Let's joyfully look to the Word of God, 2 Samuel chapter 20. Even though this is a troubling chapter in some ways, it is a chapter intended for our sanctification and one that we should rejoice in. Just going to be preaching on verses 3 through 14, but let's go ahead and back up to verse 1. There happened to be there a rebel whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite, and he blew a trumpet and said, We have no share in David, nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, O Israel. So every man of Israel deserted David and followed Sheba, the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah from the Jordan as far as Jerusalem remained loyal to their king. Now David came to his house at Jerusalem And the king took the 10 women, his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house and put them in seclusion and supported them, but did not go into them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood. And the king said to Amasa, assemble the men of Judah for me within three days and be present here yourself. So Amasa went to assemble the men of Judah, but he delayed longer than the set time which David had appointed him. David said to Abishai, now Sheba the son of Bichri will do us more harm than Absalom. Take your Lord's servants and pursue him lest he find for himself fortified cities and escape us. So Joab's men with the Cherethites, the Pelethites and all the mighty men went out after him. And they went out of Jerusalem to pursue Sheba the son of Bichri. When they were at the large stone, which is in Gibeon, Amasa came before them. Now Joab was dressed in battle armor. On it was a belt with a sword fastened in its sheath at his hips, and as he was going forward, it fell out. Then Joab said to Amasa, are you in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa did not notice the sword that was in Joab's hand, and he struck him with it in the stomach, and his entrails poured out on the ground, and he did not strike him again. Thus he died. Then Joab and Abishai, his brother, pursued Sheba, the son of Bichri. Meanwhile, one of Joab's men stood near Amasa and said, whoever favors Joab and whoever is for David, follow Joab. But Amasa wallowed in his blood in the middle of the highway. And when the man saw that all the people stood still, he moved Amasa from the highway to the field and threw a garment over him. when he saw that everyone who came upon him halted. When he was removed from the highway, all the people went on after Joab to pursue Sheba, the son of Bichri. And he went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel and Bethma'aka and all the Baraites. So they were gathered together and also went after Sheba. Then they came and besieged him in Abel of Bethma'aka and they cast up a siege mound against the city And it stood by the rampart and all the people who are with Joab battered the wall to throw it down. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word. We pray that it would accomplish its purposes in our lives, that you would sanctify us, open the eyes of our understanding, illumine our minds. And father, I pray that you would capture our hearts in Jesus name. We pray. Amen. A few years ago, when Congress and Senate was trying to ramrod Obamacare through without having even read the bill, Representative L.C. Hastings was being interviewed by the press, and speaking off the cuff for the House Rules Committee, he said, there ain't no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. All this talk about rules. When the deal goes down, we make them up as we go along. Lovely, and exactly right. And back then, commentators pointed out that even though this was a gaffe, supposedly, it wasn't intended to come out that way, that this really is exactly the way that the Congress continually functions. Congress is lawless. But you know, it's not just Congress. the whole country is lawless, including the Church of Jesus Christ. It's the general populace. And when we get to chapter 24, We are going to be seeing that God doesn't let the populace off just because it's the sins of the state. Some people think that's just not fair that God punishes all of these people in the populace in chapter 24, but God is punishing them because they have been apathetic. They have not resisted the tyranny and the things, the sins that are going on within the state. We are not victims here in America. DC is lawless. because America is lawless, including the church, and we should not be surprised. And it is kind of interesting how the advertising industry has picked up on this. They tend to have their finger on the pulse of what is happening in culture, and when you see the advertising agencies telling companies that they really need to get their ads to appeal to the spirit of rebellion that is in our population, You know it has to be quite pervasive because they're not going to do it unless they're making money over it. Let me just give you a tiny sampling of some of the advertisements that I have been aware of. Burger King had the slogan, sometimes you got to break the rules. Last year, Outback Steakhouse started an ad campaign with the slogan, no rules, just right. Don Q. Rum states, break all the rules. Columbia House Music Club, we broke the rules. Red Camel Cigarettes, this baby don't play by the rules. Or Woolite, all the rules have changed. Or Neiman Marcus, no rules here. I watched an anti-smoking ad that was appealing to this rebel spirit and it says, think, act, rebel, quit smoking. Marie Claire Clothing, be a rebel and you could go on and on. In Douglas Goodman's book Consumer Culture he writes about this drift in advertising towards a rebellion and sometimes it's so obvious that it's hilarious. He talked about the clothing industry The manufacturers, they're trying to highlight rebellion against last year's clothing fashions, which was kind of funny. In one part of his book, he said, advertisements that promote