Trinity Evangel Church

This paragraph has something for everyone. All the paragraphs in Scripture do, and this one has some special perspective adjustments.

Romans 12 took us from the glories of inseparable union with Christ revealed in the first 11 chapters to practical altar living. Through the last two chapters we’ve been urged to avoid worldliness, to live as one body, to not take personal vengeance, to submit to earthly authorities, to love our neighbors, and to live as light in a culture of darkness.

Chapter 14 continues with gospel application for believers, but makes one big point from 14:1 to 15:13. What could be so important that we need to give it so much attention? The “all the commandments are summed up as love your neighbor as yourself” wasn’t enough? Yeah, apparently not. Sheep still have conflict with each other. And alright. Our convictions are built like our muscles, in more than one sitting.

Christians do have convictions, Christians don’t always have the same convictions, and Christians living in the same community without the same convictions often have conflict. The conflict gets hot because we think TRUTH and RIGHTEOUSNESS are at stake. We think CHRIST’S NAME and HIS HONOR are at stake. And all of that could be; it depends. But as those in the culture war, as those who put on the armor of light, we can act like the man whose only tool is a sword, and tries to knit with it. There will be problems.

Have you noticed that heretics usually don’t identify themselves that; they present as orthodox. And Christians usually don’t call themselves judgmental; they present as the virtuous. That can make us hard to deal with. Truth is SERIOUS and sin is RUINOUS and every hill is MOMENTOUS. We must take EVERY hill! But actually, while truth is serious and sin is ruinous, the truth is that not everything is sin. Not everything our conscience tells us is wrong is actually sin. Even more, while truth is serious and sin is ruinous, Christ dealt with sin on the hill of calvary for every Christian. He cares, He paid the cost, He calls the shots. Jesus is Lord.

If we applied Romans 12:3-5 without fail, plus 12:9-11, plus 12:16, plus 13:8-10, plus 13:14, we might not need 14:1-15:13. But, we don’t, so we do.

There’s a question that I regularly hear coming out of my mouth, and that I realize more and more is probably not going to lead to a satisfying conclusion. “What is the problem?” We don’t actually know the heart of the initial problem in Rome. There’s differences about diet and days, what is eaten or isn’t, what days are special or aren’t. But who are the vegetarians and sabbatarians? Paul refers to categories of weak and strong, who are which? The congregation in Rome had Jews and Gentiles, both groups had different upbringings, and either could have convictions about what was RIGHT for different reasons. The ways to be weak are quite a cornucopia.

But there is a clear problem about our perspective toward and handling of what may not really be a problem. What is not disputable is acting like we’re Jesus, but not for the sake of winning fellowship like Jesus. That’s not all, because the ones who are being confronted start being critical of the church ladies and looking down on them for being so sensitive. One judgy-pants is like watching a bad individual ballet recital, two judgy-pants are like an ugly ballet mosh pit.

It’ll be good to sit together in this larger section of Scripture for a few Sundays and see if we can’t have our minds renewed to see the good and acceptable and perfect.

Here we tune in to the series of unfortunate arguments over personal preferences and dubious opinions.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. (Romans 14:1 ESV)

There exist disputable things. Paul assumes their existence, he does not deny or resolve them. These things are opinions, thoughts and conclusions and choices that are not sin. But this is where it gets tricky, because some treat as sin what others don’t. Paul isn’t stepping in because people have good-natured disagreements over preferences, but because some turn preference issues into judging others. These are issues of conscience, things that don’t have a verse but get turned into a virtue.

Verse 2 is the first example, those who only eat veggies. But verse 5 talks about observing certain days, and verse 21 references eating meat and drinking wine (which Jews, except for Nazarites, didn’t have an issue with).

We’ll see in verses 5-9 that personal conviction is good, and that thankfulness is the key piece no matter one’s position. But the church 2000ish years later still has people arguing for moral betters. We still have “moral” confrontations over diet (gluten, sugar, fast food, GMOs) and alcohol, we could add in music and movies and screen time, sabbath/Sunday allowed activities, breastfeeding, recycling, and it’s sheep-to-sheep grief.

The weak in faith is not a person who is having trouble believing in Jesus for salvation. There’s nothing in these chapters that suggests that such a person is a goat, let alone that they are in danger of losing their salvation. This kind of weak in faith as seen in context is one who is struggling to see his/her faith applied to some basic choices. They’ve got more baggage—wherever they picked it up—than verses.

Two qualifications. First, when God’s Word identifies a sin, it is not “strong” to sin. Second, it is not better to be weak. It is not sin to be weak, but it is better to be strong though the strong ought not act superior. The “strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak” (15:1).

The last part of verse 1 provides some indication of what it may be like dealing with the weak. It can lead to quarrel(ing) over opinions. This has been understood various ways, tricky to translate. But the weak person here has convictions about “disputable matters” (NIV), controversial preferences, scrupulous pinching. While we ought not ostracize the weak, the church isn’t the place where everyone needs to listen to their lectures. Likewise, we don’t need to keep pushing the weak until they say “Uncle.”

Welccome him. Welcome is what God has done (verse 3), welcome is what Christ has done (Romans 15:7). Let them in the door, into the circle. Since this is how the section starts, it seems that the weak were probably the minority. As we know, though, it only takes a spark to get a fire going over disputable things.

There are disputable things, and it's okay for now.

Here’s the first example of an “opinion/conviction” that might not always make for a healthy exchange of ideas.

One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. (Romans 14:2 ESV)

Sometimes I think we must read 1 Corinthians 10:31 differently, as if it said: So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to give grief to the person doing it differently than you.

Speaking of 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote Romans from Corinth. And he had previously written to the Corinthians about some who were eating food offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1-13), whether they could get that meat cheaper or not. But while there are similarities, there’s no mention of tainted-with-idol meat. This isn’t just no-idol-meat, this is NO meat. The weak person eats only vegetables.

Why vegetarian? Were these Jews following the Daniel Diet? Were these Gentiles feeling guilty about their pre-Christian days of Bacchus banqueting? It kind of doesn’t matter why, what does matter is that they turned it into a “better than thou” religious reason.

It is one thing to talk about wisdom and good health and Creator-honoring stewardship. But wow do we have a hard time not turning it into righteous/unrighteous, “YOU ARE SINNING by eating THAT!.”

There are stronger and weaker brothers, and it's okay for now.

Paul provides equal opportunity imperatives.

Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. (Romans 14:3 ESV)

The two prohibitions are similar: don’t despise and don’t judge. The strong are tempted to feel like the weak are annoying, petty, fussy; welcoming them seems like a guarantee of no fun. The weak are tempted to feel like the strong have sailed too far from shore in their liberty canoe; they might go right over the falls, and take us all with them. Usually the strong are more dismissive, the weak are more tyrannical. The final explanation applies to both, but is probably especially to the weak: God has welcomed him, so settle down.

Sometimes you don’t want to be in the middle, and yet sometimes you just are. Depending on which side I’m talking to, I’ll probably tell them both: it’s going to be alright.

Both the strong and the weak need to behave themselves, and it's never okay to despise/look down on a brother.

There is a God and He knows what’s happening with each of His servants.

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4 ESV)

Again, this perspective adjustment is primarily given to the weaker brother, the brother who has more rules, the brother who is more sensitive about things, the brother who has concerns about what the other brother isn’t avoiding. All of it applies to both, but the one eating more than veggies is going to make it, if the Lord’s the Lord of them. Since Jesus is Lord, we are not permitted to be presumptuous.

I thought about subtitling this sermon as: On the Nature of Taking a Kuyperian Chill Pill, or something like that. When we confess that Jesus is Lord, that’s an exclusive claim (Lord alone), that’s an exhaustive claim (Lord of all). It fires us up to be bold and drives us to be broader in our interests. But it is also an encouraging claim, a great reason to relax. Mrs. Bossy-pants on the new Brussels sprouts diet is not my Lord, and I also don’t have to be Lord over all the people not doing it like I would.

Jesus is Lord of our brothers, and it's never okay for us to condemn or try to control them.

The anger of man doesn’t produce the righteousness of God, and the scruples of man don’t produce the sanctification of God. You don’t fight folly with fussiness, and you don’t convince a weak person to be strong by beating them up with your freedom, not Christianly at least. If love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8), and it does, then certainly we can ease up things another person is thankful for.

We have “weak” among us, including weak brothers who think they are the virtuous ones, and we have those who are irritated by the weak among us acting all virtuous. What is indisputable is that we all have one Lord over us. “We are the Lord’s” (Romans 12:8). Make sure to welcome the welcomed.

The charge is to live as we sing, with hearts abounding more and more in love and in multi-part harmony. The blessing of God is to give us just that, making us one as the Father, Son, and Spirit are one.

May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Romans 15:5–7, ESV)

This paragraph has something for everyone. All the paragraphs in Scripture do, and this one has some special perspective adjustments.

Romans 12 took us from the glories of inseparable union with Christ revealed in the first 11 chapters to practical altar living. Through the last two chapters we’ve been urged to avoid worldliness, to live as one body, to not take personal vengeance, to submit to earthly authorities, to love our neighbors, and to live as light in a culture of darkness.

Chapter 14 continues with gospel application for believers, but makes one big point from 14:1 to 15:13. What could be so important that we need to give it so much attention? The “all the commandments are summed up as love your neighbor as yourself” wasn’t enough? Yeah, apparently not. Sheep still have conflict with each other. And alright. Our convictions are built like our muscles, in more than one sitting.

Christians do have convictions, Christians don’t always have the *same* convictions, and Christians living in the same community without the same convictions often have conflict. The conflict gets hot because we think TRUTH and RIGHTEOUSNESS are at stake. We think CHRIST’S NAME and HIS HONOR are at stake. And all of that *could* be; it depends. But as those in the culture war, as those who put on the armor of light, we can act like the man whose only tool is a sword, and tries to knit with it. There will be problems.

Have you noticed that heretics usually don’t identify themselves that; they present as orthodox. And Christians usually don’t call themselves judgmental; they present as the *virtuous*. That can make us hard to deal with. Truth is SERIOUS and sin is RUINOUS and every hill is MOMENTOUS. We must take EVERY hill! But actually, while truth is serious and sin is ruinous, the truth is that not everything is sin. Not everything our conscience tells us is wrong is actually sin. Even more, while truth is serious and sin is ruinous, Christ dealt with sin on the hill of calvary for every Christian. He cares, He paid the cost, He calls the shots. Jesus is Lord.

If we applied Romans 12:3-5 without fail, plus 12:9-11, plus 12:16, plus 13:8-10, plus 13:14, we might not need 14:1-15:13. But, we don’t, so we do.

There’s a question that I regularly hear coming out of my mouth, and that I realize more and more is probably not going to lead to a satisfying conclusion. “What is the problem?” We don’t actually know the heart of the initial problem in Rome. There’s differences about diet and days, what is eaten or isn’t, what days are special or aren’t. But who are the vegetarians and sabbatarians? Paul refers to categories of weak and strong, who are which? The congregation in Rome had Jews and Gentiles, both groups had different upbringings, and either could have convictions about what was RIGHT for different reasons. The ways to be weak are quite a cornucopia.

