures when you don't have quotation marks. So that's what they do. They say, well, it is written, and then they would quote it. So where is that? Well, from Exodus 22-28. So let's go back to Exodus 22-28. Get ourselves some context here. Verse 16 is the beginning of the series of laws. Let's go look at 28. You shall not revile God, nor shall you curse the ruler of your people. Now let's look at the context. If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride price of virgins. So if a man seduces a woman who's a virgin, she's not betrothed, he's to marry her, unless the father does not want it. You shall not permit a sorceress to live. Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death. He who sacrifices to any god except to the Lord only shall be utterly destroyed. You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. These are laws dealing with lots of different topics, aren't they? You have bestiality, you have false worship, you have treating virgins, what about a sorceress? You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless. If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to me, I will surely hear their cry." Now this theme of the widow and the fatherless, what do we call fatherless? Orphans. The widow and orphan theme is a common theme through scripture, Old Testament and New Testament. Do you remember what the book of James says about widows and orphans? It is what? True religion. What is true religion? To take care of widows and orphans. So it's an important thing to God to take care of widows and orphans. It's a true religion. So if you afflict them in any way and they cry to me, I will surely hear their cry and my wrath will become hot and I will kill you with the sword. Your wives shall be widows and your children fatherless. So if you mistreat the widows and the orphans, your kids and your wife will become the widows and the orphans. If you lend money to any of my people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, you shall not charge him interest. So if you have a poor who needs money to borrow, you give it to him, you don't charge him. You lend it to him but without interest, is the point here. And if you ever take the neighbor's garment as pledge, you shall return it to him as the sun goes down. So what does that mean? When it was cold, poor person, what he slept in was his jacket or a long coat, a wrap around him. And you would take that from him as pledge for the loan, for the security on the loan. Now, if he's poor, he probably only has one of those, right? So what does that do? It keeps him from borrowing from too much because if you lent money to me and I have your garment, your wrap, your cloak, you can't use it for security for somebody else's loan. So it keeps your loans in check, your amount of loans in check. But what do you have to do at night to this poor guy? Well, you've got to sleep, so you give back to him. So every morning you get it, every night you give it back to him. So he can sleep and keep himself warm at night. You have a little compassion on the person that owes you money. It goes on. For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What shall he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to me, I will hear him, for I am gracious. Then we have the quote that Paul had. You shall not revile God nor curse a ruler of your people. You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. So did they sacrifice the firstborn? No, they had to redeem them back. Likewise, you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days. On the eighth day you shall give it to me. And it shall be holy men to me. You shall be holy men to me. You shall not eat meat torn by the beasts of the field. You shall throw it to the dogs. So an animal that was killed out in the fields, you don't eat it. It's unclean. You give it to the dogs. Let the dogs eat it. So in the middle of these set of commands is this one that Paul quotes. You shall not curse a ruler of your people. So you see that there. Now let's go back to Paul in Acts 22. So we see the difference between Jesus and Paul. Paul says he's acting out of ignorance. You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people. And then the trial continues. Paul perceives that they are Sadducees and Pharisees and we know that they disagree on certain things. The Sadducees were what philosophically we would call materialists. What's a materialist? In other words, if you can't touch it, it doesn't exist. Spirits don't exist. That means the concept of love doesn't exist. Justice doesn't exist. Just things you can touch. Now, that doesn't mean materialists like sometimes Christians think as a materialist who's so concerned about money and those kinds of things. That's not the point. This is the philosophical sense. That's the Sadducees. Hence, they deny the resurrection. But the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, hence Paul divided them by talking about, I'm on trial for the resurrection. So in the middle of this, Paul says what? Paul says, oops, I didn't know he was a ruler of the people. So you see the different reaction between Jesus and Paul. But I have a question for you. In our timeline of where we are in the people of God, So here's our timeline, right? So here's creation, here's the coming of Christ, here's the Judgment Day, okay? So this is Old