rebellion, mock authority, and promise a mass-produced nonconformity are now ubiquitous, and ubiquitous means they're just everywhere. For example, One of the main targets of the countercultures and feminists critique of consumer culture was the cosmetics industry which was taken as the epitome of artificiality and conformity to mass produced standards of beauty. However, hip consumerism has revamped these commodities as signs of ironic artificiality, defiance and nonconformity. A case in point, one company significantly named Urban Decay offers cosmetics with names like plague, demise, rat, roach, and asphyxia. And I won't go on, but the point is that when advertisers recognize rebellion to be part of the warp and woof of the whole American culture, we cannot just skip over this very, very quickly. We've got to dig in, we've got to understand the nature of rebellion, and we've got to guard our own hearts against it. Last week we looked at the first two verses of this chapter which form an introduction and those are verses that help us to recognize the character of rebellion. It doesn't always appear like rebellion sometimes it can appear like patriotism like it did in this chapter here. And let me quickly review the list of 10 telltale signs of rebellion that we looked at last week from the first two verses and actually we looked at the 11th one from the previous chapter as well. We saw that there are danger signals when a movement is fueled more by emotion than by substance, when it is spontaneous rather than being carefully planned out, when it is led by ungodly people who are compounding the problem with their own lawless means and their own lawless methods. Fourth, we saw there's a danger when it breaks with a known entity and and follows an unknown entity where they just have to trust his promises. You know, many of the freedom movements around the world are basically jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. They're following a rebel to oppose a rebel. Fifth, there is danger when we cannot figure out much substance beyond sloganeering and soundbites. Or when the leader presumes to speak for the population rather than speaking for God's law. That's democracy, that's not a republic. Or when a person wants to lead against leadership and wants to authoritatively speak against all authority. Or when it leverages party loyalty rather than principle, or when it is characterized by envy and desires redistribution of wealth, or when it appeals to individualism rather than to the covenant, that's also dangerous. And then finally, when it has no transcendent basis for resistance or for loyalty. Well now in verse 3 and following, we're getting into the consequences of such rebellion. And quite honestly, this is a chapter that is not very fun to read about. I bet you, some of you at least. felt a little bit queasy, a little bit uncomfortable when I was reading this passage. It's an ugly chapter. It really is. It is not. In fact, most sermons, I couldn't find a single sermon, but most sermons completely skip over this chapter because it is not a feel-good chapter. But that's the whole point. God wants to paint the consequences of rebellion as so ugly, so horrible, that we will fear such rebellion. We will learn to hate such rebellion, and we will turn away from it. And this passage outlines at least a dozen evil consequences of rebellion. Now, the first evil consequence is collateral damage, and in this case, it was collateral damage against David's family. And it's often the family that gets hurt the worst. from the debris that flies out from these explosive rebellions. Now, verse 3, since it's the most difficult verse in this whole chapter to understand, we're going to be spending a little bit more time in looking at that. And the first thing that I want to mention is that the word in verse 3, concubines, does not mean mistress. When I was growing up, I always assumed when I was reading through the Old Testament, a concubine was a mistress. It is not. A concubine was a wife with two differences. It was a wife by contract rather than by covenant. And secondly, it was a wife that did not have inheritance rights like other wives had. But other than those two differences, they had all of the rights that any other wife might have. For example, and all the penalties. Intimacy with a concubine by any person other than the husband was considered adultery and was punished with exactly the same punishments that a wife would receive. Divorce, same exact policies for divorce other than the fact that a concubine was not able to sue for inheritance rights like a regular wife would have. But they had all the same rights and all of the same responsibilities. Now let me hasten to say that it was sinful in the Old Testament to have more than one wife. Some people think that's only a New Testament thing. No. Deuteronomy 17, there's many passages indicate it was sinful to have more than one wife, but it was not illegal. We got to make a distinction between a crime and a sin. Not all sins are crimes. So it was not a crime, but it was a sin, and if you were married to a concubine, you owed that wife certain things. And that's why this is such a strange, strange verse. One commentator said, the information about the ten concubines seems bizarre for contemporary readers. And it does. Why did God include it for our edification? Why did David do this? Well hopefully my explanation will make sense but whether or not you buy the interpretation I'm going to be giving you this morning I think you'll agree that these women clearly suffered collateral damage from the rebellion of many people including the rebellion of David himself. Take a look at verse 3. Now David came to his house at Jerusalem and the king took the 10 women his concubines whom he had left to keep the house and put them in seclusion and supported them but he did not go into them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood." Now