But there is a clear problem about our perspective toward and handling of what may not really be a problem. What is not disputable is acting like we’re Jesus, but not for the sake of winning fellowship like Jesus. That’s not all, because the ones who are being confronted start being critical of the church ladies and looking down on them for being so sensitive. One judgy-pants is like watching a bad individual ballet recital, two judgy-pants are like an ugly ballet mosh pit.

It’ll be good to sit together in this larger section of Scripture for a few Sundays and see if we can’t have our minds renewed to see the good and acceptable and perfect.

# The Existence of Disputable Things (verse 1)

Here we tune in to the series of unfortunate arguments over personal preferences and dubious opinions.

> As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. (Romans 14:1 ESV)

There exist disputable things. Paul assumes their existence, he does not deny or resolve them. These things are **opinions**, thoughts and conclusions and choices that are *not* sin. But this is where it gets tricky, because some *treat* as sin what others don’t. Paul isn’t stepping in because people have good-natured disagreements over preferences, but because some turn preference issues into judging others. These are issues of conscience, things that don’t have a verse but get turned into a virtue.

Verse 2 is the first example, those who only eat veggies. But verse 5 talks about observing certain days, and verse 21 references eating meat and drinking wine (which Jews, except for Nazarites, didn’t have an issue with).

We’ll see in verses 5-9 that personal conviction is good, and that thankfulness is the key piece no matter one’s position. But the church 2000ish years later still has people arguing for *moral* betters. We still have “moral” confrontations over diet (gluten, sugar, fast food, GMOs) and alcohol, we could add in music and movies and screen time, sabbath/Sunday allowed activities, breastfeeding, recycling, and it’s sheep-to-sheep grief.

The **weak in faith** is not a person who is having trouble believing in Jesus for salvation. There’s nothing in these chapters that suggests that such a person is a goat, let alone that they are in danger of losing their salvation. This kind of weak in faith as seen in context is one who is struggling to see his/her faith applied to some basic choices. They’ve got more baggage—wherever they picked it up—than verses.

Two qualifications. First, when God’s Word identifies a sin, it is not “strong” to sin. Second, it is *not* better to be weak. It is *not* sin to be weak, but it is better to be strong though the strong ought not act superior. The “strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak” (15:1).

The last part of verse 1 provides some indication of what it may be like dealing with the weak. It can lead to **quarrel(ing) over opinions**. This has been understood various ways, tricky to translate. But the weak person here has convictions about “disputable matters” (NIV), controversial preferences, scrupulous pinching. While we ought not ostracize the weak, the church isn’t the place where everyone needs to listen to their lectures. Likewise, we don’t need to keep pushing the weak until they say “Uncle.”

**Welccome him**. Welcome is what God has done (verse 3), welcome is what Christ has done (Romans 15:7). Let them in the door, into the circle. Since this is how the section starts, it seems that the weak were probably the minority. As we know, though, it only takes a spark to get a fire going over disputable things.

There are disputable things, and it's okay for now.

# An Example of Disputable Things (verse 2)

Here’s the first example of an “opinion/conviction” that might not always make for a healthy exchange of ideas.

> One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. (Romans 14:2 ESV)

Sometimes I think we must read 1 Corinthians 10:31 differently, as if it said: So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to give grief to the person doing it differently than you.

Speaking of 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote Romans from Corinth. And he had previously written to the Corinthians about some who were eating food offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1-13), whether they could get that meat cheaper or not. But while there are similarities, there’s no mention of tainted-with-idol meat. This isn’t just no-idol-meat, this is NO meat. **The weak person eats only vegetables**.

Why vegetarian? Were these Jews following the Daniel Diet? Were these Gentiles feeling guilty about their pre-Christian days of Bacchus banqueting? It kind of doesn’t matter why, what does matter is that they turned it into a “better than thou” religious reason.

It is one thing to talk about wisdom and good health and Creator-honoring stewardship. But wow do we have a hard time not turning it into righteous/unrighteous, “YOU ARE SINNING by eating *THAT*!.”

There are stronger and weaker brothers, and it's okay for now.

# The Exhortations concerning Disputable Things (verse 3)

Paul provides equal opportunity imperatives.

> Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. (Romans 14:3 ESV)

The two prohibitions are similar: don’t despise and don’t judge. The strong are tempted to feel like the weak are annoying, petty, fussy; welcoming them seems like a guarantee of no fun. The weak are tempted to feel like the strong have sailed too far from shore in their liberty canoe; they might go right over the falls, and take us all with them. Usually the strong are more dismissive, the weak are more tyrannical. The final explanation applies to both, but is probably especially to the weak: **God has welcomed him**, so settle down.

Sometimes you don’t want to be in the middle, and yet sometimes you just are. Depending on which side I’m talking to, I’ll probably tell them both: it’s going to be alright.

Both the strong and the weak need to behave themselves, and it's never okay to despise/look down on a brother.

# An Encouragement about Disputable Things (verse 4)

There is a God and He knows what’s happening with each of His servants.

> Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4 ESV)

Again, this perspective adjustment is primarily given to the weaker brother, the brother who has more rules, the brother who is more sensitive about things, the brother who has concerns about what the other brother isn’t avoiding. All of it applies to both, but the one eating more than veggies is going to make it, if the Lord’s the Lord of them. Since Jesus is Lord, we are not permitted to be presumptuous.

I thought about subtitling this sermon as: *On the Nature of Taking a Kuyperian Chill Pill*, or something like that. When we confess that Jesus is Lord, that’s an exclusive claim (Lord alone), that’s an exhaustive claim (Lord of all). It fires us up to be bold and drives us to be broader in our interests. But it is also an encouraging claim, a great reason to relax. Mrs. Bossy-pants on the new Brussels sprouts diet is not my Lord, and I also don’t have to be Lord over all the people not doing it like I would.

Jesus is Lord of our brothers, and it's never okay for us to condemn or try to control them.

# Conclusion

The anger of man doesn’t produce the righteousness of God, and the scruples of man don’t produce the sanctification of God. You don’t fight folly with fussiness, and you don’t convince a weak person to be strong by beating them up with your freedom, not Christianly at least. If love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8), and it does, then certainly we can ease up things another person is thankful for.

We have “weak” among us, including weak brothers who think they are the virtuous ones, and we have those who are irritated by the weak among us acting all virtuous. What is indisputable is that we all have one Lord over us. “We are the Lord’s” (Romans 12:8). Make sure to welcome the welcomed.

----------

## Charge

The charge is to live as we sing, with hearts abounding more and more in love and in multi-part harmony. The blessing of God is to give us just that, making us one as the Father, Son, and Spirit are one.

## Benediction:

> May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. (Romans 15:5–7, ESV)

Here are the two talks recommended in this message:

Respecting Husbands

Loving Wives

It doesn’t really matter whether you like the term “culture war” or not, God put us in one. A culture has a shared language and lifestyle, some similar loves/values and looks/styles. Christians have a culture that appreciates light and life; we’re united in our belief in Christ and hope in His blessings. We’re trying to cultivate a world-and-life view where the confession “Christ is Lord” means that everything means something. The sons of disobedience also have a culture, where carrying out the desires of the body and mind are foremost. They follow the course of this world, passing their days in malice and envy, hating and being hated. They’re at various levels of intentionally cultivating a place where there are no gods or masters but every man in his own eyes. The two cultures are like night and day.

The contrast, which can’t help but involve conflict, has been going on a long time, since Genesis 3:15 when the Lord put enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. The great Seed was Jesus, and by extension refers to all those who are in Christ. In Christ we stand against the schemes of the evil one, we take up the whole armor of God to be able to withstand in the evil day, we battle against the world, so we must not get stuck in its mold. By faith we resist the serpent and those who are of their father the devil. And we take every thought captive in our fight against our own flesh. We see the enemy every morning, and too often we see him in the mirror.

How do we fight in this culture war? It begins locally, with altar-living (Romans 12:1-2). It continues locally as we love our neighbor (who is perhaps an enemy, see also Matthew 5:43-48), which requires wearing the right uniform (of Christ-likeness). And that requires daily vigilance, relentless differentiation, and maintaining our equipment.

The very time we live in should rouse us to obedience in following the admonitions here. It’s time to engage. Verses 11-12 both argue for being done with the night and darkness. Verses 13-14 both argue for what it looks like to walk in the day and light.

There’s a sort of faith-alarm going off telling us to wake up.

Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. (Romans 13:11–12 ESV)

The NASB puts it this way, “Do this, knowing the time.” The know in ESV is fine but it’s really in the form of “knowing,” a modifying action. Paul is backing up our love of neighbor; we love our neighbor because we’re aware of the time. The hour has come…to wake from sleep. Get up and get loving.

This sleep isn’t a metaphor for spiritual or physical death, it’s a metaphor for spiritual passivity. The sleepy are the lazy, the indifferent. It illustrates a failure to use the mind; so lack of care and failure to act. In a first-century society governed by the sun rather than by the convenience of artificial lighting, people rose at dawn because the sun was their life. There’s a similar dawn for Christians.

The time for fighting is now, because salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. Scripture refers to all three tenses of salvation: we have been (past), we are being (present), we will be (future), saved. Verse 11 is talking about that final consummation, the glorification as described in Romans 8. History is linear, and each passing day means we’re closer to the finishing of God’s purpose to conform us to Christ for His glory. “The day is near” (NASB). Don’t sleep on it.

The reign of evil has almost reached its expiration date. The biblical context on this coming day shows that when it finally does arrive evil will be judged and the righteous vindicated (think Psalm 96:13). All of the imperatives in this text flow from the nearness of the end. Because the end is near, the people of God should respond with appropriate behavior.

There’s no time to waste. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. Night and darkness go hand in hand, and both are times for sin, for ignorance and futile thinking. The works of darkness are the wicked things done driven by the depraved mind. We’re not on that side anymore. The day belongs with light; So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.

Paul enjoys and employs the put on/put off imagery a number of times. We take (dirty) clothes off, we put on new clothes, and Paul applies it to the attire of behavior.

Interesting that we take off works but put on armor. In other letters Paul talks about putting off sin and putting on virtues. The armor here reminds us of the battle. We’re not just waking up to spend some time in the spiritual breakfast nook watching the steam come off our coffee.

Each calendar day brings nearer to us the day of final salvation, and, since it is life in the body that is decisive for eternal issues, the event of death points up for each person how short is “the season” prior to Christ’s advent. —John Murray

Two cultures on display:

Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (Romans 13:13–14 ESV)

How do we behave ourselves? We walk properly, or “decently” (NIV), “honestly” (KJV). We walk right. We walk as in the daytime.

