Jesus the Begotten God

Sovereign Grace Family Church iconSovereign Grace Family Church

2 views

0 comments

00:00
Come into our time together our time of study and what we're going to be doing today is we're going to looking a little bit More at the dispensational perspective and sort of the history of it Versus the the covenant theological position which we've looked at both sides rather extensively the last few weeks And come on in come on Good morning But before we before we begin completely let us Let us turn to turn to the Lord in prayer Our Father and our God we are thankful for the opportunity to study your word, we're thankful for the opportunity to concern ourselves with the business of Who are your people what is your plan? Asking the tough questions How should we view? Israel the church, how should we view the scriptures and The purpose of the giving of the scriptures and how salvation comes to humankind Lord we thank you that we have been made Inheritors Of salvation because of the work of Jesus Christ we have been adopted as sons through your Holy Spirit And we are grateful for justification adoption Sanctification and all the the all of the many blessings that come with that We're thankful also God to be a part of the plan which glorifies you for your word teaches us that you are glorified in Bringing and saving a particular people for yourself and so God today as we Consider even more about who those people are and what the job is of the church in the world today We pray O Lord that you would minister to us through your word in Jesus name Amen As I said earlier We're going to continue what we have been doing if you if you hopefully you have the handout from last time if you don't I don't have any extra of these.
02:28
I apologize.
02:29
I'm going to be making a couple of references to this.
02:31
This is the page the four of the booklet that we were in where it addresses the differences between covenant theology and Dispensationalism and we stopped last week with the purpose of Christ's first coming regarding the covenant theological position and the dispensational position and the fulfillment of the new covenant and But before we get to that I've given you the next sheet in the book the next sheet in the book provides you with represent representative dispensational themes or schemes the representative dispensational schemes Show you how there has been an evolution And I use that word, please don't get some people get upset with the word evolution I don't I used to I don't anymore I as long as we understand what it means, there's no reason to shy away from the word obviously evolution simply means to change and there has been a change in the the positions of Dispensationalists since their founding as you notice on the sheet dispensationalism Really the idea and the concepts that are formed around dispensationalism Were were first introduced by Jay and Darby in the mid 1800s Jay and Darby was the one to propose that God essentially has Sort of a two-plan system where he has a plan for Israel and a plan for the church and that the Israel is not The church and the church is not Israel and As you can see from the sheet his position was that there was One two, three, four, five six seven there were essentially seven dispensations Ending with the Millennium the first dispensation that he had was the paradisical State and that's when he says was man was created from that point into the flood Well, if you look from J.H.
04:33
Brooks James Gray and C.I.
04:34
Schofield, Schofield being obviously the probably the most popular of those three You'll notice that very soon after Jay and Darby introduced this concept there was a divide in that paradisical situation and then that makes sense because the To say it was paradisical after the fall is somewhat of a Misrepresentation the Adam and Eve were not in paradise anymore Adam and Eve were kicked out of paradise So the idea that there was a paradisical state that went all the way to the flood Well, no one would say that what led up to the flood was paradisical, but this is just this is an example of how somebody can introduce an idea and then someone else can come along and and bring about some Tweaking to that idea and sort of help enunciate what what is being said again Darby's sort of the foundational principle, but these other guys come along and and as I said The the one that has the most popularity is C.I.
05:42
Schofield How many of you have a Schofield reference Bible other than Richard? I know you're gonna raise your hand Do you have a C.I.
05:48
Schofield Bible, right? Yeah, I remember years ago being in a Group of preachers, but they most of these guys were holiness preachers They were not Baptists and I was of course a Baptist student at a Baptist school Sort of just talking and everybody was talking about their Schofield Bible I mean that was just that was the Bible to have and and everybody's what do you have one? I didn't have one.
06:13
I didn't know what it was.
06:14
I thought it was a I Thought it was a translation, you know at the time I was pretty ignorant of these things I didn't know much about it.
06:20
So they said do you have a Schofield Bible? I thought it was sort of like do you have an NIV, you know? Cuz that's what this is what you think about, you know Or do you have a a New American Bible or or ESV or whatever? They said you have a Schofield.
06:31
This was you know, many many many years ago.
06:33
Never even heard of it So when I was told do you have a you need one? You know, oh, well, I better go get one.