there is debate on exactly what is going on here. Brueggemann claims that The northern tribes were traditionalists who thought kings should only have one wife like King Saul did. And David is trying to appease them. He's trying to win them back by taking this action, hoping that maybe this will bring unity to the kingdom. I think it's a ridiculous interpretation. It's definitely the weakest of all of the theories that I have read on a number of levels. First of all, Saul had a wife and a concubine. So he was not exactly the paragon image of monogamy. And besides that, David, okay, he secluded these 10 concubines, but what about the other concubines? What about the other wives? And that's not going to satisfy monogamists. And then thirdly, the rest of this chapter does not show any appeasement policy. It shows the exact opposite. And so I check that theory completely off my list. A second interpretation that two commentators have given is that this is David's repentance for having married more than one wife. Now they recognize polygamy was a sin in the Old Testament. And they say that David is not trying to appease any human here. He is seeking to please the Lord. He has repented of his sin. He has put away these Extra wives these concubines that he had taken now. I see no evidence whatsoever for this interpretation the only evidence that pink brings forward is that From this chapter on there's no longer any mention of the word concubines Okay. Well, that's true. The word concubine does not occur but chapter 19 verse 5 indicates David had other concubines and These are the only 10 that he dealt with here, and it mentions other wives. And what about that horrible situation of Abishag, the bedwarmer, in 1 Kings 1? I just don't see any evidence whatsoever that this is a repentance of his polygamy. David was blind to this sin in his life. You know, every culture has respectable sins that people don't even think about. That was one of the respectable sins back then that people did not think about. And he was utterly blind to it throughout his whole life. And besides that, you cannot please God by ditching your responsibilities to a wife that you have sinfully married. Once the sinful marriage has happened, God says you're stuck and you have now responsibilities to that wife. You've got to minister to her and to her needs. So I don't buy the idea that this was a repentance. He doesn't do the same thing for his other wives. He only does it for the wives, the concubines that his son had sexual relations with. So that theory does not wash. Others suggest that David considered them to be defiled by another man, that he shunned them out of abhorrence. In other words, this was an emotional reaction against them. He just could not stand the idea of being around these women that another man had touched. But that didn't make sense out of his marriage to Abigail, who was married to Nabal, remember? It didn't make sense out of his marriage to Bathsheba. And it doesn't really fit the theme of the chapter that the author is crafting. Now Bergen claims that David is showing special care and consideration for women whom his son has hurt and abused. And while I think that that is true, I still have to ask the question, okay, yes, he is ministering to them, he is caring for them, but why did he shut them up in seclusion? You know, if he's so caring for them, why is he not going to be friends with them, hang around with them, minister to them in ways that a husband might minister? So while there's an element of truth there, I don't think it fully explains the situation. I think the best explanation goes back to chapter 16. Absalom's actions with these ten women in chapter 16 were identical to the actions taken by kings who took over kingdoms in the pagan nations that were around them. In pagan nations around Israel when a new king took over he would marry the wives and the concubines of the previous king as a sign of inheriting the kingdom. In other words Ahithophel was not just advocating rape, okay? There would have been no benefit legally to him having raped somebody else's wives. There'd be no legal claim whatsoever. In fact, it would accomplish the exact opposite. It would have turned the whole nation against Absalom, I believe, because this would have set him up as qualifying for the death penalty. So I don't think that that, that if there's any other way that you could say it except for that he took them as wives. Ahithophel was advocating that Absalom publicly take the concubines as his own, in other words, marry them and thus the public nuptial tents since marriage was a public ceremony. And that interpretation perfectly fits the words of Nathan in chapter 12 that this future tragedy would parallel David's taking of, what's his name? The other guy, Uriah's wife, as his own wife, okay? So what David did to Uriah is going to be done to David is the idea. So that's the first of several hints that Absalom actually married them as concubines. Now if that's true, then Deuteronomy 24 kicks in, and that verse says, that when a woman divorces a husband, marries a second husband, she may not go back to the first husband or the whole land will be defiled. And Jeremiah chapter 3 says exactly the same thing. Now that presumes that divorce has taken place, of course, and we don't have any reference to divorce. And so it's only a theory But of all of the theories that I have read, this by far makes the best sense of all of the information, and it makes sense out of three additional facts that we have in verse 3. It's almost like David feels like it's not lawful for him to go into these women. But secondly, he feels heartbroken. He wants to provide for them in some way, but he's not providing for them as a husband. And then thirdly, it explains why the text would call them widows. If you look at verse three, it says they were living in widowhood. Now they could only be widows if their husband is