Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Glad, glad you all are here. And those of you online, we had a delicious meal of picture. You know, I was finishing my dessert and I'm like, I didn't take a picture. So you all don't even know about the lobster and the steak and the prime rib and raw oysters. Right from the river right down here. We had Mississippi blues food tonight with BB King's Cajun chicken and, you know, all the fixings and even some Mississippi mud piece. I bet Daryl and Debbie and, you know, all of our Mississippi crew, they're missing. You should have cut. You should have come. You could have brought some maters. But welcome, everybody. Good to see you all. A couple of announcements. Let's see. First of all, I think everybody here knows Jeanne's doing better. She took a tumble out there and we're glad she's on the, on the ice pack and we'll pray for her tonight. She's going to be a little bruised up, I am sure. Jeanne, we're praying for you. And then Sunday, we've got 945. Why? You're not going to ask why? Because we want to know why. Others hold some positions that we don't hold. We want to put ourselves in their shoes and see where they're thinking. That's why. So Sunday, 945, why? I don't know what the topic's going to be yet. And why. Because I've been busy, that's why. But then at 1045, of course, we'll have the life and times of David the king. And we'll see. Absalom might die this Sunday. He might not. We'll see why. Because he did not cut his hair, that's why. But we'll see about that. And then we have potluck. This is Potluck lunch Sunday. So it'll be a fun Sunday to be here. We will eat. Gloria, aren't you glad that you planned it? Well, yes. So then the only other announcement before we get started in Bible study is the annual Labor Day Bible conference and retreat that Steve and Gloria are going to. And some of you, are you all going? We'll just call that. Yeah. And Pam and Vernon, y'all going this year? You were there last year. Not going this year. Why? Hey, we are going to have, because this is the 10th anniversary we're having. Dino, the pianist, he's coming to give a concert just for us. It's not like in a big coliseum kind of thing. It's like he's going to be right there playing. So that'll be fun. And we're having steak and shrimp to celebrate ten years. In addition to wall to wall Bible study on a topic called prove it. And we got several issues that we are going to attempt to prove, like, I am going to try to prove that you are not a saint. I've been taking notes, and I am going to try to prove the pre tribulational rapture that I hold to a number of things. I'm going to try to prove that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews and that we don't need to say the writer of the book of Hebrews. We just say Paul's epistle to the Hebrews and a number about eight topics like that we're going to look at. So it'll be fun and we'll check that out. Okay, now it's time to have a word of prayer. Heavenly father, we're grateful for your watch, care over Genie, and youre, and the healing that she has. We're grateful for our gathering here tonight, the Bible study, and for the blessings that we're going to have in the word. And for your blessing and much care over us and for the meal we've had and the fellowship and the goodness. Now the fellowship around the word. We pray this in Jesus name. Amen. Well, let's go into mark the 12th chapter, beginning in verse 13, as we are now in. What is it, 47, session number 47. Jack, you've got some catching up to do because you missed the first 45. You've been here for two, and the test will be next week. But anyway, we come. This is the last week of Jesus life. He is very close to crucifixion. We're in a little section in chapter twelve where they are attacking. They is the scribes, the elders, and the Pharisees attacking him. Really trying to find reason to put him under arrest. And we come along and going to move my computer over here. We begin in the 13th verse, then. And they sent unto him, certainly of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch him. In his words, they. Do you remember who they are? I think you're very close, but not quite. I almost overheard Sadducee. Is that what you said? We're going to get to them. We're not there yet. It's the scribes, the elders, and the chief priests. The scribes, the elders and chief priests had been with them. We just had a parable about the vineyard. And the owner of the vineyard sent one after another, and finally the son, and he was killed. And they knew that they, the scribes, elders and chief priests, knew. He's talking about us. And so now, rather than come themselves, they're not going to give up on the deal. But rather than come themselves, they sent unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians. To catch him in his word. Now, we won't spend much time on it, but if you go back in your memory. To chapter three, verse six. That was the first time we met the Pharisees and the Herodians. They were, as I'm sure we said then, strange bedfellows. They wouldn't normally hook up together. Herodians were very pro roman. Because all of the Herods, they supported the Herodian regime. Monarchy. And the herodian monarchy was a puppet government of the Romans. So if you're pro Herodian, you are pro Roman. The Pharisees honestly wanted the roman government overthrown. They were pro Messiah, and they didn't want that. So this is strange that they're working together. But the Pharisees, the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, the