There’s a three-fold series of wrongs:

Instead put on the Lord Jesus Christ. “As many of [us] as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27). But the indicative doesn’t contradict the imperative. Put on Christ. We are to consciously embrace our union with the Lord Christ in such a way that His character is manifested in all that we do and say.

Make no provision for the flesh. Let’s say you and your flesh were going out for a picnic, don’t make a sandwich for the flesh; let him starve. Let’s say you were in a war in Afghanistan, don’t leave 7.1 billion dollars worth of your helicopters and air-to-ground munitions and M4s out for the Taliban. Let’s say you don’t like the unrestrained spending of the government who wants to fund abortions and launder money through foreign governments, don’t you pamper your selfishness and pretenses and sin. You are a Christian.

Though Augustine had grown up with a Christian mother he was a slave to sin, caught in the lusts of his flesh. When he was 31 years-old Augustine was out in a garden. He heard the voice of children somewhere over the courtyard wall, repeating the phrase “Take up and read, take up and read.” He picked up Paul’s epistle to the Romans and read Romans 13:13-14 and God granted him repentance and faith. Why can’t this paragraph be gospel hope for you? If you are under the weight and burden of sin, look to Christ and believe. Jesus can deliver you.

There is no neutrality. It is the Lord Jesus Christ or corruption, Christ or chaos, Christ or darkness, Christ or death.

The people of the world fight for what they believe in. Right now the people of the world are striving, daring, plotting, planning, scheming, fighting. They get up early. They stay up late. They accept labor and hardship and stress because they believe their pay-off will be worth it. It seems that they never sleep.

We are in a war of cultures. The fighting during this dispensation is different than any other time, different than Israel’s theocracy and different than Christ’s millennial reign. Now is the time.

Christian, the day is at hand. Pray that you would be “strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.” Wake up to daily vigilance—the day is near, relentless differentiation—against the darkness, and maintaining your equipment—the armor of light. Keep your altar commitments. Love your neighbor.

Christian, salvation is near, put on your clothes. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Encourage one another in this battle and build one another up, just as you are doing (1 Thessalonians 5:11).

But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. (1 Thessalonians 5:8–10, ESV)

Here are the two talks recommended in this message:

Respecting Husbands: https://youtu.be/2CymWngQYWc?feature=shared

Loving Wives: https://youtu.be/1JPIyNrHq1A?feature=shared

It doesn’t really matter whether you like the term “culture war” or not, God put us in one. A culture has a shared language and lifestyle, some similar loves/values and looks/styles. Christians have a culture that appreciates light and life; we’re united in our belief in Christ and hope in His blessings. We’re trying to cultivate a world-and-life view where the confession “Christ is Lord” means that everything means something. The sons of disobedience also have a culture, where carrying out the desires of the body and mind are foremost. They follow the course of this world, passing their days in malice and envy, hating and being hated. They’re at various levels of intentionally cultivating a place where there are no gods or masters but every man in his own eyes. The two cultures are like night and day.

The contrast, which can’t help but involve conflict, has been going on a long time, since Genesis 3:15 when the Lord put enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. The great Seed was Jesus, and by extension refers to all those who are in Christ. In Christ we stand against the schemes of the evil one, we take up the whole armor of God to be able to withstand in the evil day, we battle against the world, so we must not get stuck in its mold. By faith we resist the serpent and those who are of their father the devil. And we take every thought captive in our fight against our own flesh. We see the enemy every morning, and too often we see him in the mirror.

How do we fight in this culture war? It begins locally, with altar-living (Romans 12:1-2). It continues locally as we love our neighbor (who is perhaps an enemy, see also Matthew 5:43-48), which requires wearing the right uniform (of Christ-likeness). And that requires daily vigilance, relentless differentiation, and maintaining our equipment.

The very time we live in should rouse us to obedience in following the admonitions here. *It’s time to engage*. Verses 11-12 both argue for being done with the night and darkness. Verses 13-14 both argue for what it looks like to walk in the day and light.

# Wake Up (verses 11-12)

There’s a sort of faith-alarm going off telling us to wake up.

> Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. (Romans 13:11–12 ESV)

The NASB puts it this way, “*Do* this, knowing the time.” The **know** in ESV is fine but it’s really in the form of “knowing,” a modifying action. Paul is backing up our love of neighbor; we love our neighbor because we’re aware of the time. **The hour has come…to wake from sleep**. Get up and get loving.

This **sleep** isn’t a metaphor for spiritual or physical death, it’s a metaphor for spiritual passivity. The sleepy are the lazy, the indifferent. It illustrates a failure to use the mind; so lack of care and failure to act. In a first-century society governed by the sun rather than by the convenience of artificial lighting, people rose at dawn because the sun was their life. There’s a similar dawn for Christians.

The time for fighting is now, because **salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed**. Scripture refers to all three tenses of salvation: we *have been* (past), we *are being* (present), we *will be* (future), saved. Verse 11 is talking about that final consummation, the glorification as described in Romans 8. History is linear, and each passing day means we’re closer to the finishing of God’s purpose to conform us to Christ for His glory. “The day is near” (NASB). Don’t sleep on it.

The reign of evil has almost reached its expiration date. The biblical context on this coming **day** shows that when it finally does arrive evil will be judged and the righteous vindicated (think Psalm 96:13). All of the imperatives in this text flow from the nearness of the end. Because the end is near, the people of God should respond with appropriate behavior.

There’s no time to waste. **The night is far gone; the day is at hand.** **Night** and **darkness** go hand in hand, and both are times for sin, for ignorance and futile thinking. The **works of darkness** are the wicked things done driven by the depraved mind. We’re not on that side anymore. The **day** belongs with **light**; **So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light**.

Paul enjoys and employs the put on/put off imagery a number of times. We take (dirty) clothes off, we put on new clothes, and Paul applies it to the attire of behavior.

Interesting that we take off **works** but put on **armor**. In other letters Paul talks about putting off sin and putting on virtues. The armor here reminds us of the battle. We’re not just waking up to spend some time in the spiritual breakfast nook watching the steam come off our coffee.

> Each calendar day brings nearer to us the day of final salvation, and, since it is life in the body that is decisive for eternal issues, the event of death points up for each person how short is “the season” prior to Christ’s advent. —John Murray

# Walk Right (verses 13-14)

Two cultures on display:

> Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (Romans 13:13–14 ESV)

How do we behave ourselves? We **walk properly**, or “decently” (NIV), “honestly” (KJV). We walk *right*. We walk **as in the daytime**.

There’s a three-fold series of wrongs:

- **orgies and drunkenness**. “Orgies” here is Bacchanalian/excessive feasting and partying — a word used for an actual procession in honor of Dionysus/Bacchus (BAGD) with a banquet that featured alcohol (or other drugs) that caused intoxication, people got hammered for their god(s). Other words for it are “carousing” (NASB)/“rioting” (KJV) when applied to a band of friends who accompanied a victor home from the games, singing his praises and celebrating his triumph as he went. So-called “PRIDE” parades are not new under the sun.

- **sexual immorality and sensuality**. The NASB translates this as “sexual promiscuity” and Tyndale/KJV as “chambering” in reference to a private place/chamber with a bed; it refers to what happens in a forbidden bed. Sensuality is a “lack of self-constraint which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable, self-abandonment” (BAGD); unrestrained lust. This is a culture of people who can’t keep their pants on.

- **quarreling and jealousy**. Quarreling or strife is from a rivalry of positions, and is often caused by jealousy (see James 4:1-2). This is WOKE, Socialistic identity politics before those words were invented. Is it possible that these last couple vices describe our modern life even more than the first four?

Instead **put on the Lord Jesus Christ.** “As many of [us] as were baptized into Christ *have* put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27). But the indicative doesn’t contradict the imperative. Put on Christ. We are to consciously embrace our union with the Lord Christ in such a way that His character is manifested in all that we do and say.

**Make no provision for the flesh**. Let’s say you and your flesh were going out for a picnic, don’t make a sandwich for the flesh; let him starve. Let’s say you were in a war in Afghanistan, don’t leave 7.1 billion dollars worth of your helicopters and air-to-ground munitions and M4s out for the Taliban. Let’s say you don’t like the unrestrained spending of the government who wants to fund abortions and launder money through foreign governments, don’t you pamper your selfishness and pretenses and sin. You are a Christian.

# Conclusion

Though Augustine had grown up with a Christian mother he was a slave to sin, caught in the lusts of his flesh. When he was 31 years-old Augustine was out in a garden. He heard the voice of children somewhere over the courtyard wall, repeating the phrase “Take up and read, take up and read.” He picked up Paul’s epistle to the Romans and read Romans 13:13-14 and God granted him repentance and faith. Why can’t this paragraph be gospel hope for you? If you are under the weight and burden of sin, *look to Christ* and believe. Jesus can deliver you.

There is no neutrality. It is the Lord Jesus Christ or corruption, Christ or chaos, Christ or darkness, Christ or death.

The people of the world fight for what they believe in. Right now the people of the world are striving, daring, plotting, planning, scheming, fighting. They get up early. They stay up late. They accept labor and hardship and stress because they believe their pay-off will be worth it. It seems that they never sleep.

We are in a war of cultures. The fighting during this dispensation is different than any other time, different than Israel’s theocracy and different than Christ’s millennial reign. Now is the time.

Christian, the day is at hand. Pray that you would be “strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.” Wake up to daily vigilance—the day is near, relentless differentiation—against the darkness, and maintaining your equipment—the armor of light. Keep your altar commitments. Love your neighbor.

----------

## Charge

Christian, salvation is near, put on your clothes. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Encourage one another in this battle and build one another up, just as you are doing (1 Thessalonians 5:11).

## Benediction:

> But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. (1 Thessalonians 5:8–10, ESV)

When Christians talk about Romans 13 they’re almost always thinking about the God and government part in the first paragraph. It’s a good start to the chapter, about earthly authorities promoting the good, and the good of citizens submitting to do good. But there is more good in Romans 13, in two more paragraphs.

Romans 13:8-10 is maybe one of the most underrated three-verse summaries in Scripture. If you like profound truth in pithy form, if you like a paragraph that does the work of many pages, if you like rubber meets the road repetition, it’s all here for you.

We learned how to behave as citizens toward the people in charge in verses 1-7, and verses 8-10 show us how to behave toward our fellow citizens. There is certainly application for how we treat one another as Christians, but members of the body of Christ already got explicit instructions in chapter 12. While we would say only Christians have the capability to consistently treat others the way Romans 13:8-10 describes, the picture is what makes our civil lives together civil.

There’s a summary command, a summary of all the commandments, and a summary clarification.

Paul just commanded citizens: “pay to all what is owed to them” (verse 7). “Paying” had reference to taxes and to honor; we give dollars and deference. These things are “owed”; there is an obligation that some have to taxes, some to revenue, some to respect, some to honor. Their work and their offices/“high positions” (1 Timothy 2:2) are due a certain response.

In verse 8 a different group is owed something different.