dead. Absalom is dead, not David. So again, it indicates that Absalom actually took these 10 women to be his wives. So it's my belief that David is in the heartbreaking situation of being forbidden by God's law to remarry these women, but he still felt an obligation to them. And this is his best attempt at mending a horribly tragic situation for which there was no good solution. He couldn't even be friends with them because that would not have been appropriate in that culture. They were not his wives anymore. But they are so hurt by this turn of events that they need to be cared for. Okay, so those are the theories that are out there. Whichever theory you take, you can see that David's rebellion with Bathsheba brought harm and heartbreak to his family. Bill Arnold's commentary says this, the book's very structure invites us to see the troubles in David's family and kingdom as the natural consequences of David's sin committed in chapters 10 through 12. David's private and personal sins are linked in a cause and effect continuum with subsequent sins within his own family, which eventually explode into public rebellion and national tragedy. David reaps in this narrative what he has sown in chapters 10 through 12. That much is clear. But what of Tamar and David's ten concubines? Why must they also suffer the punishment? As we have noted elsewhere, we should avoid confusing what are the natural consequences of sin with actual punishment for sin. The Old Testament honestly faces the sad fact that others suffer when we sin. And I think that last sentence that he offers there is at the heart of the meaning of verse three. He says, the Old Testament honestly faces the sad fact that others suffer when we sin. This probably would not have happened if David had not engaged in the sin of polygamy in the first place. It would not have happened if he had not engaged in that adultery with Bathsheba. It probably would not have happened if he had not tried to cover over his adultery by murdering Uriah. And then you've got these other sins that begin to heap on it, his coddling of his children and of Absalom that eventually lead to Absalom's rebellion. When rebellion is not immediately repented of, seeds are being planted, okay? They're being watered. And though the harvest is delayed, it's in another season, the spiritual laws of harvest say that you will always reap what you sow and you will reap a multiplied increase. This was a hugely multiplied increase. David hurt and destroyed one woman's life. Absalom destroyed 10 women's lives. There was a multiplied increase of this harvest. And God includes this very ugly chapter to motivate us to hate rebellion, to recognize the laws of harvest, to not plant the seeds of rebellion in the first place, or if it's too late, we've already planted them, at least pluck those young plants up before they can grow and produce their own seeds, okay? So dealing with sin very, very quickly. So point A should really be two points. There are laws of harvest that will eventually catch up with us when we rebel. And second, the family gets the bad end of the stick so many times when rebellion occurs, even on the state level. You could probably think of example after example of how state lawless laws, lawless statutes is probably a better way of saying it. have been destructive to the family. Just this past week, I was looking at HHS, Health and Human Services, just come up with this manual that is just filled with all kinds of new regulations where they can take kids from people's families. So destructive to the family. So if we want to preserve the family into the next generation, we must do everything we can to oppose the rebellion of our culture. against God's law work. Now let's quickly go through and take a look at 11 other ugly things that rebellion had produced in this chapter. Verse 4 says, and the king said to Amasa, assemble the men of Judah for me within three days and be present here yourself. Now here's the question, why on earth would David trust Amasa with his army? I mean, Amasa was a rebel. He had been leading Absalom's army. He had fought against David. He wanted, he was trying to kill David. And the, what makes it even more dangerous is he was the general, not only over the Southern armies, but he was the general over the Northern army. So it would have been so easy for Amasa to say, Oh, great. I'm in charge of the armies again, go up to the North and say, Hey guys, Remember me I'm your general and join with Sheba and take over I mean, it's really crazy that David would trust him in this way with so much power Well, actually it's not that David trusted him. It's that David felt more fear of Joab than he did of Amasa It's sort of like the Republican establishment getting rid of their grassroots Tea Party support. Now, without the grassroots, they're finished. And so it may seem odd to us that they willingly alienate them, but they feel threatened by the grassroots. And so they support rhinos who will even further alienate the Tea Party. Okay, take a look at chapter 19. Remember, Joab's threat, chapter 19, verses five through seven. Then Joab came into the house to the king and said, Today you have disgraced all your servants who today have saved your life, the life of your sons and daughters, the lives of your wives and the lives of your concubines, in that you love your enemies and hate your friends. For you have declared today that you regard neither princes nor servants. For today I perceive that if Absalom had lived and all of us had died today, Then it would have pleased you well now therefore arise go out and speak comfort to your servants for I swear by the Lord if you do not go out Not one will stay with you this night and that will be worse for you than all the evil that has befallen you from your youth until now He's basically threatening a rebellion. And of course, Joab had been kind of a rebel against David for quite some time now he had