people, the Pharisees, the Herodians, all of them together, they need to bind together in order to make this thing work. So they went across the aisle, so to speak. And the Pharisees and the Herodians come. Now we know. They come to catch him. In his words. That's one of those little tattletales. As you're interpreting the story. As you have to remember, their purpose is what? To catch him in his words. So it is a trap, just like we've seen, and we will see twice tonight. When they were come unto him, they say unto him, master, we know that thou art true and carest for no man. Carest for no man. By the way, doesn't sound quite like we think it sounds. You don't care for anybody. It means I. You treat everybody the same. You don't have a higher degree of care for this person than for that person. You treat each other equally, as it goes on to say, for thou regardest not the person of men. That is to say, they're trying to find a nice way to say, we realize you're not all that impressed that we are Pharisees and Herodians. Everyone else rises up and calls us blessed, but not you. But they're saying it in a very nice way. Master, we know that thou art true. Carest for no man. Regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth. That is quite the blubbery introduction to their question, isn't it. I suppose when you want to trap someone, the best way is to put out the bait. Just like, you know, if we want, if we want to catch a trout, we better get a salmon egg or a worm or a lure or something to bring them in. A ham sandwich is probably not going to do it. Even BB king's Cajun fried chicken leftovers is not going to bring in. But if you want to bring in a preacher, now on the other hand, there's ways to entice. So here I am convinced they're really coming to entice. And it probably pains them a little bit to say these nice things about Jesus, the one they're trying to trap, but they recognize, okay, we got to make this look good so that he's not on to us. If they really believed it, they probably wouldn't have said that because they would have believed he'll be on to us. And Jesus no doubt was onto them. We'll see it in the next verse. But maybe, you know, as we saw this in Absalom, didn't we, as Absalom stood before the people, you remember a couple weeks ago and told what an advocate he was going to be for them? And poor, poor, poor little you. Nobody cares about you, but, oh, if somebody could come into the kingdom and care for you, I wonder who that could be. Oh my, oh my. We need, you need an advocate in the kingdom and won them over. Okay. They're trying to win Jesus over here. Obviously someone with, well, I guess someone shallow might be taken by that bait, right? Maybe when we're young, we're taken by that bait. I have seen it, I think, because I saw it in my own life, but now I see it in young pastors. You know, I'll just go ahead and tell how this works in a denominational setting. In a denominational setting like southern Baptists, every church is free and independent and autonomous and can do whatever it wants. And they never tell you what to do. Ha ha. When the pastors are young. Oh, can I take you to lunch? Oh, let's go out and have this really nice. Oh, we are so proud of what you have. Oh, by the way, here's a brochure. Please preach this. There's this buttering up, making you feel like I am somebody and put you on a committee, give you a little recognition here and you fall for it. It's easy when you're young, Jack. When you're old, Steve, you get skeptical, don't you? When someone comes, you say how much you want. So here they're trying to. I think they're trying to butter them up, so to speak. Okay, now they get to the question, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? Now, I think that it is probably strategic that the Pharisees and the Herodians come together on this, because the Pharisees probably would answer, no, he's a thief. Don't give it to him. The Herodians would say, oh, he's our blessed governor. We must support the government. So they had two different answers, which is a little bit awkward when you are answering the question. I know that you all know that. If you got people that he wants yes, she wants no, and you're trying to figure out, how in the world am I going to answer this and not have some enemies? You go through this thing in your mind. So they strategically ask the question, obviously, and their desire is to know, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? By the way, tribute. There has nothing to do with singing them a song or bowing down to him. It has to do with paying tax. Should you pay tax to Caesar or nothing? The tribute, just in case you're interested in that day, the tribute in that day was a poll tax. A poll tax has really nothing to do with going to the polls to vote. It has to do with. Do you have a head? Everybody with a head gets charged. So it's a head text. That's why it said that Absalom pulled his head. Pulled his hair, excuse me, once a year. So should, you know, do we really owe that to Caesar or not? Shall we give or shall we not give? Completes the question. I don't know, by the way. I'll assume that's just part of the question, but if there's a possibility that mark is, as he writes, he's just saying, hey, in case you don't know what he's saying, shall we give. Shall we not give to Caesar? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, no surprise there, said unto them, why tempt ye me? Already the cat's out of the bag. And then he says, bring me a penny, that I may see it. Now, Penny is a translation of the word denarius. It was the. The equivalent in 1611. Almost. Doesn't matter what you do with it if you're a translator, just in case you wonder, why did they say penny? They didn't have pennies back then. That's an anachronism. You have to translate it into something. So what are you going to translate it into? Would quarter have been better to put the us dollar on there, or what you got to say? A coin, perhaps a piece of money. But bring me a denarii that I may see it. Hey, you know, Frank's son, what's his name? Josh. Josh told me last time he. Last time we talked about Denarius, he was here, and I actually said. What did I say? Something about the word penny actually comes from Denarius, and in a. In a weird, long way. And then I think I talked about. Or he added to nails, ten penny nails. You know, they're also called, like, ten d nails. The d is denarius. So denarius and Penny are far more closely aligned in the english language than any other word for money. So if you hear somebody someday and they say, oh, the King James is so dated, they just picked things that were related to their day. No, penny was the word for denarius, and so they really do go together. So if you put coin, it doesn't tell you which coin, but penny does tell you which coin. So, in the Bible, if you see that word penny, it's a denarius. So give me a denarius. Some translations, by the way, I'll get on with this in a moment. But some translations, probably today, have just started using the greek word denarius, because it's kind of come into the english language, at least in the churchy world. And so you can stick that in the Bible, and somebody would look it up. But for me, if I say to someone, your job is to translate this, and they come back and they just transliterated it, I would say, that's not a translation. That's a greek word, not an english word. I need an english word. So penny is really the best one you got. Bring me a penny that I may see it. You know what happens next. They brought it. And he saith unto them, whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, caesars. And Jesus answering said unto them, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are goddess. And they marveled at him. Now, I want to start at the end. They marveled at him. It means exactly what it says. They marveled at him. I think it's the marvel that said, he got us. We can't arrest him for saying that. Now, remember, it's a trick question. I don't think we could debate it, maybe, but I don't think we should make a tremendous doctrine out of the answer to a trick question. In fact, I think that the answer here is a little bit of a non answer. It's not a yes or a no. It is give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Give to God the things that are God's. Now, that obviously brings about a lot of questions. If you're going to stop and talk about it a little while. Well, what is Caesar's? What is God's? What belongs to. Does this penny, just because it has Caesar's face on it, does it belong to him or does it belong to me? I mean, you get all the questions that come. So, really, in this very famous statement, give to Caesar the things that are Caesars and things and God the things that are God. He doesn't really answer much. And that's. It's on purpose that he doesn't answer much. He's giving a very vague answer that they can't arrest him for because their desire is to trick him, to trap him, to arrest him. And so, you know, I think even the Pharisees who don't want to pay their taxes because they don't like Caesar, would say, if something legit belongs to Caesar, we got to give it to Caesar, because thou shalt not steal. And they believed in that. And the Herodians, who are far more secular and interested in the government than they are religion, they are going to say, yeah, but if it's God's, go ahead and give it to God. That's the righteous moral thing to do. Even though we're not religious people, that's the thing to do. So here was an answer that both of them, in what it said, they would have to agree with it. In the details of it. I don't think you can go very far, other than a very general, give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, give to God the things that are God. Give to Randy the things that are Randy, and to jack the things that are Jack. How's that? And so. Yeah, okay. When we think about it, this is such a famous statement, but when we think about it, it sheds no new light on anything. Right. I'm not even sure you could build a doctrine of taxation on this, if we. If we want a doctrine of taxation. Because if. If this was our doctrine of taxation, there would be a thousand questions beyond. Beyond this and in that doctrine. So it almost. I'm going to call it a non answer. And that's why they marveled at him. How can he say something that is so smart and yet says absolutely nothing? That's. We. He got a bumper sticker and we got nothing, and they were unable to arrest him. Maybe I'm looking at that wrong, but I don't think so. So next come, Leslie. The sadducees and the sadducees come. And everybody knows the joke, but you gotta give it. The sadducees come. They do not believe in the resurrection, which say there is no resurrection. That's why they're sad, you see? Do they say that in Ireland? You weren't even listening. Were you sad? You see? Yes. Okay. You did get it. I don't know how to say it with an irish accent. So the sadducees say, there is no resurrection. Now, how many of you