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8 ESV)

If English allowed it, we could double the negatives and say “no one nothing owe” (μηδενὶ μηδὲν). The command owe connects with the concept of what is “owed” in verse 7. Be obliged to have no obligations.

I’ve heard Romans 13:8 used as an argument for not ever using credit or taking out a loan. There certainly are issues with borrowing; the borrower is slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). Depending which family member you borrow from, that can make reunion picnics testy. But the Bible doesn’t prohibit loans (for example, in Matthew 5:42 Jesus teaches His disciples, “do not refuse the one who would borrow from you”). Scripture does prohibit not paying the loan by the borrower (along with excessive interest gathering from the lender). “The wicked borrows but does not pay back” (Psalm 37:21). To borrow and not return is a form of theft. Do not have ongoing, unpaid (college. car, consumer) bills.

Instead, we do all have an ongoing, unfinished responsibility to love one another (not sure why the ESV used “each other” instead of the normal “one another”). Love toward one another is outstanding in the adjective’s second meaning, “remaining to be paid, done, or dealt with.” Let no debt remain outstanding except the other-loving debt.

“The one loving the other” is a substantival participle, stressing the continuous loving, and the reason why we keep paying on this debt is because that loving-one has fulfilled the law. An interesting switch to a past tense. This fulfillment matters in verse 9 and verse 10 as well.

I pointed out that Paul didn’t use the word law once in verses 1-7, but law bookends this paragraph, along with the word “commandments” in the middle. He even gives examples of the commandments in verse 9.

Since loving is law-fulfilling, then love and law are not opposites, or enemies. It also means love (casually applied as a term for sentiment or feeling or passion) is not love. Love is lawful, as in, genuine love loves within standards. So also, the point of law is love, not mere conformity to standards. Similar to Romans 12:9 and love being without hypocrisy, love must be without unrighteousness. How about new t-shirts: “Love is (NOT) love. Love is (God's) law."

What do we owe one another in love? We owe them recognition as separate persons, they are not us, they have their own stuff, and they do not owe us their stuff.

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Romans 13:9 ESV)

The specifics: adultery, murder, steal, covet, are in the second table of the 10 Commandments. They are four of the five “thou shalt not”s. Adultery is the taking of another man’s spouse, murder is the taking of another man’s life, stealing is the taking of another man’s stuff, and coveting is a wishing that you could take another man’s life, wife, and/or stuff.

Not mentioned are honoring one’s mother and father (5th commandment) or bearing false witness (9th). Also not mentioned are the first table of the 10 Commandments (1st-4th), all those related to God and no other gods or disrespect to God.

These commandments relate to others and their households, to the sacredness of human life, the sanctity of the family, the recognition of the right to ownership of private property, and the need to control ones’ desires (against envy and it’s political outcome in Marxism/Communism). Covetousness is the way of selfish-love and selfish-love is opposed to neighbor-love.

But note that Paul adds and any other commandment. That doesn’t only mean the other six of Decalogue, it includes the other 609 of the 613 in the Mosaic Law.

In an amazing, preview/notification-sized text, he says, all the commandments are summed up in this word. He got this from Jesus, who also summed up the entire Old Testament in two commandments. Paul is focusing on one of them, the one that matters in the social sphere. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

This is Leviticus 19:18. Did you realize that the most important thing you needed to know about getting along in local life would be in Leviticus? When you think Leviticus, do you think love? This law has been there since about 1444 BC, around for almost 3,500 years.

Jesus Himself summarized the 39 books of the Old Testament,

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37–40 ESV)

The neighbor means the near, the one next to you.

Does this mean that the 10 Commandments are still binding on us today? I don’t think that’s the best way to say it, but if someone asked me how to know what lawful love is, these would be first principles to measure by. In love all the commandments are summed up.

Here’s a review of the summary, saying what’s been said.

Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:10 ESV)

Love is what persons have/share/do, here love is like a person; love works no wrong, does no damage, carries out no evil against the locals. “Love hurteth not” (Tyndale).

Do no harm ("First do no harm" is a summary of the original Hippocratic oath, written by Hippocrates circa 400 BC - a vow for any physician in training and also applicable for political and economic philosophy).

Compare the “negative” commands in verse 9 to this “negative” summary in verse 10. It highlights the difference between Positive and Negative/liberty rights. A positive right means you have the right to have something given to you (which amounts to an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it, requiring their harm). A negative right means that you have the right to be left alone to have your stuff. In economic terms this is a major dividing basis between Socialism/Communism/“Woke Capitalism” and free-market Capitalism.

There are all kinds of ways to wrong a neighbor. No lies; so, for example in our day, no so-called Pronoun Hospitality, calling a he a “she” and so forth. There’s no permitted stealing, through sneaking into their house or sneaking into their taxes.

Love is not lawless. Specific commands are mentioned in verse 9 so that we will see what love looks like in action. For example, one cannot commit adultery, murder, steal, and covet and claim to be loving.

Love is not lawless, but “following” the law is not necessarily love. One can be unloving while giving everything away to the poor as in 1 Corinthians 13:3.

So we must love our neighbor, who and how? Great questions! They've been asked before.

As verses 8-10 relate to verses 1-7, our system of government depends on a moral people, and fine, but it really depends on a loving people. John Adams said,

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

This is true between neighbors, in the don’t bother one another sense, as well as in the blessing through business sense. Consider George Gilder’s argument that in (good) Capitalism giving comes first, considering how to love others in product or services, rather than other approaches which start with taking/redistributing.

In all our interactions we must “Owe no one anything, except to love one another.” Outstanding love is the way to a fulfilling life.

If you can't afford the hospital bill for your hurt neighbor in the ditch like the Good Samaritan, at least don't vote for universal healthcare and let the government steal from other neighbors to cover the cost. If you can't say something nice to your transgender neighbor, at least don't harm them by lying to them with false pronouns. If you can't stand the idea of spending time with your Christian neighbor, at least don't slander them, and also ask God to get your heart right in love. Love one another.

[M]ay the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. (1 Thessalonians 3:12–13, ESV)

When Christians talk about Romans 13 they’re almost always thinking about the God and government part in the first paragraph. It’s a good start to the chapter, about earthly authorities promoting the good, and the good of citizens submitting to do good. But there is more good in Romans 13, in two more paragraphs.

Romans 13:8-10 is maybe one of the most underrated three-verse summaries in Scripture. If you like profound truth in pithy form, if you like a paragraph that does the work of many pages, if you like rubber meets the road repetition, it’s all here for you.

We learned how to behave as citizens toward the people in charge in verses 1-7, and verses 8-10 show us how to behave toward our fellow citizens. There is certainly application for how we treat one another as Christians, but members of the body of Christ already got explicit instructions in chapter 12. While we would say only Christians have the capability to consistently treat others the way Romans 13:8-10 describes, the picture is what makes our civil lives together *civil*.

There’s a summary command, a summary of all the commandments, and a summary clarification.

# A Summary Command (verse 8)

Paul just commanded citizens: “pay to all what is owed to them” (verse 7). “Paying” had reference to taxes and to honor; we give dollars and deference. These things are “owed”; there is an obligation that some have to taxes, some to revenue, some to respect, some to honor. Their work and their offices/“high positions” (1 Timothy 2:2) are due a certain response.

In verse 8 a different group is owed something different.

> Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8 ESV)

If English allowed it, we could double the negatives and say “no one nothing owe” (μηδενὶ μηδὲν). The command **owe** connects with the concept of what is “owed” in verse 7. Be obliged to have no obligations.

I’ve heard Romans 13:8 used as an argument for not ever using credit or taking out a loan. There certainly are issues with borrowing; the borrower is slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). Depending which family member you borrow from, that can make reunion picnics testy. But the Bible doesn’t prohibit loans (for example, in Matthew 5:42 Jesus teaches His disciples, “do not refuse the one who would borrow from you”). Scripture does prohibit not paying the loan by the borrower (along with excessive interest gathering from the lender). “The wicked borrows but does not pay back” (Psalm 37:21). To borrow and not return is a form of theft. Do not have ongoing, unpaid (college. car, consumer) bills.

Instead, we do all have an ongoing, unfinished responsibility to **love one another** (not sure why the ESV used “each other” instead of the normal “one another”). Love toward one another is *outstanding* in the adjective’s second meaning, “remaining to be paid, done, or dealt with.” Let no debt remain outstanding except the other-loving debt.

“The one loving the other” is a substantival participle, stressing the *continuous* loving, and the reason why we keep paying on this debt is because that loving-one **has fulfilled the law**. An interesting switch to a past tense. This fulfillment matters in verse 9 and verse 10 as well.

I pointed out that Paul didn’t use the word **law** once in verses 1-7, but law bookends this paragraph, along with the word “commandments” in the middle. He even gives examples of the commandments in verse 9.

Since loving is law-fulfilling, then love and law are not opposites, or enemies. It also means love (casually applied as a term for sentiment or feeling or passion) is *not* love. Love is lawful, as in, genuine love loves within standards. So also, the point of law is love, not mere conformity to standards. Similar to Romans 12:9 and love being without hypocrisy, love must be without unrighteousness. How about new t-shirts: “Love is (NOT) love. Love is (God's) law."

# A Summary of All Commandments (verse 9)

What do we *owe one another in love*? We owe them recognition as separate persons, they are not us, they have their own stuff, and they do not owe us their stuff.

> For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Romans 13:9 ESV)

The specifics: **adultery**, **murder**, **steal**, **covet**, are in the second table of the 10 Commandments. They are four of the five “thou shalt *not*”s. Adultery is the taking of another man’s spouse, murder is the taking of another man’s life, stealing is the taking of another man’s stuff, and coveting is a wishing that you could take another man’s life, wife, and/or stuff.

Not mentioned are honoring one’s mother and father (5th commandment) or bearing false witness (9th). Also not mentioned are the first table of the 10 Commandments (1st-4th), all those related to God and no other gods or disrespect to God.

These commandments relate to others and their households, to the sacredness of human life, the sanctity of the family, the recognition of the right to ownership of private property, and the need to control ones’ desires (against envy and it’s political outcome in Marxism/Communism). Covetousness is the way of selfish-love and selfish-love is opposed to neighbor-love.

But note that Paul adds **and any other commandment**. That doesn’t only mean the other six of Decalogue, it includes the other 609 of the 613 in the Mosaic Law.

In an amazing, preview/notification-sized text, he says, all the commandments **are summed up in this word**. He got this from Jesus, who also summed up the entire Old Testament in two commandments. Paul is focusing on one of them, the one that matters in the social sphere. **You shall love your neighbor as yourself.**

This is *Leviticus* 19:18. Did you realize that the most important thing you needed to know about getting along in local life would be in Leviticus? When you think Leviticus, do you think *love*? This law has been there since about 1444 BC, around for almost 3,500 years.

Jesus Himself summarized the 39 books of the Old Testament,

> “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37–40 ESV)

The **neighbor** means the *near*, the one *next* to you.