contradicted David's commands, worked behind his back. He had done what he thought was best for the party, and he felt done in that David did not appreciate his loyalty. Now, he was loyal in a sense. There's a sense in which he was, but now he was ready to bail on David because he felt so underappreciated. Earlier when David had tried to get rid of Joab, he couldn't. Joab was too strong for him. But David succeeded, or at least he thought he succeeded, in getting rid of him in chapter 19, verse 13. Take a look there. Chapter 19, verse 13. And say to Amasa, are you not my bone and my flesh? God do so to me and more also, if you are not commander of the army before me continually in the place of Joab. He's basically fired Joab, even though Joab has proved to be far more loyal. If it wasn't for Joab, David would have been finished long ago, at least from a human perspective, that appears to be true. But David couldn't control Joab, and he preferred a new rebel to a rebel he couldn't control. And it's really crazy when you think about it. But when rebellion against God's law begins to grow, you see these kinds of anomalies happening, rewarding rebels with leadership, siding with the lesser of two evils, making a covenant with those who are on the other side of the aisle in ways that really are not helpful, that are destructive to your purposes. It's nuts. But it's part and parcel of the pragmatic approach necessitated by the kind of lawless rebellion that was described last week. As long as there is rebellion against God's law in Washington, D.C., don't expect much better policies. A third thing that you see is cynicism, demotivation, passive resistance. Verse 5. So Amasa went to assemble the men of Judah, but he delayed longer than the set time which David had appointed him. Now what caused his delay? There are two theories. As Kenneth Chaffin words it, it isn't known whether Amasa was not able to enlist the men needed in the time allotted, or whether he may have been trying on his own to take advantage of the situation to continue Absalom's revolt. So there's two theories. Some people think on the one hand, it might be passive or active resistance on the part of AMISA. And on the other hand, some people think, no, it's maybe passive resistance on the part of the population who has become so cynical, they don't really have much eagerness to go to war again. And you can understand why both theories would make sense. Think of it in terms of modern politics. The establishment Republicans want to have their cake and eat it too. They like the money and they like the new members that Ron Paul and the Tea Party have brought in, but they don't want them in power because they can't control them. They're too much like Joab. So where do they go? They support traitors like Amasa who have never shown any loyalty. the kind of people whom the Tea Party newbies are absolutely disgusted by. And this leaves the proverbial amissas and joabs in the general population frustrated and demotivated. With the things that Boehner and the other rhinos are for, it's pretty hard to get the general populace excited about going to battle. Two of the consequences that happen after a rebellion has produced new rebellions is cynicism and demotivation. When there are no transcendent principles that are bigger than us to give us vision, to give us energy, there is nothing people are willing to die for. In fact, they want to bail, pretty quickly want to bail. Verse 6 speaks of expediency as another disastrous consequence. And David said to Abishai, Now Sheba the son of Bichri will do to us, excuse me, do us more harm than Absalom. Take your Lord's servants and pursue him lest he find for himself fortified cities and escape us. David is beginning to panic that maybe Amasa is turning out to be a traitor. And so he tries to get Abishai Joab's brother to work for him. Now he can't talk to Joab because he's fired Joab and he does no longer on good terms with him. Joab knows that David doesn't like him has tried to get rid of him on several occasions. So David asks Joab's brother to lead. So here's what's going on. David is forced to ask a rebel, Abishai, to deal with a rebel, Amasa, who is supposed to have dealt with a rebel, Sheba. It's a mess, okay? Expediency takes the day rather than principle. And don't feel sorry for David because he's gotten into this mess on his own. And God guaranteed exactly this kind of thing would happen in chapter 12 when he prophesied about this rebellion. Now in point E, we see the reformation of coalitions within the party. Aggravating as it may have been to David, it is looking like he's gonna end up having Joab running the show once again. Even though David has given the assignment to Abishai, I want you to notice who leads. It's Joab, verse seven. So Joab's men, with the Cherithites, the Pelophites, and all the mighty men went out after him. And they went out of Jerusalem to pursue Sheba, the son of Bichri. Joab knows how to get the job done and David needs him. But we're going to see that even though Joab has an intense loyalty to the Republican Party, so to speak, he plays dirty in order to win. Why? because he's a rebel at heart. Now we've already seen Abishai was a rebel as well. What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? He says to both Abishai and to Joab. Abishai knows which side of his bread is going to get buttered. He stays loyal to Joab. You know, he's really nothing without Joab. So David is stuck. When rebellion is pervasive, it is hard to know whom to trust. And so you end up with compromise, mixed coalitions, and pragmatism. Notice next the pretended loyalty of both Amasa and Joab to each other in verses 8 through 9. Text says, when they were at the large stone, which is in Gibeon, Amasa came before them. Now, Joab was dressed in battle armor. On it was a belt with a sword fastened in its sheath at his hips. And as he was going forward, it fell out. Then Joab