Testament, or if we want to use another legitimate language, Old Covenant, right? This is New Testament, this is our New Covenant. Where is this taking place? Over here or over here? This way. Right? So over here somewhere, right? So somewhere over here. Book of Acts. Transition period between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Is Paul a New Covenant Christian when he uses this language, when he's here in this event? Does Paul know his Old Testament sort of well? Does he know the whole transition concept between Old Covenant and New Covenant? Is Paul in the New Covenant? Then why does he use Old Covenant command? You saw the context. It wasn't even in the Decalogue. Implication of the Decalogue, perhaps, right? Which command would that be an implication of? The fifth, which is? Your father and mother. The whole concept to be respectful to those in authority over us. Okay, so why does Paul quote this Old Testament command and say that it's applicable to his situation if it was not? So is that simply that? In other words, did Paul not really sin when he was, shall we say, mouthed off? Or does Paul say, what I did was wrong? What is Paul saying? So is Paul just being all things to all men or is Paul actually looking at an ethical issue here? I think it's an ethical issue here that Paul is. I think Paul is saying I disobeyed that law of God. I think that's what Paul is saying. And I want you to do some thinking then about the relationship between you as New Covenant Christians and the Old Testament law. Some of those commands carry through is what I'm trying to get at. It's not that none of these carry through. We need to be careful which ones. But here's one that Paul quotes. And it seems kind of an obscure one, doesn't it? I mean, there it is. It's just part of a verse in the middle of all these other commands. Paul's quoting them. So Paul, as a New Testament Christian, quotes this obscure command and says, I disobeyed it. And he repents openly. Right? Yeah, Troy. Very good. Thank you very much. So where do you want to take that? Well, here's the language I was going to use. There's a thing about this. I don't think it's a surprise to any of you to say that I don't particularly, I don't think we're highly of the man who lives in the White House. Is that a surprise to anybody? Just shocking, just shocking. Okay. Now some of you may disagree with me and we can talk about that another time. Okay. The question is, if your position is similar to mine, and if not, we'll talk about the previous occupant of the White House. Okay? If you want. You know, if you're on the other side of the political spectrum that I'm from. Okay? My question is, how do we speak of these people? Is it legitimate to disagree? The answer is yes. Okay? How do we disagree respectfully and not use language like Paul did? You whitewashed the wall. Okay? How do we do that? How do we obey the fifth commandment when it deals with people that we disagree with? And we think are deceptive and things like that. Okay? How do we do that? Yeah, Santosh? Ah, very good. In contrast to, okay, someone's going to help me with my Latin. Ad hominem, N-U-M? E-M, ad hominem. Okay. Is that spelled right? Thank you. Okay. What's an ad hominem argument? To the man. Do you know? Do you want to develop? So the opposite of an ad hominem argument is to do what Centaur said, deal with facts. This is calling people names. Right? Okay? Or, and if you're not talking to them, you're talking about them, and you attack their character. Or, the opposite could be, rather than attacking their character, you could praise their character as a way to say that they're good at whatever they do, without dealing with the actual facts. And I've told you this story many times. I was at a meeting years ago. We were talking about a previous president, and the argument in favor of him is he has such a nice wife. Now, that had nothing to do with how good a president he was, or ethical, or leading the country, or anything else. But that was the argument that somebody was giving. Okay? Now, so Santosh says that one way is that we deal with facts. Alright? Because dealing with facts tends to have us, at least hopefully, not use the kind of language Paul did. This pejorative evaluation kind of language. Okay, let's go back to John. Sure, go ahead. Okay, dealing with Jesus' teaching about calling somebody a fool, and so I guess part of the question is, was it appropriate in any case for Paul to use that language no matter who he was? And maybe how do you understand Jesus' remarks about not calling somebody a fool? Who is the one who says, go tell that fox? I think it was Jesus, not John the Baptist, wasn't it? Yeah, I think you're right that we need to be cautious with our name calling. And when we disagree with people, it's difficult in the middle of heated situations, as Paul appears to have been in, right, to control our tongue. And I think the Lord talks a lot about watching our tongue. And so I think that we need to be careful and obey that. It seems that part of the fundamental issue is that the man that Paul called the whitewashed tomb was still the image of God. And we need to be respectful to that. I see a hand over here. Yeah, James? Well, I think it's often, too, we need to be careful about what we attribute to the motivation of why someone does something. Because, you