Does this mean that the 10 Commandments are still binding on us today? I don’t think that’s the best way to say it, but if someone asked me how to know what *lawful* love is, these would be first principles to measure by. In love all the commandments are summed up.

# A Summary Clarification (verse 10)

Here’s a review of the summary, saying what’s been said.

> Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:10 ESV)

**Love** is what persons have/share/do, here love is like a person; love works no wrong, does no damage, carries out no evil against the locals. “Love hurteth not” (Tyndale).

Do no harm ("First do no harm" is a summary of the original Hippocratic oath, written by Hippocrates circa 400 BC - a vow for any physician in training and also applicable for political and economic philosophy).

Compare the “negative” commands in verse 9 to this “negative” summary in verse 10. It highlights the difference between Positive and Negative/liberty rights. A positive right means you have the right to have something given to you (which amounts to an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it, requiring their harm). A negative right means that you have the right to be left alone to have your stuff. In economic terms this is a major dividing basis between Socialism/Communism/“Woke Capitalism” and free-market Capitalism.

There are all kinds of ways to *wrong* a neighbor. No lies; so, for example in our day, no so-called Pronoun Hospitality, calling a he a “she” and so forth. There’s no permitted stealing, through sneaking into their house or sneaking into their taxes.

# Conclusion

Love is not lawless. Specific commands are mentioned in verse 9 so that we will see what love looks like in action. For example, one cannot commit adultery, murder, steal, and covet and claim to be loving.

Love is not lawless, but “following” the law is not necessarily love. One can be unloving while giving everything away to the poor as in 1 Corinthians 13:3.

So we must love our neighbor, who and how? Great questions! They've been asked before.

As verses 8-10 relate to verses 1-7, our system of government depends on a moral people, and fine, but it really depends on a *loving* people. John Adams said,

> “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. **Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.** It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

This is true between neighbors, in the don’t bother one another sense, as well as in the blessing through business sense. Consider George Gilder’s argument that in (good) Capitalism giving comes first, considering how to love others in product or services, rather than other approaches which start with taking/redistributing.

In all our interactions we must “Owe no one anything, except to love one another.” Outstanding love is the way to a fulfilling life.

----------

## Charge

If you can't afford the hospital bill for your hurt neighbor in the ditch like the Good Samaritan, at least don't vote for universal healthcare and let the government steal from other neighbors to cover the cost. If you can't say something nice to your transgender neighbor, at least don't harm them by lying to them with false pronouns. If you can't stand the idea of spending time with your Christian neighbor, at least don't slander them, and also ask God to get your heart right in love. Love one another.

## Benediction:

> [M]ay the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. (1 Thessalonians 3:12–13, ESV)

Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

Grant asked me if I wanted handheld or lapel. I might be moving my hands, so I prefer the lapel. Before I start, I'm gonna pray real quick. Father, thank you so much for your kindness. I pray for wisdom and humility. Please give me clarity and thought and in words that I would honor you and help to encourage and edify our people, in Christ's name, amen. So, this is my first time in this capacity before you guys. You've never seen me here in this way. So I could say a couple qualifiers as to my age and inexperience. I could do that, but I will not. What does it matter? I'm already up here. And so if you have some kind of problem or concern, there will be a Q&A afterwards.

You could let me have it then. So any kind of qualification questions are welcome for the Q&A afterwards as well. I'm sure you will disagree with something that I say. But I would like to give you a warning. It's not a qualifier, but a warning. It's not an excuse. This is just for your own benefit, for your own good. Sooner or later, maybe today, maybe at some other point if I have another opportunity like this, you will probably hear me mispronounce something. Most likely that will happen.

I do try to Google pronunciations ahead of time of words that I might not know, but there are a lot of words that I didn't know that I am mispronouncing. And so thanks to a lot of you guys. Like if you hear a T when I say, apostol, just know that I am starting to hear it too. So. So with that out of the way though, we can move into our session.

Last time Sean did introduce the evening series of the Lord's household. And he talked about our mindfulness in the matter. So he had four points just to recap. He talked about us being mindful of the Lord's interest in the household so that he is watching, he cares about how we structure our household. For us to be mindful of the Lord's resources, so his word and his spirit, for us to draw from those resources. For us to be mindful of the Lord's priorities, namely the spousal relationship in the household. For us to be considerate of that and mindful of it. And to be mindful of the Lord's pleasure, namely submission, so the idea of submission within the household and within those relationships.

Those were Sean's four points from last time. The household is God's idea. The family is God's institution. He enacted it, and the family as an institution reports to God directly. God designed the structure of the household. He defined the roles within it, and he directed its mandate. So the household's design, definitions, and direction is all connected and coming out of God. That is God's idea. That's not something that we get to mess with. It's not something that we get to make up on our own. It's something that we can learn about and then submit under. That is our approach to when it comes to the idea of household.

So working through that learning about it and even being reminded of it is only good. So within a household, each of us fills different roles. And the more our household grows, the more roles we take on. So maybe at first we're only a child in the household, and then when we grow up and we form a new household, we take on more roles, and then we take on more roles. So a father is playing the role of a man, an image-bearer. He's playing the role of a husband and he's playing the role of a father all at the same time. And those roles are not meant to be marginalized. They are meant to overlap. That's by design. We're not supposed to be living compartmentalized lives.

God designed us to be living those roles all at the same time when we're interacting within our household. But it is helpful to compartmentalize the roles when we're learning about them. So when we're talking about husbands, it's helpful to identify the role of the husband and its design definition and direction, namely as that role, to help us. When we are center stage, the spotlight is on us for us to be able to know what lines we are to say at that time. Because when we're talking about a husband, there is a lot of things that we can say. And I can tell you now I'm probably going to go over the 25-minute mark.

I will try to make it within 30 minutes. So hopefully, no more than 30 minutes. And there's a lot of stuff that I will have to miss. Just the role of husband encompasses a lot. So if you think of stuff that like, hey, why didn't he talk about that part of husband's work, a husband's role, just know that it's because I ran out of time. But so specifically in the husband's role, I'm going to be talking about that role as it pertains to his relationship with the wife. So I'm going to try to ignore a lot of the other parts about being a husband, but specifically his relationship to his wife, how that role is to be defined, what's the design with that.

Because every role that we play assumes a relationship. The role of image-bearer assumes him whose image we bear. The role of father assumes a child. And the role of husband assumes a wife. And that role is also defined within that relationship. That role is defined and played within that relationship. And that relationship of husband and wife is the fundamental relationship within a household. It's on that role that a household begins. Before those roles exist, or before we take on those roles, we don't have a household. So before I took on that role of being a husband, there was no Philip Kuleshov family. Mine and Nellia's wedding, apart from other things, was the beginning, the start, of our participation in this ancient institution of household and family.

That is the beginning. And so while I'm talking about that role as it pertains to the relationship with the wife, I'm going to have three main points. So three main points when defining the husband's job description. So what is the husband's role? Will be number one. What is the husband's assignment in that role? And then what is the husband's objective in that assignment? So who is he? What is he supposed to be doing? And what is he trying to get accomplished? his role, his assignment, and his objective. And I will be in Ephesians 5, so you guys could keep your Bibles open to Ephesians 5. I mean, it has to be Ephesians 5.

So in our congregation, we all know that the Bible presents the husband as the head of the household. The Bible presents the husband as the head of his family. I think it was Anna Leiden. Anna's not here. But Anna, one of our life-to-lives, said that when they originally came here, one of the things she kept hearing all the time was, what does your husband think about it? What does your husband think about that? And to her, that came off like all of our women are man lovers, like the women are into their men. And so that was something that she was encouraged by and liked. What does your husband think? Who cares what your husband thinks?

Well, God does. God cares what the husband thinks as it pertains to his relationship with his wife. The husband is the head of his wife. So when I'm talking about headship, this is the moment I've been waiting for for a long time. I get to talk about covenant.

So undermining all of Sean's dispensational efforts. No, I'm just kidding. The covenant household does not... Yeah. Although it can be crammed into a covenant theology framework, it doesn't have to be, and I don't think it even should be. So we're friends. Yeah. I don't believe I'll be in any trouble with any of the elders when I talk about the covenant household, or household as a covenant. When a man and woman form a household, the household is bound up in a covenant, promise that each of them make and then seal with their marital union. The marriage covenant is made between a man and a woman and made before their maker.

And in that covenant, the man is the head. Ephesians 5, 23, For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its saviour. The Bible does not give male headship as an imperative, meaning it does not command the man to be a head. That is not a command that God gives to the man. It says the husband is the head of the wife. The Lord has decided it to be so. It is the way it is. That is just God's reality. It's not a command to the man. It's the way it already is. He can pretend that in an egalitarian world that definition is wonky. Husbands can pretend that they're not the head and can choose to abdicate.

Wives can pretend that their husband is not the head and can refuse to submit. But they will have to deal with the generational consequences that come out of a prudent reality. In God's design, the husband is the head of his wife. So what does that mean? doesn't mean that the husband is the head. In short, it means that the husband is responsible for everything. The husband is responsible for everything within his household and specifically in this relationship, the husband is completely responsible for his wife. The head is responsible and again this is not a command from the Lord. This is the way he designed it to be for the man to be responsible for the wife.

And the man is responsible for the spiritual and physical condition of his wife, and for her spiritual and physical actions. He's responsible for her condition and her actions, who she is and what she does. Even though Eve sinned first, God called out to the man. God demands an account from the husband as to the condition of his household, the condition of his wife. Blame shifting and finger pointing like Adam won't get us out of this responsibility. Yes, the wife is responsible for her sin, but the way headship works within a covenant is that the covenant head is the stand-in. He stands in front of his wife. And this is because the covenantal responsibility means two things.

First is that he represents her, And second is that he rules over her. The man represents his wife, and the man rules over his wife. As the head, he is her representative ruler. The husband represents his wife. He's her stand-in. He doesn't get to abdicate or neglect or blame-shift. The head is responsible for the condition of his wife. All of her needs, all of her issues, all of her sins are his personal burden to carry before his maker. There's no way out of that. When the husband tries to have the wife carry the burden, he is in sin. He is in disobedience. Her actions are his responsibility. But representing her also means that the husband's actions, whether public or private, affect her, whether she knows it or not.

When the representative acts, he does so on behalf of his wife. And she is either benefited or harmed by his actions. There are covenantal consequences to the husband's decisions. The husband represents his wife. But the only way that he can actually represent her is to stand in for her as her equal. He must be her equal. And he is her equal. Both the man and the woman together are God's image. They are called mankind because man is the head, but them together is how God's image is demonstrated. Being her equal means that he identifies with her. He is connected to her. He draws her to himself. And instead of pushing her away, he brings her along.

When us men hear that we are responsible for our wives, There's a way for us to immediately turn that upside down and to think to our wives, or maybe even tell her, did you hear that? I'm responsible, so you better get your act together. That is the opposite of what it means to be responsible. That's the opposite of what it means to carry that burden. That's not what it looks like. The husband deals with his sin and then deals with hers. He does not run out in front in such a way as to distance himself from his wife. leaving her to carry her own baggage. Hey, when you get your stuff together, you could catch up and join me.