06:42
Well, I never did buy one It just wasn't didn't have the money at the time when you're in seminary you you You buy what you have to and then you spend your rest of your money on food because usually don't have much You buy food and you buy the books I tell you to buy because you you're always buying books.
06:58
So I didn't buy a Schofield reference Bible But like I said a lot of people Considered Schofield to be sort of the preeminent Study Bible and by the way, if you don't know what it is, that's what it is It's a it's a it's a Bible that has the the scripture at the top and it's King James Bible and at the bottom are the notes and Schofield's notes was it was my hope is built on nothing less than Schofield's notes and Moody's press That's an old, you know, but Schofield's notes were just the dispensationalists saw them as being very Very Aligned with what they taught about the nation of Israel about the church and the responsibility of understanding the distinctions between the two and So Schofield became very popular and even to today a lot of pastors.
07:49
That's the that's the study Bible that they have so again from Darby to Schofield there is an evolution there's a clearing up of some of the Distinctions the paradisiacal state To the flood under Darby and then by the time you get to Schofield, there's two states There's man in his innocence and there's man in his conscience If you look at the James Gray and the JH Brooks, you'll see a phrase there that you're probably not familiar with Well, some of you will be What is the term? antediluvian mean What is that? Huh That would actually be prior prior to yeah, yeah and a yeah Preceding the flood it sounds like it would be after in more modern language but this particular term it means leading up to or prior to the flood, so By the way, dear, I don't want you to sit there without at least something to look at So hate for you to keep looking at me And so you have the the the position of the dispensation list was okay God has created man He created man in an innocent state man by his sin Forced in a sense a Changing of his state with God.
09:20
I don't necessarily disagree with that I mean there, you know, maybe maybe I'm using the wrong language But there was a change from the time God Created man to the time God came into the garden and man had sinned and he was looking for Adam And what'd he say? He said, where are you? And he said, you know, I'm you know, I'm naked.
09:41
So I'm hiding What was the first? What was the first thing felt after sin? Hey, Mary Shame and there was that shame shame They hid themselves they hid themselves from God to himself and one another they sewed Clothes they yeah they knew that they shouldn't be looking at each other because now they're Experiencing things like lust and things that all of these emotions that they hadn't had before were coming into the picture So they're covering themselves and they're covering themselves not only from one another but they're covering themselves from God.
10:10
They're feeling shame So there is a change now It's interesting that in the book of John It says no one has seen the father the only begotten son who is from the father he has Exposed him the word there's for exegete.
10:28
He has explained him So it's interesting Because when we think of Adam and Eve We think but didn't they see the father in? their in their innocence Was there anything that kept them from seeing the father I Contend that they still saw the pre-incarnate Christ The same way Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon a stone was a pre-incarnate Christ the angel the Lord Who who spoke with Abram outside of the under the oaks at Mamre? I believe that was a pre-incarnate Christ I don't think that anybody has ever seen the father.
11:04
I think every time a person has seen God They have seen the Son and While God the Son is God.
11:13
He is God the Son not God the Father We make a distinction between the three persons of the Trinity though.
11:18
They share a being there's only one being which is God that being Exists in three persons and those three persons are not the same person there Sure sure absolutely and and so when we see in the garden Adam and Eve interacting with God We believe that to be Christ Yes, I do Because later in John when he says no man has seen the father.
11:49
I think that's a statement of universality No, man, so if we say well Adam did that's saying well either that was wrong or we're missing misunderstanding it And I don't think we're misunderstanding because it's a universal negative You've heard me explain the universal negative right universal net if I say No one can ride a bicycle and Then I see a little kid you're ching ching and a ride-by That destroys my argument Because I made a universal statement Now if I said most people can't ride bicycles and little boy ching ching that doesn't destroy my argument because I didn't make a universal Statement I made a statement of generality most people can't ride bicycles, but he can right well When when the book of John says no one has seen the father That's a universal negative so Going back into how this affects all this we go back to the paradisiacal state Hmm if you say no one can no one has seen the father except the son Yeah, it's in John 1.
12:57
Let's go there and look at the book.