said to Amasa, are you in health, my brother? and Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. So Joab pretends to hold no grudge against Amasa. who's basically taken away his job. And as he's walking, he lets his sword look like it accidentally falls onto the ground and he just leaves it there. Supposedly he's got another sword up his sleeve that Amasa does not see. And he greets Amasa like a friend. He kisses Amasa like a friend. He holds his beard with his right hand which would be normally where you would hold your weapon. There's no weapon. It's a sign that he's on his side. But it's all pretense. It's a game. And Amasa is willing to be kissed. Pretense, pretended loyalty. It's the stuff of which nauseating politics is made even today. But we saw last week that since rebellion is lawless, you will never know what kind of loyalty you are facing whether people are just being loyal to you because they're fear of recrimination, retaliation, greed, or some other motivation, but you don't know what it is that's making these people friendly to you. In France, even the dedicated leaders like Robespierre ended up being executed. There can be no trust when rebellion is at the heart of resistance, which just reinforces once again why we need to put off all 10 or 11 principles of rebellion that we looked at last week. Verse 10 shows the actual act of treachery. Friendship with the right hand, a stab in the stomach with the left hand. But Amasa did not notice the sword that was in Joab's hand and he struck him with it in the stomach and his entrails poured out on the ground and he did not strike him again, thus he died. Then Joab and Abishai, his brother, pursued Sheba, the son of Bichri. When you use the lawful approach to resistance that David advocated most of his life, people can disagree with each other and still trust each other, still respect each other. But during times of rebellion, there is constant jockeying for position. Rebels are motivated to get rid of the competition. They can't trust others because they're not trustworthy themselves. Anything that is even remotely a threat will be eliminated. We are seeing this being played out right now in the Democratic and Republican parties where they're cannibalizing each other, all the while smiling smiles of friendship. And both parties are passing policies destructive of the church and family. Now, you might be skeptical that in America, Christians could be persecuted and killed. But if you have that opinion, you're still holding on to the idea that America is being governed by the old Christian law order where, yeah, you can have mutual respect even when you've got strong disagreements with each other. We still have remnants of that, but the further away from biblical thinking that our nation drifts, the more our nation is going to look like the rebellious pagan nations all around us. There is no room for dissent in China. There is no room for dissent in Muslim countries, and even in a so-called enlightened country like Germany, there is no room for dissent. or competition in the free market of ideas as can be evidenced by the persecution they have been bringing against homeschoolers. And you see this in other European countries. The further away from the Bible we become, the more you're going to see this kind of thing happening. So if the Lord does not turn our rebellious nation around, it's just a matter of time before those in power try to get rid of us if we give them any pushback, okay? It's just the way rebellion works. It's one of the inevitable consequences. Now in verse 11, we see a redefining of loyalty. Now keep in mind the last characteristic of rebellion that we looked at in the sermon last week. Since rebellion substitutes something finite as the ground for loyalty rather than something transcendent, the very concept of loyalty becomes perverted and becomes idolatrous. It just becomes party principle. Rebels tend to emphasize what they're against rather than what they're for, because what they're for is not very energizing. It's not very exciting. So they have to always be against something. But since our whole makeup is designed to need this aspect of loyalty, they still feel like they have to call for loyalty. Just being against something is not enough. So there are calls to loyalty, but they sound very, very hollow. Usually it's a call to loyalty to the party. But compared to what our founding fathers pledged their fortunes and lives to, these modern calls for loyalty, I think, seem a bit lame. Take a look at verse 11. Meanwhile, one of Joab's men stood near Amasa and said, whoever favors Joab and whoever is for David, follow Joab. Now this is astounding. The whole group has just witnessed Joab's treachery, his deceit, his cold-blooded murder, and yet this man has the audacity to call people to be loyal to Joab. And notice that Joab's name comes first. David's thrown in there as an afterthought, but Joab's really the guy that's behind the power behind the scenes. But it's so sickening to witness what Joab has just done that this call to loyalty seems hollow. And he has the audacity to stand right beside Amasa's writhing body because he didn't have mercy and just go ahead and kill him with a second thrust of the sword. No, he wants to have him suffer. He's standing right beside Amasa's writhing body calling for loyalty. This is one audacious guy. But you know what we've got modern politicians who do exactly the same thing after a candidate is proved that he is not pro-life and after it is clear that his votes will leave the blood of babies on his hands murdered babies. The Republican Party calls us to forget those differences and if you're for the Republican Party you're going to vote the party line. Not me. Not me. That's about as sickening as if the RNC was standing beside Amasa's writhing body, wallowing in his blood, and asking me to get excited about Joab. To me, I don't see any difference