He is with her as her equal. He identifies with her and carries the responsibility of her condition. Being her equal means that he is her friend. He is her companion. He enjoys being with his wife. They have fun together, whatever that may look like. I do think that the approach of my wife as my best friend could be kind of weird. One is the wife can't really replace mail companionship. My wife does not enjoy a cigar and a glass of whiskey as much as eating her Max mite. And second is that the wife is more than your friend. She's your friend, but she's more than it. But she ought not be less than your friend. If you don't enjoy spending time with your wife, if you don't enjoy that relationship, that should be a red flag that is pointing to an area that probably needs work.

Spouses are to be companions. It's not good for a man to be alone. As her representative, you are her equal, her companion, her friend. And within that context, as her stand-in representative, as her equal, as her companion and friend, the husband as head also means that he is to rule over her. Headship is representative rule. His role as the head is an authoritative role. The husband has the authority to make decisions and execute on those decisions on behalf of his wife. Now, if you're somebody who gets really excited about the word ruler, like if you say, who wants to be a ruler? And it's me. Pick me. I want to be ruler.

You should probably relax a little bit and downgrade that to the word leader. Just use the word leader if you're overly enthusiastic about ruling. But if the word ruler makes you uncomfortable, If that word sounds too strong or too authoritative, perhaps for you, you should use that word a bit more often until it grows on you. That's the word that the Bible uses. That's the description that the Bible gives, that the husband is to rule over his wife. And this idea of the husband as a ruler means two things. First is he initiates. He's the one who goes first. He doesn't merely respond or react to his wife's initiatives.

He is the one to initiate. There is a sort of leadership passivity that fails to properly respond to a problem that is happening or to something that is going on that is amiss or askew. And simply abdicating or avoiding an existing problem is definitely not taking responsibility. A husband who responds to the problems is better, is doing closer to faithfulness than the one who doesn't. However, always being in a position that to respond is not a ruling position. The ruling position is the one who initiates, the one who goes first, the one who's making that decision. A husband who is only his wife's friend, only his wife's supporter, who only provides an encouraging ear is an unfaithful head.

Because although he may be representing her, He may be her companion, he's not leading her. The leader has clarity of vision for the future and brings his wife along as he goes first, as the ruler he initiates. And the second way that he rules is he vetoes. So as the ruler, he vetoes. The wife not only can but should be making decisions within her domain and making commitments for what she is responsible for. But the husband as the head has the responsibility to either confirm or cancel her commitments, and if he has to, pay the price for them. Numbers chapter 30 from verse 10 just gives us an example of how this works.

And if she vowed in her husband's house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath, and her husband heard of it and said nothing to her and did not oppose her, then all her vows shall stand and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand. But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void and the Lord will forgive her. Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself her husband may establish or her husband may make void. But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows or all her pledges that are upon her.

He has established them because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. If he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity. The husband's silence is still an authoritative silence. The wife's decisions are always the husband's concerns. So the ruling husband sets the course and sets the pace for his household as he leads his family. His wife follows him because he's going somewhere. It's somebody to follow. He's not just responding to her outcries. The ruling husband judges, decides, decrees, and acts. This is the role for him to play before God and for the sake of his wife.

The husband's role is the head of the household. Another way to say that is he is to be the representative ruler. He's responsible for her and therefore has authority over her. So that's point number one, is the husband's role, the head of the household, the representative ruler. The second main point to answer is what is his assignment within that role? So assignment as the head of his wife. Ephesians 5.23 says, the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. And that is followed up in verse 25 in giving the husband his assignment. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

What is the head supposed to do? He is to love his wife by dying for her, just like Christ. Notice what Paul did not say. Paul did not tell the husband to be ready to die for his wife. He did not tell the husband to be willing to give himself up for her when that time comes. The wording is past tense. It's already accomplished. Love your wife, Paul says, like Christ loved the church and gave himself up. The husband's assignment is to love and to die. The husband is to wake up every day already having given himself up for his wife. Paul explains specifically what this looks like for a husband to love his wife in verses 28 and 29.

In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. A husband loves his wife by nourishing and cherishing her. To nourish is to feed, to provide for, and to cherish is to keep secure, to protect. It's interesting that God uses very similar language when he gives Adam his commands to care for the garden. Genesis 2.15, the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. Work it and keep it. Nourish and cherish. Provide and protect. Providing for and protecting his wife as her representative ruler is how the husband loves her. So his love is to be provisional. It nourishes her. It feeds her. He's to provide for all her needs and to do so in a way that is reliable and personal.

The man does not provide for his wife the way the Amazon drones give us our next day deliveries. I've never actually had that happen, but it'd be really cool if it did. But if it did, that's not how the husband ought to provide. Drop ship and back out. His provisional nourishment is in the context of his companionship, in the context of his personal friendship. He provides for her as her representative ruler. But the nourishing and providing cannot be just for her physical condition. It definitely includes that, so her food, clothing, shelter. But in the context of Ephesians 5, it's also about her spiritual nourishment.

The husband is to make sure that his wife is being fed spiritually. The place God's word gets within your household Is the responsibility of the husband? Are you and your wife in the word? Is your wife being fed in the consistent weekly assembly of believers? This is the husband's responsibility. Is she involved in community with other believers that encourage and edify her in her growth? Is she involved in some sort of discipleship the way Titus 2 teaches? These are all responsibilities of the husband to nourish and provide for his wife. He is to make sure that she is fed well, and he is to cherish her. So when the husband loves his wife, she is secure and protected by him.

Whether it's him responding to direct danger to get in front of her at the moment, or taking preventative measures ahead of time, the husband protects his wife. He creates a secure environment for her. And again, both physically and spiritually. So yes, it's the husband's responsibility to make sure that he's ready to protect his wife in case of a physical confrontation. Being ready for a potential threat is important. But again, in this context, we're also talking about spiritual security and protection. The husband must be studying God's word and paying attention to his own obedience as he walks unto the Lord to make sure that he is not only not compromising his wife's spiritual condition, but is ready to protect her against spiritual threats, against false teaching.

For him to be well equipped in the spiritual sense to protect her, she should feel safe and secure in his loving protection. This also means that she should never need protection from him. She used to feel safe and at peace under his wing, not threatened or being any kind of physical, verbal, or emotional danger. Protection means stable security, the way you cherish a treasure, nourish and cherish, work and keep, protect. Husband, love your wives. But what if she is not lovable? What if she's difficult? What if she nags him every single day? What if she is outright disrespectful, ungrateful and emotionally manipulative.

In that case, the husband is off the hook. He is free to not love, no need to nourish or cherish. If she is getting on his nerves by being emotionally manipulative, then he can be harsh and cruel with her, except not. I'm glad you guys are laughing. There is no condition under which it is okay for him not to love her, for him not to be her companion, for him not to lead her, for him not to nourish and protect her. If he doesn't love his wife the way Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, already have given, he is wrong. No matter the reason for it, if a husband refuses to die to himself every single day in order to nourish and cherish his wife, he is wrong.

If he puts his need to be respected by his wife, which is a legitimate need, he does have a need to be respected by his wife. But if he puts that need as a condition to love her, he is wrong. Love that refuses to sacrifice is not love. Love that refuses to sacrifice is not love. Talk about alter living. Maybe your house and your spousal relationship is an alter that you must be consumed on. So be it. Go and die. Love your wife. Be her equal companion. Rule her without fear. Nourish her. Cherish her. This is the one you are to love by giving yourself up. And this brings us to point number three, which is the husband's objective.

His role as the head of his wife, his assignment to love her, and his objective. Ephesians 5, 25, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself splendor without spot or wrinkle or in any such thing that she might be holy and without blemish. As her head, as her representative, and her ruler, in loving her to death by nourishing and cherishing her, the husband's objective for his wife is her loveliness. If the way the husband demonstrates his headship and his love is not sanctifying her.

If it isn't growing her, if it isn't maturing her in Christ, if his wife is not becoming more lovely, then either he is doing it wrong or he needs to continue in his labors of love. If the husband sees unloveliness in his wife, his assignment is to double down in his effort of nourishing and cherishing her. His work is to build her up, not tear her down. This is God's prescription. Love her unto loveliness. Yes, the husband is her ruler, and he himself is under a ruler. Christ is the man's head. 1 Corinthians 11.3, but I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God, which means that the man's ruler, Christ, defines the man's aim in his ruling over his wife. And that aim is her sanctification. That aim is her loveliness.

Our call as husbands is to die in order to give life to our wife. Now, if you've noticed, I have not mentioned anything about fruitful living as an objective, about taking a wife as a help-meet to go and conquer something together, to grow a family, to take dominion, to cultivate. I haven't said that that is the objective. And in part, because I don't have enough time, I'm already over. But in another sense, I don't think it's necessarily helpful to start with that. what I believe is a man's greatest temptation in his relationship with his wife. What I think gets most in the way of husbands actually ruling their wives the way that God prescribes as their representative ruler by loving them into loveliness is that husbands really don't like being bothered by their wives.

It's interesting that Sean made this point this morning about our approach to public life as well. But I think even more than in public life, husbands resent being bothered by their wives. It could be for different reasons. Sub-Ben fear their wives. They're scared to confront the dragon that's trying to keep their wife to grow into loveliness. A lot of men are scared to lead their wives. are scared of that confrontation, what Edwin Friedman calls a failure of nerve. They know that if they start acting responsible, there will be uncomfortable confrontation. So in their fear, husbands become embittered, angry, resentful, and hostile towards their wife.

They become passive-aggressive, weak, and impotent. They retreat into private sin and resort into having a pseudo-piece in their home that is built on fear and lies as long as there's no ruffled feathers. Other men might just be lazy. It's work to get involved in the mess. They don't want to have the necessary confrontations. It's complicated. Colds into diamonds requires pressure. And if the wife is the gold that's being refined in the fire, the husband is the tongs that is holding that gold chunk secure also in the fire. It's hard work to gain clarity for the family's future. It's hard work to study and learn what you need to in order to be out in front of your wife.

Loving a woman into loveliness is messy work. It's emotional work. It demands self-control. So men are tempted to avoid the problem, to abdicate their post of leadership, and to let their wife figure it out on her own. Men don't like being bothered, And sometimes being on mission in our vocation could be a cop-out to avoid your wife's problems, to avoid the problems at home. We shouldn't be bothered with being on mission if we won't even be bothered by our wife. Christ is our model for our headship. Christ does not avoid being bothered by us. He identifies with the church. He loves her as his body and gives himself up.

He has done that work and is continuing to do that work. He gets in the mess and continues to grow the church into loveliness. The husband's role is to be the head of his wife, her representative ruler, to be her companion and to be her leader. The husband's assignment as her head is to love his wife by nourishing and cherishing her, by providing and protecting her. And the husband's objective as her head, His aim is his wife's loveliness. No matter how messy or bothersome that is, his aim is his wife's loveliness. There you go. So now it's time for questions.