13:03
I would say that's a pre-incarnate Christ That would be that would and that's what I said earlier Isaiah 6 In fact I can prove that one, but I don't have the verse on the tip of my tongue but there is a passage in one of the Gospels where it references Isaiah seeing my glory and Jesus talking about himself, and it's an exact reference to Isaiah 6 so so there so yeah So that that one is like for me not even a question because Jesus references it But the issue of Adam and Eve has always been somewhat of a question because there was an innocent position That they had so what would have kept them from seeing God? So like I said the only thing that makes me think that they were seeing Christ and not the father is the passage in in It's John 1 18 if you want to go there John 1 18 No one has ever seen God Now we have to make a distinction because the very next phrase The only God who is at the father's side he has made him known that sounds like a distinction That there are two gods But it's not If you have a King James version it doesn't say that if you have a King James or New King James It says no one has ever seen God the only begotten Son who is at the father's side.
14:36
He has made him known This is the thing and and boy howdy are we gonna depart a little bit now, but you you need to know this there is a There is a textual variant at John 1 18 what is a textual variant I may know Nope, no a textual variation is where within the manuscript history The history of the Bible's transmission You have different you have inspiration transmission translation These are all part of how we get the Bible right as it is transmitted down to the ages You have handwritten copies of the Bible.
15:23
There are times where there are questions about how a particular word is to be Translated, but there's also questions about what the word was Because some manuscripts have this word some manuscripts have that word for instance Yes, so courios Right, that's Jesus Lord or the Lord Jesus did the Lord Jesus, right? if it says Let me think Well, it wouldn't say that I was gonna say yes or missy oc, but that's Hebrew If it says yes or courios or if it says courios yesu Is the same thing? Because it's either saying the Lord Jesus or Jesus the Lord, right? It's it's the word order is dependent, right? But there are times where it will say just courios and There's times it will say just yesus and you'll have two manuscripts one will say just yesus one will say just courios Because what was the title of Christ? Or Christos, that's the word I was thinking you've got Christos courios and yesu and sometimes it'll say yesu courios Jesus the Christ sometimes say yesu Courios yesu Christos Jesus the Christ, right? That's the word for Messiah.
16:52
That's the way I was thinking So so you will see that why does that happen? What happens because the Bible is transmitted by human beings who are writing and as they are writing there are opportunities for these minute minute minimal Errors, and so what we have to do is we have to consider the fact that we have now Over 5,700 Greek handwritten Greek manuscripts that range all the way back to the first and well the second century all the way to About the 16th century handwritten Greek manuscripts This is you know up until the time of the printing press.
17:31
Everything was handwritten, right? So so everything is written but not all by scribes see the early Christians did not have scripturians The Jews did and that is why what we have with the Jewish Bible is much more intact as far as the is as far as standards they had the point where they would count the letters of The text to make sure that no letter was left out Christians didn't have that Christians in the first century were on the run How is it that we know that we have the original the Bible as it was originally written? How can we be confident? Well, we can be confident because so many copies were made they didn't have scripturians They had literally people in rooms like this people that would come to the churches.
18:14
Hey, I don't have Paul's letter to Corinth Can I have your copy and they would write a copy and then that would and there was just so many of them This is one of the proof of the fact that our faith has not been changed Because there's no way at any point in time because there was such proliferation of the text there was no way at any point in time that anybody could have gathered up all the manuscripts and destroyed them and Wrote a new letter to the Corinth Corinthian Church from Paul.
18:41
There was just too many of them.
18:43
It had gone out too quickly and Too widely to ever be redacted so that's one of the reasons why we can feel very confident and Here's the thing we have manuscripts that go back within 30 40 50 years of the original Which is so much better than any other work of antiquity the writings of Homer The Iliad and things like that the earliest manuscripts we have of those Thousand years after they were written is the earliest manuscripts we have the New Testament the earliest manuscripts We have are within 20 30 40 years depending on the book We have fragments of Mark That could possibly be first century fragments meaning within the 80s and 90s Because we believe Mark was written in the 50s and 60s I mean within 20 years of the original writing it's amazing what we have in New Testament scholarship, but all that being said There are going to be times where there's variations one of the most common type of variation is when someone does a The scribe will remember something and will add Something from another portion of a text for instance if you read the Lord's Prayer in Matthew and you read the Lord's Prayer in Luke they're different because it's two different times you think Jesus only taught how to pray once I mean Jesus taught how to pray a bunch of times right and it doesn't always have to be the same You know if Jesus said basically the same thing.
20:08
Hallowed be thy name Kingdom come will be done.
20:11
You know it's pretty much the same prayer, but if you read it in Luke It's different than in Matthew however in the King James Bible.