like the sadducees? I don't see anybody here who likes sadducees. Of the Pharisees, the Herodians, and the Sadducees. I'm going to venture out on a limb and say we are more like sadducees than any of the above. Here is why the sadducees. This is going to sound strange first, but the sadducees were the most biblical group there was of those three. They went by the text. They said, God said it. That settles it. And, you know, like, we sometimes call ourselves right dividers, and as right dividers, we say, okay, that portion of the scripture is not to us. We can get some benefit learning. But that's not our stuff there. And this stuff over here, this is ours. So we. I'm going to say it in the worst kind of way of saying it. We pick and choose. We say, okay, Paul gives the doctrine for our Christian living today, not Moses. So we follow Paul, not Moses. The Sadducees were very close to that, just like, if. I'm sure. And we could come up with an example or two. But Paul doesn't give a lot of commandments. But if I can find something in which Paul teaches some, well, let's say the rapture. Paul's the only person that teaches about the rapture. And so you believe in the rapture, you look forward to the rapture, you know about the rapture, and you say, yep, that's ours. But other people don't believe in the rapture. Like Jews. Jews don't believe in the rapture. Why not? Because they don't accept Paul, that's why. Now, the Sadducees, where they differ is that we would say, let's say the entire Old Testament is true, and general doctrine can come from that. They say, no, it's not. Sadducees go by the Torah alone. The Torah is what the divide books of Moses sometimes called the Pentateuch. Genesis through the other one. And the reason they don't believe in the Resurrection. Is because you really don't find the Resurrection in those first five books of the Bible. They did not accept the writings like Job or psalms. They did not accept the prophets as scripture. Now, they might have esteemed them. They might have had some respect. They probably wouldn't say bad things about them. They probably would have said, oh, that's insightful. But they did not take it as scripture. They believed the only scripture was that which was handed down from God. Now, do you see how I say that's closer to us than, say, the Pharisees? The Pharisees went by oral tradition. You know, Moses. Well, let me put it in the words of Jesus. You have heard it said, but I say unto you, that you have heard it said. Is always then followed by some oral kind of tradition. So you've heard it said, this, that and the other. And Judaism today, by the way, is an outgrowth of the PhaRisees. The Pharisees are. The one is the branch that survived. They don't call themselves Pharisees today, but rabbinical Judaism is. What do the rabbis say about this? What do the sages say about this? What's their history about this? What's the tradition about this? Now, you and I would look at some things and we would say, for example, I don't want to teach the things that I'm going to teach at Branson. But when I teach that you're not a saint, I am going to talk a little bit about the tradition that you are a saint. And yet I think that it's almost axiomatic that tradition is not necessarily true or tradition is not revelation. You and I would say, I want to go by revelation, not tradition. So that's. That's the Sadducees. Now, Jesus is going to show in a very clear way that the Sadducees got this wrong. They were wrongly dividing the word of truth. They messed up on saying, there is no resurrection. But they come to him. Now, the key aspect of the Sadducees is there's no resurrection. Guess what? They're about to ask him about the resurrection. So you can. You already know this is another trick question. One trick question after another trick question, and you go through it. Jack said he had to leave early. He's not Madden. No, you're good. And so here's the question asked. Master Moses wrote unto us. That's who they believe. Moses wrote unto us that if a man's brother die and leave his wife behind him and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife and raise up seed unto his brother. Okay, that is definitely the references in your outline there from deuteronomy. And they adequately conveyed what it had. That's the background. So now they ask this trick question, fake question, hypothetical question, almost silly kind of question. And they use the. What did I call it here? There's the Latin. I had to look it up. I knew there was a name for it, so I looked it up. I don't know how to pronounce it. Reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ab ad absurdum. That is a rhetorical method of taking something to its absurdity. Let's take it far beyond anything that probably Moses ever thought to show. Their goal is to show. Look, you got an impossible situation. Can't do this. So here's their absurdity. There were seven brethren, and the first took a wife, dying, left no seed. The second took her, died neither left any seed. And the third likewise. And the seven had her and left no seed. Last of all, the woman died also in the resurrection. Therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them, for the seven had her. Well, there's a trap question, isn't it? I'm going to get you. Now, again, remember, they don't believe in the resurrection, so they're trying to get him to spin some craziness about the resurrection and say, ha ha, I got you here. I suspect, by the way, that this particular question was more to give