know, I mean, we can surmise based on facts and come to conclusions, but we have to be careful because they're not always correct. You know, like if someone didn't say hi, they're on time, but they may have had a migraine headache at that point. You know what I mean? And I think when we start dealing with motive, we're on dangerous grounds, because we cannot read people's hearts. Only the Lord God can read people's hearts. And so we want to be careful when we start using these kinds of ad hominem arguments, because quite often we get to motives too. And when you see that on both sides of the spectrum, guys, if you disagree with President Obama's, and I'm going to mention his name, if you disagree with President Obama's politics, what is the typical argument used against you? You are a racist. Now that's a motive statement, right? OK? And so that's an ad hominem argument. In other words, a person does not deal with the facts. You know, you're trying to deal with the facts, and then they use that kind of language against you. And so, that's using the ad hominem argument. So we had to be very careful with motives, because we can't read motives. Okay? Yes? Another way to hold that area of post hoc captive would be Romans 13, 1 and 2. And it says? It says that the thing that God holds the hardest in His hand when He says that you're to be subject to rulers because basically God Can I disagree with your language? I don't think God allows anybody to be where he is. I think God places people. I think God's not passive, God is active. Okay? So, is it legitimate to say that there's a person in the White House who you disagree with politically, that God has placed him there? Okay, so God didn't just allow it. I'm trying to fine-tune your argument, make it even stronger, Karen. Okay? It says, from God and those which exist are established by God. That's even stronger. Yeah, okay. So that includes the people in political office that you disagree with, right? Yes, Santosh. If Jesus said the same thing Paul did, he would not have to follow it. Jesus was the Lord God, right? So he can read motives, and the high priest was responsible to Jesus, right? So if you want to look at the authority structure situation, you're exactly right. So we can in a sense say that there was the Lord, was over the high priest, over Paul. In a sense, right? So there is this chain of command here. And it is this part here that Karen is developing out of Romans 13. I once asked a person who was coming up for licensure, the current president, was he a servant of Jesus? And he thought, and he said, no. And what does Romans 13 say? He is. I think the person probably was thinking, am I saying is he regenerate? You know, in that sense, as a servant. Perhaps so. Well, one of the things, you've got to go back to this though, Jesus never responded to the high priest. No matter how he responded, he responded to the man who struck him. Paul responded to the high priest who ordered him to be struck. So, they're two completely different situations. So on the surface they're similar. Right. They're in a trial, and the accused gets struck by a person on the side, maybe a bailiff or somebody like that, right? Okay. But there are differences Important details that are different. Even though Jesus had the right to tell the high priest why to do it, he didn't. He went to the man who struck him. Who appears to have struck him by just his own thought, without the high priest telling him to do it. Yes, so there are some differences here. And Jesus then says, well if I have spoken evilly, prove it. Let's go on. When we talk about rehearsal trial parts, I wanted you to just see that the trial basically, first of all, takes place within a Jewish context, before Annas and before Caiaphas, then goes off to Pilate. And the trial before the Romans is in three parts, but John only records two of the parts. Because John records Jesus before Pilate. Is it OT or ET? Like that? Thank you. Boy, oh boy. Okay, and we have the other part before Pilate. But there's a section right in here that John does not record. Who's that? Before Herod. Okay, now which Herod? The same Herod that was around that tried to kill the baby Jesus? No. Okay, Herod Agrippa. So, why does Pilate send Jesus to Herod? Jesus was from Galilee. Herod happened to be in town. He was the ruler over Galilee and he's hoping to get rid of this hot potato. Right? You take care of it. I don't want to deal with this issue. And Herod examines him and sends him back to Pilate. Because Pilate was the ruler over Judea at the time. Well, let's go on. He's in Pilate's court. In verse 28, Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning, but they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, that they should be defiled, that they might eat the Passover. Was there a Jewish law against going into Gentile houses and prohibiting you from going to Passover? The answer is no. None that I know of. It's a made up law. Pilate then went out to them And said, what an accusation to bring against this man. They accused him, said to him, well he's guilty of the following crimes. And they had a list of crimes, right? Is that what they said? No, what did they say? They didn't have the right to kill him. Yeah, but before that, what did they say? We wouldn't have brought him to you this year. Yeah, we would have brought this