20:15
They're identical Well, why are they identical because the King James Version is based on the Byzantine text type the Byzantine text type is based on a Manuscript tradition which there's obvious signs where there were times where scribes did what's called balancing it out or Equivocation they okay well it says this here must have said it over here, and so they would they would balance things That's not what you're supposed to do.
20:38
We can see it now And this is one of the reasons why Personally I don't use the King James exclusively because there are historical problems with the Manuscript tradition there are actually Multiple lines, but there's two major families There's the Byzantine text type and the Alexandrian text type the Alexandrian text type tends to be older Tends to go back closer to the original, but there's less of those The Byzantine tends to be relatively newer meaning within the last thousand years versus the last 2,000 years But there's so many of them the Byzantine text type is what's responsible for the writing of the King James That's a lot and way off the subject by the way, but all that being said in John 1 18 You have the word Huyas in the Greek Huyas Means I need a different marker.
21:35
That's not what it means, but okay Huyas means Son okay Huyas means son What is the word for God Mm-hmm now you think in the name for Jesus in Greek.
21:58
What is the word for God? So you all know this if I say it you're gonna say They ask thank you, yeah fast All right All right, that is the Greek for God That's the that's the the sound in Greek the th letter is Th and then they has there's a little accent there, and then we we is the When you put the oops law on the OTA together it makes sort of like in the word sweet You put the word sweet.
22:30
What do you put s you I te right? That's when you're talking about like a sweet a room that We sound that you get from the you and the I is it called a diphthong well It's the same in Greek who else is a diphthong in Greek, and it makes a Huy so it's Huyas Huyas is son, so these are the two words one some texts have this some texts have it Okay, so what so how do we determine well? Modern translators are going with the older rendering Which is theos the KJV goes with the later rendering which is Huyas and This becomes a major issue for people because they say well It's the only begotten son of the only begotten God because there was monogamous Huyas monogamous is only begotten or is it monogamous theos only begotten God Only begotten God is harder to understand So a lot of people like monogamous Huyas because it's easier.
23:29
Here's the issue though when you are studying textual variation One of the rules of textual variation is that when given the opportunity between the harder reading and the easier reading It's almost always going to be the harder reading because it's less likely that someone is going to change something to something harder Than that they're going to change it to something easier It's more likely that if I'm trying to make sense of this That I would say only begotten son by the way that's a phrase That's used a lot of times in John, so it'd be easy to interpolate that here right It would be very odd for someone to accidentally Put in monogamous theos But if you understand it and the reason why I do think it's theos if you look at it within the text itself It makes a point about the Trinity because if you go back up to John 1 1 in the beginning was the word Who's that Jesus the word was with who? God and the word what was God so it's already said Jesus is God in fact in the next verse He was in the beginning with God and all things were made through him and without him was nothing made that was made So what is it already said about Jesus? He's God because he's the creator of everything and yet.
24:50
He's in relationship with God He is God and in relationship with God see this is why I'm such a Trinitarian Because I don't think you can make sense of this if you're not a Trinitarian if you're a modalist it doesn't make sense So modalism says God the Father God the Son of the same person if they're the same person They can't be in a relationship because persons don't interact with themselves unless they're schizophrenic and God's not schizophrenic Says God the Father interacted with God the Son and God the Spirit there was an inter Trinitarian relationship prior To the creation of the world this is why God is love God didn't have to create us to have something to love there was already love happening within the Trinity before he created anything There was an inter Trinitarian relationship that existed prior to creation He said let us make God on a man in our own image And there's and there's yes certainly a lot that can be said throughout the Old Testament of God being singular in his being and in his nature But being plural in his person God the Father God the Son God the Holy Spirit So when we get to John 1 18 it says no one has ever seen God who is the God? Referencing there, it's from John 1 in the beginning was the word the words with God.
26:01
That's the God that's being referenced But then it says what? the only and It's actually the only begotten God And you say how can God be begotten here's the thing and this is I'm gonna be teaching on Trinitarianism in September I'm when I come back on Wednesday nights after our break I'm gonna be teaching through I wrote a book years ago called God in three persons.
26:29
It's a on the doctrine of the Trinity I'm gonna be teaching through that Lesson series again because I think it's something that we need to stay focused on who God is in his nature, but on that issue The only begotten God why is it that we can say Christ is begotten? He is the eternally begotten Son Christ is begotten of the Father, but there was never a time when he wasn't And you say now wait a minute wait a minute that doesn't make sense Because if he's begotten he has to have had a time when he'd be wasn't But let me explain something to you, and this is how I How I explain it.