him bad press than to get him arrested. I don't think he would have gotten arrested for giving a nonsensical answer. But he would have got bad press for giving a nonsensical answer. The other things about taxation and whatnot, you know, you can get yourself in insurrectionist trouble on things like that. They could have arrested him. But this one, I don't think you could get arrested. But they're not getting very far on the other. So let's soften the ground here a little bit. So in the resurrection, when they shall rise, obviously dripping with sarcasm there. When they shall rise, whose wife shall she be? Jesus answering, said unto them, can I stop right there? In all of the other scenes that we have seen so far, beginning with the chief priests, and then going to the Pharisees and the Herodians, and now the Sadducees in the previous examples, Jesus didn't really answer them. You may remember from last week with the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. He gave them that little I'll throw the ball back into your court. John the Baptist. Was he from God or was he not from God? And they spun around that one a little bit and said, we plead the fifth, and we're not going to answer that one. And so Jesus just said, well, neither do I answer you. And he didn't answer them. The Pharisees, he gave what I called fairly kind of a non answer. Go out and, you know, give everybody what they. What they're due. You figure it out. A non answer here. Jesus flatly gives an answer. Jesus answering said unto them, do ye not therefore err? Let me turn that around. You're wrong. Let me tell you where you're wrong. Do you not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures. Now, here is a direct attack on the sadducee way of thinking. You have rejected things that are scripture, said they're not scripture. And so you don't know this stuff. And that's why you are wrong. You know not the scriptures, neither the power of God. I would say, by the way, those two really do kind of go together, don't they? To know the power of God and to know the scriptures, and that it is so much better to. Even for those of us who are adults. I started to talk about kids, but for those of us who are adults, just to say, hey, if I don't get any application for the next three years, it's all okay. I just want to know what the Bible says. When I know what the Bible says, when I know the scriptures, I'll know the power of goddess so much better. But so you don't know the scriptures, neither the power of God. And then Jesus continues to talk. He says, when they shall rise from the dead, very definite. It's happening, boys. When they shall rise from the dead, says they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in heaven. Now, I assume here he's talking about single, so they're going to rise single. Now, how many of you have heard that passage before? They neither marry nor given in marriage. Yeah, and some people might have celebrated that. Some people might have said, oh, no, Jeanne has a funny look on her face. And we've somewhat taken that passage and said, there's no marriage in heaven. We're all like brothers and sisters, I guess. There's not any marriage in heaven. Based upon this verse. I'm not sure that that really says that. I think there is the possibility that we are going to be married in heaven. And I'm going to try to lay this out for you. I don't know who we're going to be married to. I think probably our spouse. But what if a lady happens to have seven husbands? I'm going to say maybe they decide. They figure it out themselves. I'll show you my thinking here. So that's mark 1225. Let's go to Ezekiel 44 22. But before I do, let me remind you about the context of Ezekiel 44 22. From Ezekiel 40 onward, there's 48 chapters. 40 through 48 are about the millennium after the second coming. Describes life on earth when the king, the Messiah, is reigning. And it tells about the temple, it tells about Jerusalem, about how the king reigns, tells about all the things that go on in the kingdom. One of the things that happens is that there is a priestly system and the jewish priests are bringing sacrifices on behalf of others. When you put a number of scriptures together, I'm not sure Ezekiel completely says this, but certainly some other scriptures tell us, hey, these priests have their resurrected body. They are, they're not unglorified. They are glorified. That is to say, their mortal has put on immortality, their corruption has put on incorruption. Their old tent has gone away. They're in the new tent. They are resurrected. That's really part of inheriting the kingdom. So in Ezekiel 44 22, it says of these priests, neither shall they take for their wives a widow. Well, that's all we need, isn't it, right there? These priests shall not take for their wives. What did Ezekiel not know? That at the resurrection, after the resurrection, when they're raised again, no doubt about it, the millennium. And Ezekiel 40 through 48 is after the resurrection. They neither marry nor given in marriage. But here, talking about that time and the righteous priests, neither shall they take for their wives a widow nor her that is put away, but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel or a widow that had a priest before. This is who the priest can marry. This is who the resurrected priest can marry. Now what are you going to do with that? You've got Ezekiel telling priests who they're going to marry and Jesus saying, you don't get married then because it's after the resurrection, you