I do not have any questions prepared like Sean did. So I'm not asking you any questions. If you have questions, you could hit me. It could be about this, it could be about Max sent me a couple questions ahead of time. It was like, it was a little clip, it was funny. Like what gives you the right? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, my wife doesn't like a cigar, I said, right? So like, I do think that there, yeah, there is male companionship that a man ought to have with other men, so you can't just beat his wife's friend. Like this is my only friend. So there are things that his wife cannot offer to him that other male companionship can.

Brotherhood, camaraderie. That's why there's no women allowed at the camaraderie. But yeah, so I think in that sense, it's not that this is my best friend, that she gives me everything I need within a friendship, right? There's things that she's unable to give me that I need to get from other men. So if that's what I meant. Yeah, I would think so. I would call my wife my confidant. There's definitely, our conversations are a lot more personal and close about, you know, my problems, my discouragements, whatever else I'm going through, maybe even more than I would share with other men. So there is a certain kind of closeness, nearness, companionship that the wife, that the man should be getting from his wife. I would say that. But yeah, some people call it best friend. That's fine. It's just kind of a weird term. Right, right.

Where it's like, I get all of my needs from friendship from my wife. You can't really No problem. So he's asking about the idea of husband as ruler, that that was something that God told Eve as a consequence of her sin. So when Eve sinned, he said that your desire will be to rule over your husband, but he will rule over her. So how does that work with, you know, man's authority? I would say that man's authority over the woman was demonstrated before sin when, first off, she came from him.

And also that he is the one who got to name her He's the one who who called her woman for she came out of man And so and then even God identified them together as image bearers and he called it mankind He identified it as man. So so male headship The husband's rule is there before a sin. I think that the The the struggle that sin brought into place is that now she will desire to rule over him or before she was happy to submit Under him to follow his his headship now She will struggle and continue trying to supersede or undermine his his headship but Anybody else has any thoughts on that as well totally could be free-for-all discussion Signs of if the man is abdicating his role as the head Yeah, I think that, I guess, a couple things.

If the woman, okay, you guys will totally, you can totally hate me, that's fine. So I'm answering Ian's question. Just me and Ian having a conversation. This is the camaraderie, yeah. I do think that if the woman is isolating herself from community, that is a, could be, could be a sign of frustration. And if she is, when in community, frustrated or irritated, not growing into loveliness, could be a sign of his abdication. I think that, again, if the work over time isn't resulting in her growing into loveliness, growing into maturity, I think that is signs of the husband avoiding his post or leaving his post, in some sense there.

So for the husband to be even watching that, and that should be triggering something in him. Yeah, I would think that that idea of representative ruler, then it starts with his relationship with the wife, but then it comes into play with the whole household, including the children. So how he is standing in for his children, how he's providing and protecting his entire household, he's nourishing and cherishing, and then how he's ruling them as well. So that idea, I think, starts and grows within the wife and that spouse relationship being foundational, but then it plays out with other kids. So that kind of abdication could also be with men not wanting to be bothered by their kids, right?

I'm in the middle of a conversation, my kids having a meltdown, I don't wanna be bothered by that so I'm gonna continue in this. So I think it's a similar idea of refusing to be bothered. Right, yeah, I think that kids who grew up in a household where the roles were, submitting to the way God designed them, have a privilege that they need to check, you check the privilege.

No, so these are definitely kids that are really privileged, really blessed. And that is awesome. And so many of us didn't have that, for sure. And so I think the first step is God's word, to be sanctified and transformed by the renewal of our mind, to understand God's will for those roles. What is his design? What is his definition, his direction for the household? And then the church body, for sure, like absolutely. Our idea within our church of intergenerational life-to-life community. We don't have age-focused groups, even with like men to men or Titus two, once they're in junior high, they're encouraged to be a part of that so they could see how these men are talking about and what they're doing with their families, what are the young girls seeing in older women, those relationships, for sure.

Yeah, I also think for the husband to be responsible to find those relationships, OK, what older men can I look at? I'm a new husband, or I just now realize that I need to learn this. What relationships can I build with older men who seem to have this figured out? And then also to be looking at his wife, not to try to manipulate his wife or try to push her, hey, you need to be better, so go learn from this woman so that you can become a better wife. Make it easier for me. But again, in a way to help nourish and feed her to make sure that she is getting the nourishment that she needs to grow it into maturity as well.

Yeah, church is awesome. Yeah, so, yeah, everybody heard it, right? But, you did not? Oh, you're asking about the relationship of the man's mission and his wife. So should he be on mission before even getting a wife? Should that mission be with the wife? Go ahead and figure that out together. What order, what priority does mission play within his marriage? Right, yeah. So I do think that even though the man's objective with his relationship to the wife, so the husband's objective with his wife is her sanctification, I would not say that the wife is his mission. The wife is not his calling from God. I think that relationship is still a means to an end in the way that the man is given a mission to cultivate, to subdue the earth, to take the dominion, and the wife is given to him as a help-meet.

So overall, in the big scheme of things, the mission to the man came before his help-meet, to help him in that mission. However, I don't think a young guy should be refusing to find a wife until he finds his mission, until he finds his vocation or his calling. So I'm not in any place to look for a spouse until my mission is really clear. It could be that you get really clear on your specific vocation before you have a wife. It could be that that gets worked out with the wife. But I think even that mission, if it gets worked out, I think most of the time it does way later in life.

It's still the man's initiative. It's still the man's calling. The wife is speaking into it. He's even getting ideas from her or whatnot. But he's the one who's charting the course in the path, figuring that out. And she is there to help and support him on that mission. So, I don't know, but if there's more thoughts. Dave, you look like you wanna say something? Right. And I do think that, though, there is a big thing of, even when men or husbands have clarity as to their mission, their vocation, whether it's in church, at work, whatever else there is, that could be used, and he's used a lot as a cop-out to leave the house in disorder, to leave the wife messy.

And so, hey, I'm busy on mission. I'm focused on my work. I'm focused on church, whatever else I'm doing. Right. So that's why I did not focus on that as like, this is the objective, but in that relationship, we need to make sure that that relationship is ordered, and that fellowship is sweet and growing, and the companionship is there, and then moving into mission, as opposed to neglecting, you know, I'm not bothered by my wife because I'm bothered by my mission. It seems like that's misaligned. And yeah, loveliness, at least the way I mean it, is not just physical beauty or attractiveness. Beauty is fading. Charm is deceitful.

The woman who fears the Lord. So loveliness is definitely, I think, includes fruitfulness. And so it's part of that maturity. So yeah, for sure. Kids is part of the woman's loveliness. And even she is sanctified in childbirth. Man, this is going to cost me my affirmation. Yeah. So we don't actually know what happens behind all the closed doors. So there is external internal realities. My judgment, I have to make a judgment. I do think that a lot of our guys, or more of our guys, maybe not a lot of our guys, More of our guys, if they were to fall on one side or the other, are guys who don't like to be bothered by the mess, by the personal mess within the home, with their wife, or with their kids.

I do think there's more of that than the guys that are authoritative jerks and are trying to keep everything in strict order. I also think that a lot of that kind of authoritative jerkness that is very strict order, also comes out of a refusal to be bothered because I don't want to be bothered with actual deeper heart issues. Just do what I say and mold your behavior as opposed to getting into the mess of the heart. And so even that kind of leaning also comes from not being bothered. But if I were to have to choose something, I do think that not wanting to be bothered is more of, or could be more of our issue than the jerk patriarch.

Don't shoot me. Or shoot me. Yeah, I think our failure as husbands to love our wives the way Christ loved the church, that failure is messy. That failure is messy within our own heart, our own sinful ego. is messy and is what gets in the way of all of that. And I think it's when we, when we not just understand, but then actually try to live it out that we start seeing more of the mess, more of it starts coming out. And then that is driving us to prayer. Christ, you are our model. Teach me to love my wife the way you love the church. And so it is that dependence. I think that is part of what trying to live up up to the standard is supposed to be doing.

And so we are coming to Christ for strength. We're coming to God for Him to fill us with the Holy Spirit to do that. And then we continue living that out. So for sure, that's a really good point. You have to speak through your husband. He represents you. I'm just kidding. Go ahead. No, go ahead. Please. No, go. That was a joke. I had to say it. It was like, are you the first woman who asked the question? You're the first woman. Good job, Suzanne. Are you asking, how do you pass the understanding of the roles in that relationship? Or how do you pass on understanding of who to find? Because they're already grown. They're out of your house.

Do you guys hear her question? So with the grown children, it's not like little kids as they're already there, but they're grown. And how do you continue to influence them in that role? I would say the first is still your example, your model. So even with grown children, the model and example of you and your spouse, how is that relationship being modeled? When they're coming over, how is that being modeled? When it's not modeled correct, do they see repentance? Do they see correction in that way as well? If there is in the past when things weren't modeled correctly, is there a change of course or repentance for that as well?

hey, when we were doing this, this wasn't right in that way. And then also, if there are issues that are coming up that they're coming up with questions, I mean, that's very clear. But I think that modeling, that example, whether it's in those older parents, or then again, with the church, in those relationships, and then in the Word. But yeah, I don't know, what do you guys... And growth is, it's not overnight. And it's not like, hey, here's a 10 steps to how to become the biblical head, or the biblical woman, or whatever. And it's working, and it's growing, and it's doing that. And we see immaturity in ourselves.

We see immaturity in our kids, and other people. And then working that over time is what Christ is doing in the church, what we're all hoping and praying for. So just continue persevering in that, I think, is there. Yeah, I would think that, I mean, probably not every single sin that you've ever done. But if there is categorical missteps that were done in the past and your children are grown, I think it's helpful. It's a good opportunity for the parents to say, hey, this was misaligned. We were doing this wrong. Not only were we treating each other wrong, we gave you the wrong example. This is our sin to be restored in that way.

I think would be helpful, yeah. Pray, okay, I'll pray and then we can be done. Father, thank you so much for your kindness to us. Thank you for all these people. Thank you for our church community, our body. Thank you for the sharpening that we could have amongst each other. Thank you for the laughter. Thank you for your grace. Thank you so much for your institution of household, for your design and definitions for the family, for the different roles. Thank you, Lord, that you have made it clear. Thank you that you convict us and encourage us and edify us to submit unto your design, to submit unto your definition and in your direction of all of that.

Please equip us with your spirit. Please help us, Lord, to look to you for strength, to look to you for encouragement, to look to you for more grace. Please help us husbands to be the kind of husbands that you have designed and called us to be. Please help us to submit to you as our head and then to be able to lead our wives, to represent them well as their head, that we would love them into loveliness, that we would nourish them and cherish them, and that the women within our church community would grow into loveliness under the leadership of their husbands. Thank you for all your kindness in Christ's name, amen.