27:10
I hope this makes sense.
27:11
I hope this doesn't just mess mess Go like I don't want to confuse you, but I want to hopefully help you I have existed in My current state as Keith Foskey For 36 years plus you know give or take a few months I Existed in my mother's womb as a living person nine months prior to that right But as long as I have existed as Keith Foskey as long as I've existed Thoughts have existed that come from me everybody agree I beget thoughts All right I'm not saying this is a perfect analogy And if you want to take me to task later and say don't try to make analogies for the Trinity Keith because it's too dangerous There can be some danger here, but I want to help you How to understand this begotten God thing As long as I have existed my thoughts have existed my thought My consciousness has existed as long as I have but yet it still comes from me All right Do you agree my consciousness exists as long as I have and it comes from me But it's existed as long as I have okay That's a that's a very very very very bad analogy because of what I'm going to say now Christ comes from the Father and yet has existed as long as the Father has existed which is forever He comes from him eternally and if you can't understand that but you think you understand how God is eternal See that's the thing we're dealing with eternal beings Christ is eternally begotten of the Father It's incomprehensible, but yet it is And the Spirit proceeds Eternally from the Father and the Son read the Nicene Creed.
29:16
This is what it says begotten not made They make a distinction Christ is begotten meaning he comes from the Father, but he's not created Because he has always Come from the Father That's the point of what we call eternal sonship Christ has always been the Son of the Father the Spirit has always proceeded from the Father and the Son There's a distinction in Eastern Orthodoxy, and it was actually created a split I think was in 1056 when the Eastern Church and the Western Church split they split over the question of whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son I Would argue that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son but I Wouldn't make that an issue of doctrine As far as I wouldn't I wouldn't divide with somebody they say no I think the Spirit is from the Father.
30:12
I would say yes, I think the Spirit is from the Father and the Son But that's a whole that historically that was the reason for the division.
30:21
Can you imagine an entire? Division over The the whether or not the Spirit proceeds from both or from the Father only Hey Hey and theology does matter and I'm certainly not disagreeing with that But on this issue, it's a major one of the biggest Historically, and I don't want to now chase a rabbit for just one second historically the reason for the division was less about what it was saying and More about the fact that Rome made the pronouncement without conferring with them Rome said nope, this is the way it is and guess what they said.
31:02
You don't get to make that decision.
31:04
We're out so that was more an issue of authority Than so much the theology, but the theology matters, of course, certainly But anyhow, we have really gone like way off, but hopefully this has been somewhat helpful because ultimately Things like textual variation they matter I teach How the Bible came to be as Regularly because I think people need to understand that but ultimately getting back to Adam and Eve going back to our original concept here We know that no man has seen the father and again that sort of goes back to you Rosanna what you were asking Is that what it says? I think specifically it does say that I think it's specific universal negative.
31:49
No one has seen the father Or no one has seen God The only begotten God or if we want to go with the King James or the only begotten son Who was at the father's side? He has made him known.
32:03
See that's Jesus's role in the Trinity Jesus's role is to make the father known He is Coming.
32:12
What does he say on behalf of his father? I've come not to do my will but the will of him who sent me You know, he's he's very specific about The fact that when he came in human flesh he came in humility You know he came he who created all things Became a servant he who he who formed the very air that we breathe himself took a breath in the person of Jesus Christ You know he who formed water took a drink in the person of Jesus Christ.
32:39
It was an amazing entering into human Humanity and amazing humbleness that God would enter into that which he had created so he is the one and the word here for Made him known and John 1 18 is exegeto and that's where we get the word exegete You've heard me talk about exegeting the Bible taking out of the Bible what it means not Isageting or asageting reading into it we exegete right? Well, that's what Jesus does.
33:07
We can't see God So we see Jesus and Jesus exegetes or explains who God is That's what people say.
33:16
I don't know.
33:17
I don't really know God will know Jesus and you'll know God Jesus said if you've seen me What you've seen the father? Not to say that I am the father but in our nature There is no division in our in our being There is no Divide or separation.
33:40
So if you've seen if you really want to know who God is Make it your mission to know who Christ is And there you will know who God is And that's the key and that's way off the subject, but let's get back.
33:54
Yeah, boy.
33:54
Howdy.