whatsoever. No difference. These are the kinds of horrible consequences that happen when Christians refuse to bring God's law word into politics. We must embrace God's law or we're embracing rebellion. Those are the only two options that Psalm 2 holds out before us. It's either kiss the son and come into total submission to his law word or be smashed by his iron rod as rebels. Those are the only two options you can have. Embrace God's law 100% or you are a rebel. And so if you want a guarantee of what's going to happen in America, if Americans not repent, read Psalm 2. God says He's gonna smash nations in the New Covenants. The New Testament quotes Psalm 2 as being a New Covenant document. He's going to smash nations that refuse to bow before King Jesus and embrace His word. If they wanna cast off His law word, they're going to be destroyed. But in any case, keep this principle in mind. When rebellion flourishes in a culture, loyalty becomes perverted, it becomes idolatrous. Keep that in mind when you're working in politics. And when politics becomes so dehumanized and so devoid of principle that you have a man like that, even unbelievers have a hard time getting motivated. They are stunned by the hypocrisy and the evil. Take a look at verse 12. But Amasa wallowed in his blood in the middle of the highway. And when the man saw that all the people stood still and they stood still because even hardened soldiers were stunned by the callousness of it. But oddly, this man is not. He's puzzled. How come people are standing still? It's almost like he is so hardened. He's just a hardened dude. Anyway, it says when he saw that they all stood still, he moved Amasa from the highway to the field and threw a garment over him when he saw that everyone who came upon him halted. Now let's take the first and the last parts of that verse and take a look at that first. Rebellion can lead people to do things so horrible that even the general populace is stunned and horrified. The people couldn't move on. They are sickened. They are stopped in their tracks. In 1973, Roe v. Wade abortion ruling in the Supreme Court had that impact. America was stunned at the level of rebellion that the courts had engaged in. We can actually kill babies and still have people standing beside their corpses and saying we need to be loyal to the American dream. It was horrifying at that time. I knew even pagans who were against that ruling. But you know what? They didn't do much. Just like these soldiers, they stood still. They were sick into their stomachs, but they really didn't know what to do. It did take the wind out of their sails. But what happened next? Well, the media whitewashed it, removed the ugliness of it from the public eyes and tried to keep people from seeing the gut-wrenching nature of abortion. And then most of the population was able to move on. And that's exactly what happened here. The soldiers were able to move on once the most offensive and visible aspects of what had happened were put out of their sight. Let's read verses 12 through 13. But Amasa wallowed in his blood in the middle of the highway. And when the man saw that all the people stood still, he moved Amasa from the highway to the field and threw a garment over him when he saw that everyone who came upon him halted. When he was removed from the highway, all the people went on after Joab to pursue Sheba, the son of Bichri. It's hard for people to embrace the implications of rebellion when they first appear in all their ugliness. It stops them in their tracks. But when a white sheet is drawn over the ugliness of rebellion, people eventually move on. They don't resist it. Let me give you some illustrations. The gut-wrenching ugliness of the 1960s sexual revolution was sanitized with peace symbols and flowers and music. The gut-wrenching ugliness of abortion in the 70s was sanitized with redefinitions of terms and speeches of compassion to women and pointing to the ugliness of rape and incest, and eventually the public moved on. The gut-wrenching ugliness of homosexual behavior in the 1980s was sanitized as love and sensitivity and justice and equal rights, and now we are having people sanitize pedophilia. bestiality, polygamy, and other things. We even had the Democrats refusing to allow an amendment to sexual orientation that Republicans inserted to say pedophilia will still be criminalized. No, they refused to allow that amendment. And you and I stand by this horrible ugliness with our stomachs churning, and we wonder how Joab and his men can do this. But the media helps them. They cast a sheet over the ugliness of that and they move on. It's just how rebellion works. The ugliness is covered until people are desensitized to it and eventually the ugliness itself is embraced. The head of Pure Life Ministries once shared, and it's a wonderful ministry by the way, but the head of Pure Life Ministries once shared how initially he was very offended with hardcore pornography and homosexuality, but as he got accustomed to Playboy and Penthouse, he started branching out into other materials and actions, and things that would previously have horrified him, sickened him, became attractive to him. Like Joab, he came to the place where he could do the ugly thing himself and not be bothered in the least. It's just the way rebellion works. If it is not repented of, it becomes easier and easier to become more and more rebellious. So God has crafted this ugly chapter to shake us out of our lethargy, to make us cast off all rebellion, to submit our hearts unreservedly to God. And if our nation does not repent, Psalm 2 is guaranteed to take place. It is a prophecy of our times and it says, now therefore be wise, O kings. Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." And how do we put our trust in Him in the civil realm? Well, verses 1 through 2 tells us exactly how we do it. By not being ashamed of Jesus in the civil sphere, by advancing his laws and culture and by being bound by sola scriptura in the civil realm. Our nation has cast off the bonds of sola scriptura and Psalm 2 identifies it as a rebel nation fit to be smashed to pieces by Christ's rod of iron. Nothing but grace can avert it. Pray, pray, pray brethren. Point K. Verse 14 indicates that when rebellion is not dealt with it spreads to others. And he that is Sheba and I won't go into all the time of why commentators believe it's Sheba not here talking about Joab. And he that is Sheba went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel and Beth Maacah and all the Barais. So they were gathered together and also went after Sheba. Went after means they follow them. OK. Abel was about as far north as you could get in Israel. Sheba was retreating from David, but in the process he was trying to raise an army of rebels, and so the rebellion was spreading to others. Commentators point out that it wasn't spreading as much as Sheba had hoped that it would, but it did spread. And rebellion always spreads when it is not dealt with. When rebellion is not dealt with within the family, it spreads to other family members. Within a church, it spreads. It poisons many people. And within the culture in general, that is true as well. Many of you have witnessed this in your own lifetime. that homosexuality, which is the ultimate expression of rebellion, has spread to virtually every nook and cranny of our nation. It was a tiny, tiny minority that advocated homosexuality, but by not being resisted, it eventually became embraced and celebrated in America. It has influenced corporate America, the courts, the political parties, the schools. It has supporters everywhere. It's even spread into Christianity because Christians themselves have rebelled against God's law word. Verse 15 shows one last consequence. Because the city did not deal with rebel Sheba in an appropriate fashion, the whole city including men, women, and children were in danger of being destroyed. Then they, that is Joab and his men, came and besieged him and Abel of Beth Maacah and they cast up a siege mound against the city and it stood by the rampart and all the people who were with Joab battered the wall to throw it down. Now there are many other examples in scripture and outside of scripture that show the disastrous consequences of rebellion and also the blindness of people who rush into it. It's a weird thing. There are people who don't care. They are rebels and even though they know they're going to be destroyed, they're going to be rebels anyway. It's just in their heart they are driven to that. Others are simply rebels because they are just passive. But I would dare say most of the people in that city didn't ask Sheba and his army to stay there. That would be my guess. But neither did they complain about it or resist it. And because of their passivity, they suffered the consequences of the city's stupidity, just as we are suffering the consequences of our nation's stupidity. our state's stupidity, our county and our city's stupidity. When we are a passive people, in a sense, we deserve it. Now, last week, we outlined rebellion in the courts, in the executive office, in the Congress. We saw rebellion in the church and the family. Rebellion is so ingrained in American society, it is tough, it is hard to row against the current. And what is weird about all of those forms of rebellion is that they give the illusion of freedom. and liberty, and initiative, and rights, and being authentic. For example, the feminist movement very rightly was fighting against some of the abuses that were present in many families. They were trying to liberate women, free women. What they did not realize is that their rebellious methods actually destroyed the family in America, absolutely destroyed the family. If you read the original feminist writings, you'll see they very self-consciously wanted to destroy the family. It's written right into their writings. They said the only way to have total egalitarianism is to do away with the family. But chauvinism can be just as rebellious against God's law order and just as destructive. So we are not talking about siding with one part of creation against another part of creation. We're talking about a radical submission to God when we resist institutional evil. Ultimately, all rebellion can be boiled down to sin. James I. McCord said, sin arises out of mistrust. Man is afraid to trust the divine destiny and to accept his limits. The rebellion that follows is a decisive act of repudiation, a trusting of self over against God, which means if we are to be successful in avoiding rebellion, we must walk by faith. It takes faith to do things God's way. When there is institutional evil in the family We want to pick rebellion. It's so much easier on the on the startup. It takes faith to do things god's way when there is Institutional evil in the church. It takes faith to do things god's way when there is institutional evil in culture But you know what even if the institutions are not following god's word in psalm 2 we can still As individuals and as families do what Psalm 2 tells us to do to kiss the Son, Son of God, submit to him and do so long before the institutions do. That's where it starts. It starts with you and me in radical submission to his word. May it be so Lord Jesus. Amen. Father God, we thank you. for Your Word, even the ugly portions of Your Word that remind us of the ugliness of sin, the ugliness of the consequences of sin. Father, help us to flee from sin, to hate it, to be passionate in our resistance to our sin. Help us to take up our cross and to follow Christ. Help us to put on the whole armor of Christ. and to fight against the wiles of the devil, to fight against the world system thinking and against our own flesh. Father, give this your people success in opposing all rebellion wherever it is found and radically submitting their hearts to you. In Jesus' name we pray, amen.