can say Ezekiel's wrong. I don't think I'd go there. The sadducees might. You could, you could say that. Oh, you're wrong in your time period. Ezekiel's not about after the resurrection. I think you got to really work hard to sell that case, that Ezekiel's about some other pre resurrection time. I think it's definitely post resurrection. So there's really not a good way out that you've got a conflict here. Both Jesus and Ezekiel talking about the same time. One saying they neither marry nor give into marriage. The other saying, let me tell you how to pick a wife, which wife to pick. So the question is, what do we do with it? When we come back to Mark chapter, what was it, 1225. And you've got this. Here's what I think we do. Here's what I do anyway. I think that we look at this right here very closely. When they shall rise from the dead. Fortunately, the Greek has some very helpful grammar that English doesn't really have. There's ways we can do it, but we don't have it just embedded in the language like Greek does. Greek has both the aorist tense. We don't have an aorist tense. And a perfect tense. We kind of have a perfect tense, but it's. It's not very strong in the english language. Now, perfect tense means it happened in the past, and it continues all the way to this day. I'll give you an example. I use this not too long ago in some discussion in the Ephesians two, eight, nine, it says, by grace have ye been saved. Saved. There is in the perfect tense, you could say, by grace have ye been saved and are saved all the way up to this day. Now, the heiress tense, however, is a point in time. It can be past, it can be present, it can be future. Whatever it is, it's just a point in time. Whether or not that continues, you have to kind of look at the context. It could go away. As a matter of fact, I think it was this morning on as a theologian, we were talking about a passage in the book of Romans about being grafted in the wild olive branch. Grafted in. That's in the heiress tense. And it goes on to say, hey, you're graphed in. You can be graphed off, you know, this is not a permanent once and for all thing. He could have used the heiress tense in Grafton, but he didn't use the heiress tense. Excuse me. He could have used the perfect tense, but he didn't. Now, here is the aorist tense. When they shall rise. Boom. Point in time. I think this says, on the resurrection day, you don't have a spouse. When they shall rise from the dead, they shall neither marry nor are given in marriage. Are as the angels in heaven. Now, because I know that at least the priests can get married afterwards, I surmise that we can, too. Shelly, will you marry me? Got awfully quiet thinking about it. Yeah. So now that sounds weird. What do you mean? We're going to have a spouse when we go to heaven. Well, let me add one more bit. You remember in the Book of Genesis, God said, it is not good for man to live alone. It's not good for man to live alone or be alone, whatever that exact wording is. If that was true of Adam in the garden, and the millennium is a recreation of garden perfection, why would it all the sudden be good for a man to live alone? If. You know, when I marry someone, I'm pretty sure this came from Robert Cranmer, who is a crook, a thief and a fake. As the archbishop of Canterbury. When the Book of Common Prayer was written, you can read about it in a book called Kingdoms of the Cross by Randall. But Robert Cranmer, this was in the days of King Henry VIII. I think he outlived Henry, but anyway, it was in those days he wrote what is today called the Book of Common Prayer. The Book of Common Prayer includes in it the marriage ceremony that we use. 500 years later. We're gathered here together, dearly beloved, to join in holy matrimony into the one you see on little House on the prairie. That's the one he wrote. And most wedding ceremonies still pretty much go by it, you know. Is there an objection? Does anyone object? Seeing there are no objections, we shall proceed. Who giveth this man, this woman, to be married, her mother or not? Robert Cranmer wrote all that out, and we still use it today. That's how original we are. But now I said all that, I forgot what I was going with. Oh, one of the things he. One of the things in that wedding ceremony is marriage is the foundation of home life and of the social order, and must remain so until the end of time. I bet I've never done a wedding in which I didn't say those words right there. Marriage is the foundation of the home life and of the social order, and must remain so until the end of time. It makes sense. It's not good for man to live alone. This is foundational, and it must remain so. Marriage must remain so until the end of time. That's the christian position, anyway. Must remain so until the end of time. Well, the millennium is not the end of time. It's after the resurrection, when they shall rise from the dead. When you rise from the dead, especially in the jewish context, that it's right here you go into the kingdom. When they shall rise from the dead. They're in the kingdom, I think it's heiress. On that day, at that time, they wake up single, if you will, like the angels in heaven. But it's not good for a man to live alone. And, you know, you look up your old flame, you know, Frank, I'm talking about Jeanne. And you get married and you live into eternity. That's very different, I think, from the standard. I'll call this one the standard christian doctrine, more so even than evangelical, because I think the standard christian