33:55
How did this happen Richard? I'm just been There's only one place that this is the phrase the son of the pop and Okay You know what I thought you were gonna say, okay, I when you said son of the father I thought you were gonna reference Barabbas You know the name Barabbas You know Barabbas was he was the one who Jesus Took the cross that was supposed to be Barabbas's cross the word Barabbas means it's Bar Abba son of the father That's what it means.
34:49
It's interesting that the son of the father was replaced by the son of the father Bar Abba, yeah Abba meaning daddy or father Yeah, son of yeah, so Barabbas and and some people think that that means that Barabbas was a Actually a What's it called a child without a father was called Orphan yeah some people think that because they didn't know his name You know Simon bar Jonah, you know who his father is Simon.
35:22
You know or this person bar this you know They're you know who their sons are But if you call him Bar Abba, we don't know your daddy is so just call you son of the father You have a father.
35:32
We don't know who he is.
35:33
So some people interject that the text doesn't say that but that's a that's a That's a thought that perhaps he was an orphan or an abandoned person who didn't have a lineage Yeah, yeah, he might have been a way of hiding himself not not bringing his family into That So getting back to this another thing that we note When looking at this page five here and we're almost out of time, but I want to look just at one one last thing Not only is there a division in? Darby and Schofield over the paradisical state but if you go down to the next thing you'll see that there's actually unanimity between Darby and Schofield on Noah and Abraham being divided and yet if you look under Gray and Brooks It's just simply says patriarchs, which my assumption is that Brooks and Gray would say that well Noah began sort of the patriarchy Because Noah was God's chosen person and it was from Noah that Abraham came and there's actually a lineage in Genesis Which shows us how Abraham is a descendant of Noah? But the distinction for Schofield and I assume for Darby as well is that under Noah There is God saving his people through the ark There is God giving the government to the people through the and is him understand how government came after Noah So does everybody understand that? Because Noah was told what? He was told if a man sheds the blood of another man so by man his blood too shall be shed Capital punishment is The foundation for all subsequent law You say now, what do you mean? Capital punishment says if you maliciously and purposely take the life of another human being You have voided your right to living and thus you get the concept that would later be Fleshed out an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth a hand for hand and a foot for foot And if you and I know you've all heard well, if you're an eye for an eye the whole world goes blind Yes, I understand that and I understand what they're saying but the eye for an eye principle was given to the judges of Israel based on the original idea that there has to be equity in Justice for instance, is it equitable that you have two men both have committed the same crime And one gets 50 years in prison and one gets five years in prison Is that equitable it is not We have to say no, it wouldn't be fair Especially if it were you who was getting the 50 and somebody else was getting the five And now what we see in government today We see some people who commit heinous crimes and they get off scot-free We see other people who get caught with a very little bit of something and they're in jail for 40 years And you say no, wait a minute.
38:50
Where's the equity in that? Well, that's one of the problems in our governmental system is we've lost any sense of equity We've lost the sense of our duty in establishing proper governing laws and rights from wrongs and so the first initial statement on government in Scripture is This every man did what was right when is it in his own eyes? There was no government.
39:16
See a lot of people like that.
39:18
They say oh man, we don't need no government.
39:19
We don't need no government And you know what I feel for people who are rejecting the modern overreach of government But you can go from overreach To no hand of government at all and guess what you go from tyranny to anarchy There is a place for government and there's a place for justice And without a governmental system of some kind there is no justice.
39:51
It's all mob rule Yeah, exactly Exactly Yeah, exactly that's the part I was saying the government that they had before the flood was every man did what was right in his own eyes and what they Do they only did evil? continually Because there was there was no Huh go ahead Well, no it was And even they were sinners Yeah They received the grace of God But it was after the ark that God establishes this government and like I said the did the the I don't have a problem with This is in regard to dispensationalism I just wanted to point out the fact that under Schofield he really makes the distinction what made it different after the ark What made it different after the ark was it now that now man will govern man And it will be abiding by the law of God How he will govern him Now will that be taken advantage of will that be misused? Well, yeah, has it been for sure, but that was established by God the fact that men will be Bound to certain standards and those standards will have Consequences when they are breached.
41:08
All right.
41:09
Well, we've certainly Gone over time.
41:12
So let's pray Thank You Father for what I pray has been a fruitful lesson and Pray that it be used of you to grow us all in Christ's name.