guy if he wasn't bad. What kind of argument is that? Another ad hominem argument, right? Okay, so you see that, right? Well, obviously we brought him, he's got to be evil. Okay, if this man were not an evil doer, we would not have delivered him. But I said, well you do take care of him and judge him yourself. And they say, well it's not lawful for us to put anyone to death. And now their motives are coming out. Okay, therefore Jews said that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke signifying by what death that he would die. What did Jesus say? How did he prophesy how he would die? If I be lifted up. And what was that a reference to? The crucifixion on the cross, right? So Jesus had to be killed by the Romans or under Roman authority. Because how did the Jews execute? Stoning. That would not have been lifted Jesus up. That would have been stoned. And when Pilate entered the Praetorian again, he called Jesus and said to him, Are you the king of the Jews? And he answered them, Are you speaking of yourself about this, or did others tell you concerning me? So Jesus answers the question with a question. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Your own nation and chief priests have delivered you up to me. What have you done? And Jesus says, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight so that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But now my kingdom is not from here. So Pilate said to them, you are a king then. Jesus answered, you say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born and for this cause I came to come to the world that I should bear witness to the truth for everyone who's of the truth. Here's my voice. And Pilate says to him, what is truth? Then he said this, he went out to the Jews and said, I find no fault in you, etc. So, Jesus is before Pilate now, and what is the gist of their discussion about? Well, it's about Jesus being a king, and his kingdom. And Jesus says, if my kingdom, what? If my kingdom were of the world, my servants would fight. But my kingdom is not of this world. Now there are loads of implications of this, and I want to talk about them for a minute. But before we do that, I want us to do a little quick thinking. about the concept, just how important is the concept of the Kingdom of God. So I asked Ray to do some counting. Ray's an accountant, he's good at numbers, he can add things up, you know, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and all that. Now, the Kingdom of God is used how much or how often in the Gospel of John. But don't tell us yet, Ray. Where else in the Gospel of John is the Kingdom of God talked about? Very good. And what is it? The Nicodemus, and what does he say? If you are not, unless you are born again, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. That place, that little bit of, couple verses, and here is the only time in the whole Gospel of John that the word Kingdom is used. Now the word King is used a few more times, but that is the only time the word Kingdom is used. Okay, so we have those passages, but let's talk about Matthew. Ray, how many times is the word kingdom in Matthew? Fifty-five times. Okay, and Mark? Nineteen. Nineteen. And Luke? Forty-five. Forty-five. And John? Four. Four. Okay. Now this is the number of verses, the number of times the word itself is used. Two occasions for that. The theme of the synoptics is the Kingdom of God, and the coming of the Kingdom of God. So when you take New Testament Biblical Theology in seminary, you learn about that. The theme of the synoptics is the Kingdom of God. What's the equivalent theme in the Gospel of John? It's obviously not Kingdom of God. It's only mentioned in two passages. What is it? But the equivalent of the Kingdom of God is eternal life. Right? That's the equivalent idea. John uses that term a lot, right? For the gospel of the world, etc. The purpose of the gospel is that people might have eternal life. That's the term. So that's the word kingdom. And Ray, how about the word king? Matthew 22 12 10 14 So we see that John is much more in line with the number of times the word king is used. But there were kingdom, drastic differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptics. So we see that. Now, just because it's not used that much in John doesn't mean it's an unimportant concept biblically. After all, it's used a lot in the Synoptics. So, what do we learn about the Kingdom of God from the Gospel of John? Well, what do we learn in John 3 about the Kingdom of God? So the concept of regeneration must be born again. So in John 3, we have regeneration is necessary for what? To enter the kingdom of God, to see or perceive, even to understand the kingdom of God. So it's necessary to enter or to perceive. about what the Kingdom of God is. Now, why is this so special? Can you name me any other religion that says the problem with men is their heart and that God alone can change it? There is no other religion that says that. Hinduism doesn't do that. Buddhism doesn't do that. Islam doesn't do it. None of them do that and say the problem with men is their heart and that God alone can change it. For those of you who know the Children's Catechism, Who can change a sinner's heart? We'll quote the children's catechism. The Holy Spirit alone. That's the children's catechism. So that's what John 3 is telling