doctrine is one of two things. Either you're single, we're all just brothers and sisters. Everybody's, you know, there's not. There's not marriage, there's not family, or you're married to the same woman to the same man. Well, how do you know I'm married to the same woman? Because it just seems. Seems right, that's why. And it sort of seems like a hunch, I think this position of rising single and then going in, then the marriages begin to take place fits the grammar here of when they rise from the dead. This passage comes up several times. It's always with that same grammar. Sometimes it'll say something like, like at the resurrection. And that term, the resurrection, is never used to refer to the entire millennium. It's always used to refer to the resurrection day. At the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage. I have a feeling that on resurrection day all weddings are going to be canceled. Anybody who scheduled one for resurrection day, it's going to be canceled. We don't have a wedding that day. And those who are risen from the dead, I think they'll be single, but I think there'll be marriage into the millennium. Now, can I absolutely prove that? Let's say sometimes I use the illustration of a civil case and a criminal case. I don't think I can prove it on a criminal case because the standard is high beyond reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, I think with lower standards, I can convince the ladies and gentlemen of the jury on this one if we worked a little at it. So there's my interpretation of that passage. And then let me finish this out here. I'm out of time. But as the. And as the touching the dead. He's not talking about touching dead bodies. It's King James way of saying concerning. Concerning the dead as touching the dead that they rise again, very clear. They rise as concerning the resurrection of the dead. Have you not read in the book of Moses how in the bush God spake unto him? And then Exodus, chapter three, verse six. I think it is said, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. The word am is inserted there. But let me say that that's kind of the way Hebrew did it, that in the present tense, you didn't necessarily put that linking verb like we have it, unless you were not in the present. So present is all you could go with there. I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of JaCob. And then Jesus says, he's not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. Ye therefore do greatly err. Now, what he says is, if 400 years after Abraham's death, God said, I am the God of Abraham, then there must be a resurrection. He, you know, otherwise God should have said, I was the God of Abraham. And so that's his argument there. He's not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. And notice that he only quotes moses. He's going to use Moses scriptures because that's what they will go with. Now he tells them you're wrong on the other scriptures, by the way, Jesus several times, and I put one of these in the outline several times, Jesus said, the law and the writings and the prophets. He mentioned each one of those, the three segments of the Old Testament, the law, the writings and the prophets as a whole. In scripture, Jesus was not a sadducee, and that's why they are sad, you see? So here is his proof using exodus, which is not a passage about the resurrection, but which has this logical conclusion. You got to end up saying, okay, Abraham has got to be alive out there somewhere. I am the God of Jacob, the God of Isaac. Well, you know, I'll get that in order one of these days. But Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And so it's a logical deduction. Now, that's kind of interesting to me because especially as I'm working on something called prove it. To say you don't have to have a passage that is explicitly on, let's say, the resurrection to prove from the Bible the resurrection. You can say, logic insists that if this is true, then that must be true. And that's what Jesus does with the Sadducees, who I'm sure were fairly learned men. And honestly, again, I would say as much as Jesus says they're wrong, and they were. We have some of the, we have the best characteristics of the Sadducees. That is, we're not all that interested in tradition. We want to know what does the word say, and we want to know where is it in the word. You know, how does that, does this part apply directly to us. We could be wrong too, if we wrongly divide the word of truth, just like the sadducees. And that is the end. And that's why you're sad. You see, I look forward to seeing you Sunday at 945. We'll have men's breakfast tomorrow also and have a good time between now and then. I heard it's only supposed to be 70 something degrees the rest of the week. Is that right? Nice. Might not even need the air conditioning. Sunday let me lead this in prayer. Father, thank you for these two little short passages of scripture together on the last days of your life and you were having to fight enemies who were trying to trap you. And yet these are some passages which are well known, even if we didn't know the context of them, and give some interesting insight in the way that you dealt with people, with enemies, with others. And we're grateful for it. Dear Heavenly Father, and for the fellowship that has been ours tonight. Keep us safe until we come back again this coming Sunday. We ask it in Jesus name. Amen. God bless you all. Thank you. See you Sunday. Those of you online as well. Randywhiteministries.org Branson.