It’s time to wrap up our observations on Romans 13:1-7, though we’re in for a lifetime of application. Some of the next few months might feel like a “lifetime.” I don’t really expect to answer all the questions about our relationship to civil authorities, partly because it takes a lifetime of “constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (Hebrews 5:14). That said, we can keep working to develop our discernment powers.

We’ve outlined the whole paragraph over three previous messages. Verse 1 calls every person to submit himself to governing authorities because all governing authority has been instituted by God. Verse 2 concludes that resisting authorities whom God has appointed will result in God-approved judgment. Verses 3-4 profile the purpose of governing authorities, namely that they’ve been delegated to promote good conduct and punish bad conduct, even to the death penalty. Verse 5 clarifies that we ultimately answer to God for our submission or lack of it. And verses 6-7 make clear that our support of the government should be both pecuniary and postural, paying taxes and honor.

These verses teach in principle that the sphere of civil authority is God-given, and so to be seen by us as good and supported by us for our own good. In principle we learn that civil authorities are God’s servants, and so our default position should be that of submission. God has given us rulers and rules and we’re to be submissive and tax-paying citizens.

And all God’s people said, “But what about…?” Or, all God’s people said, “You and what army?” I am going to attempt to answer, in principle, some of our responsibilities when the governors are not fulfilling their delegated responsibilities. This question has been asked before, not just by Junius Brutus, but by the sweet psalmist of Israel (as David is called in 2 Samuel 23:1):

“if the foundations are destroyed,

Seven considerations/consolations to cheer our souls when the cares of our hearts, especially regarding wicked rulers, are many (see Psalm 94:19-10).

We do not care about governors governing for state/society’s good more, or more carefully, than God Himself. The LORD is God, God is the ultimate authority. He is the only Sovereign who determines the allotted periods and boundaries of every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth (Acts 17:26).

After asking what the righteous can do (Psalm 11:3), the faithful are encouraged that:

“The LORD is in His holy temple;

Not only do we not care about earthly authorities as much as God, but not one of us comes close to the LORD’s delight in His Anointed, in His Son, to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given (Matthew 28:18). Jesus Christ will be recognized as King of kings and Lord of lords on earth at His second coming (1 Timothy 6:14-15, Revelation 17:14, 19:16). We must learn to laugh along with the Father who holds the rebellious rulers in derision (Psalm 2, see especially verses 4 and 7-8 and 12). “Blessed are all who take refuge in Him,” and this is necessarily true for all nations, not just Israel.

This means that as Christians we must care about what God cares about, we must honor His highest throne, and we must “fret not…because of evildoers” who “will soon fade like the grass” (Psalm 37:1). This is not a political punt on difficult questions, but it is the necessary perspective of faith. This is a reminder that “our citizenship…in heaven” (Philippians 3:20) colors all our submission on earth.

First of all, I was helped to see that I was saying the second option wrong, it should be day JOOR-ay. We might not be able to fix the President’s dementia, but I can at least fix my pronunciation.

De facto means “of fact” or in fact, whether by right or not. De jure means “of law” or according to rightful entitlement or claim. (De bate is just my playful addition about the debate.)

When it comes to the governing authorities in Romans 13, is Paul talking about rightful rulers or about whatever rulers? Think of an example close to home: if an elected official stole the election, must we submit to that cheater?

The text itself answers: “the powers that be” (KJV), “those that exist” (ESV). In Latin law terms, Paul is talking about whatever governing authorities are in place, the de facto ones.

But that only helps us so much. Our responsibility is higher than this.

It doesn’t matter if the authority got his power through all the right channels if he legislates the doing of evil. We cannot do evil “for sake of conscience” (Romans 13:5). And if the authority got his power illegitimately, we still must do good and not evil, whether or not he inconsistently promotes good law later. That said, doing good might include challenging the de facto’s fraud.

Perhaps more difficult is when others act as if they are an authority; ruling in rhetoric instead of ruling in reality. Brother doesn’t submit to brother, just because he’s older or bigger does not make him the boss. If you got a bill from the Canadian Prime Minister for using maple syrup, you don’t have to pay it. The Colonists had an agreement with the King George III, not with Parliament, so by law Parliament wasn’t their authority. That said, we know that they eventually went to war to be free from the overreach. But on the basic point, the colonists were submitting to what was lawful.

Scripture is full of examples of God’s appointment of wicked rulers as a scourge to wicked people. That said, Scripture also provides us with laments over it not silent, “sit there and take it” acquiescence. We pray for judgment on those rulers, and prophets call rulers and the people to repent and fear the Lord. Whether de facto or de jure doesn’t change our responsibility to do good, even if it takes wisdom to know what is the best good to do.

I’ve mentioned previously the observation that Paul doesn’t use the word “law” even once in this paragraph. He consistently talks about the servant-rulers not about their standard for rules. The Romans were known for establishing a legal system, with a decent set of agreeable, knowable, consistent laws, but whatever might have been on paper had to be enforced by persons.

For us, as citizens of the United States, all our laws are on paper…somewhere, probably, if you can find it, or understand it. For us to apply/obey Romans 13:1, we expect the president to fulfill his oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (From the Inauguration oath of office)

We say “no one is above the law” in reference to presidents, governors, legislators, judges, and law enforcement persons. We have a national Constitution with Amendments, we have a WA State Constitution, we have RCWs (Revised Code of Washington), along with County and City laws.

Who, or what document, do we have to listen to? It’s been said, when everyone is special, then no one is special. Well, when everyone is a lawyer, we all hate one another. Due to the corruption in our day, laws have about the same use as a batting average, interesting to argue about but no guarantee you ever get another hit.

In a land where the happiness of the people is promoted, the laws are easy to find, easy to understand, and expected to be upheld. We are not in a happy place, whether men “frame injustice by statute” to “build disorder” (Psalm 94:20), or to provide cover under confusion, or enough people with enough power ignore the laws to make it miserable for everyone. Words have to matter, with definitions for terms that don’t change, even when the words are on paper.

Most of the chastisement, though, comes from pietistic, milk-of-the-Word drinkers, who read that submission is right, and are looking for the simplest understanding of that. The aftermath of so many court cases post 2020 has shown that churches that disobeyed the governors/persons were not the ones disobeying the law/papers, and so have won their cases. It’s not surprising when criticisms come from the wanna-be tyrants, that’s to be expected. But a lot of “friendly fire”/accusations were thrown by the stay-at-home Christians at the assembling-for-church Christians who were, turns out, the ones submitting to the law.

In all this, Christians need to keep their discernment powers sharpened through mutual discernment, in good working condition.

What about conflicting (legitimate) authorities, in the same sphere, in layers of authority, let alone conflicting with authorities in other legitimate spheres? This has some similarity to the Paper vs. Persons, Constitution vs. President discussion, but carries over to authorities that are near and far.

I’ve learned more about the “doctrine of the lesser magistrates” the last few years. Magistrate is another name for an authority, coming from magister in Latin meaning “master.” This “doctrine” is a political expression that recognizes that local authorities—so authorities over smaller areas and numbers of people—have responsibility to resist the higher authorities when the King, the governor, the higher-up has made an unlawful rule. For example, a week ago or so, the Governor of New Mexico banned the right to carry firearms in some public areas for at least 30 days (under a her emergency powers in the aftermath of a shooting), and a County Sheriff said he would not enforce that ban; a federal judge has also now blocked that ban. Good on them.

While I appreciate the lesser magistrate piece, what if the lesser magistrate is the problem? What if the Mayor is a mini-despot and the Governor is a freedom-lover? It could look like we’re just picking and choosing according to whatever we like, and, of course, people do that. But if we Christians are constantly distinguishing good from evil, then we would be constantly excited about whatever authority at whatever level is doing the same.

The moral responsibility is the same, before God to do good. The strategic opportunity changes, to celebrate or to criticize different levels as necessary. This is not every man doing what is right in his own eyes, this is finding any man that will do what is right in God's eyes.

Likewise, the church and the household have their own spheres of authority. A president does not have the authority to tell a pastor how to celebrate communion, and so a pastor must resist in that scenario. Pastors must also function as protection to their flocks from overreach.

Submitting to authorities in the civil sphere does not equal the civil sphere being the “boss” sphere. The State, Church, and Household spheres are a divinely established checks-and-balances on each other.

Are there limits on what the civil authority can legislate? How far does his jurisdiction extend? The men at the Kuyperian Camaraderie have been talking about this, and Grant ([here(https://cgweinberg.com/a-christians-responsibility-to-submit-to-authority/)] and [here(https://cgweinberg.com/why-christians-have-a-duty-to-defy-defend-some-governing-authorities/)]) and Philip ([here(https://inmirkwood.com/garlic-lemon-butter-trout-is-served-best-in-blue-houses/)]) have written up some of the options. If (righteous) civil life was a fenced in field, can the state roam anywhere he wants inside the fence, or is he on a leash, having access only to a smaller circumference? This is a good discussion, and you can read some of those posts here.

Our national governing documents limit federal government, not just with checks and balances, but specifically Amendment IX and especially Amendment X were meant to clarify that, at least on the national level, if it’s not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, the power belongs to the State or remains with the people themselves. Again, it’s good and sharpening to discuss these things, for sake of doing good for our neighbors.

God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7). As US citizens we are connected to all the US citizens. And considered as a country, we are guilty of rebellion against and unbelief toward God.

We are part of the same body-politic, and it hurts to get out of bed every morning. Most men don't want to be bothered, and it shows. There is some merit in the let your neighbor be, but not when we don’t bother to pray, to pursue office, or to teach their kids lines of authority. Why should the devil have all the good politicians?

The bandits and the stupid have a lot of energy, and we’re getting what we deserve as a whole.

That said, as Christians, we are also corporately guilty of tolerating junk in the church, among pastors, let alone in ourselves. We see the stream of stupidity in the State, and want it fixed, and fine. It’s not an either/or effort. But the lack of faithfulness among Christians is the first and foremost pain, the mess we have most immediately responsibility for.

The authorities murdered Jesus due to what they perceived as rival political claims (Luke 23). He was persecuted to death for “disobeying” the rulers. So consistently be on the lookout for the good to do, even when others call that good “disobedience”; your genuine good deeds will not be wasted, or overlooked (Hebrews 6:10).

“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?” (1 Peter 3:13 ESV) Be zealous, don’t hold back.

“Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28 ESV)

Jesus is Lord. We should act like it. Pray like it. Vote like it. Work like it. Be zealous for good like it. We should not be craven, milquetoast, or jello-spined. Do not give way before the wicked.

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain

We also must not qualify ourselves into anarchy; authority is good from God in principle. As we see so much of the foundations destroyed, we should seek a multitude of counselors in order to be as submissive as possible citizens for sake of conscience, with thanksgiving praying for and supplicating for and interceding for those in high positions (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

When we look around, it appears that we live in days of groaning and burden; it’s bleak. We are tempted to say “behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.” But it is possible to be “always of good courage,” as long as “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:6-7). Beloved, walking and working by faith is never vanity, it is victory.

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.