us. Regeneration is necessary to enter God's kingdom. To be saved. Now here we are in John 18 and what have we learned about the kingdom of God here? Not of this world. Now that instantly has behavioral and political implications, Jesus says. Because what does it say in the next sentence? If my kingdom were of this world, what? My servants would be fighting. So how do you protect the king, or to rephrase that, how do you spread the kingdom of this king if it were of this world? The answer is physical means. Military action, right? But because the kingdom is not of this world, military action or physical means is not the way to spread the kingdom of God. Do you see the implications that Jesus has here? So my question to you is, if we are at war with terrorism, in contrast to terrorists, terrorism is a concept, it's an idea system, how do you fight that war? How do you fight a war of thought? with other thoughts. Does that remind you of 2 Corinthians chapter 10? Is it verse 5? We have taken every thought captive to Jesus Christ? Say that again slow so we can hear it, Brian. Taking down... I think so, go ahead. I think he's talking about the process. Against the knowledge of God. I don't know, I'm a little rusty after that, sorry. Okay, well let's turn to it, okay? Let's turn to it. Verse 3, For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty in God, for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity and to the obedience of Christ. And be ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled. bringing every thought captive to Jesus Christ. When you're in a war of ideas, your weapons are weapons of ideas. When you're in a war of military action, your weapons are military in their nature. This is why, and I'd be glad to be corrected by my sister over here, but I had some serious problems with Going in there and physically disrupting with, what was it, Operation Rescue or something like that? I had some problems with that. I think it's missing what the battle is. The battle is a battle of thought. Now, does that mean that Karen and her group shouldn't be doing what they're doing? My opinion is that what I know about them, they are engaged in a battle of thought. You're talking with people all the time and at the same time you're ministering to their needs, right? Baby baskets and things like that. You do not bifurcate people because people should not be bifurcated. Y'all know what bifurcate means? Cut in two pieces. Right? You're dealing with the whole person, including their mind in the battle of thought. See? That's the war that we are in. And that's why the gospel goes out and we spread the kingdom with ideas. And that's why, by the way, it's important for Christians to be engaged in the idea of wars. instead of what we have done for the last 150 years, and that's abandon the whole war of ideas. Yeah, I'm getting political here, but in another sense. Yeah, Troy. So you're saying that we have ideas that drive Let's talk about the American Revolution. Were there any ideas that were foundational to that? Declaration of Independence was full of ideas. We hold these truths to be self-evident. There's a statement about ideas. So you see that's talking about ideas. As some guy used to say, ideas have consequences. That's why we spend so much time talking about scripture and doctrine, because that's ideas. And that's why Paul has three chapters in Ephesians developing ideas, and then three chapters that apply the ideas to our life. It's the ideas that drive the behavior. So that's what you're saying, right Troy? So we need to spend some time thinking about ideas. Now, if we do just this, we miss the application. If we do just the application, we miss the foundation. That's why we need to be balanced. So, any other thoughts about the Kingdom of God? Oh my, are we that part over? Sorry. That time I looked at the clock, it was five after. I need an alarm clock or you need to sit up here or something. Yeah, give me the word. Go ahead. I was just following up on the concept of ideas and how warfare in some ways seems even more intense because the proliferation of ideas through technology is much more quick. It is. And ideas thus communicate out there broader and faster. Yeah, exactly. So therefore we need to be careful what we say, right? But also we need to be aware it's out there. You can have loads of consequences with ideas very quickly. I can think about the spread of the concept of liberty and freedom for man. Well that was on a piece of paper and it went from person to person to person and now you press a button and it hits a million people. Y'all know what's going on in Nevada the last few days with this rancher? Okay, y'all know about that situation? Suddenly there were people from all over the country there, right? Because of ideas. Whether they were right or wrong with the details, I don't know. But boy, there were people there taking action with weapons because of ideas. Okay, let's pray. Father, we thank you that we have a God who is concerned about ideas because ultimately biblical truth is ideas and that's how you function. We pray that we would be faithful to our King, knowing that the Kingdom of God that we are part of, that you have made us a part of, is not of this world. And we need properly thus to fight the battles that we are in. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.