Another Axe Head Interpretation

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast making Theology Central. Good morning everyone. It is Monday, October the twenty first, twenty twenty four. It is currently nine fifty seven am Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I know it's fast approaching October the thirty first, and for some people that's Reformation Day. For other people that's Halloween. But this is the time of year that a lot of times people start talking about well, frightening things, things that go bump in the night. And right now I am being frightened. Right now, I am being scared. Right now, I am being haunted by a floating axehead.

1:00 It will not go away. Wherever I turn, there's the floating axe head. And then I turn this way, there's the floating axe head. And I go to sleep and I see the floating axe head, and I hear the floating axe head keep whispering to me. I am never going away. I Am never leaving you. Okay, all right, Maybe that's a little bit of an exaggeration. Maybe that's a little bit of hyperbole, but I feel like I cannot escape the floating axe head no matter. What I do. But here we are. This all started. It was a simple idea, let's do one of our sermon reviews. Oh, here's a sermon on Second Kings, chapter six, verses one through seven. All right, this should be somewhat interesting.

1:45 I have a feeling I know which direction they're going to go. Right, So we started listening to the sermon, and as usual, they took Second Kings chapter six, verses one through seven, and all of a sudden, this represents this, and this represents this, presents this, and this represents this, and this represents this, and I'm like, oh, for crying out loud, does this ever stop? Does this ever end? And so it started bringing up all kinds of issues related to hermineutics, right. Hermeneutical principles. So we started we started looking at this and this, and we started looking at allegorical versus literal. We started looking at different hermaeutical principles. In fact, yesterday at Victory Baptist Church, I spent two plus hours going through hermonutical principles and you could hear in those two plus hours a lot of my frustration, my irritation just with I mean, look, I hate to see it. I know Christians get mad when I say this. Look, here's the reality of hermonutics within Christianity. People open the Bible, read the Bible and just make up whatever they want. That's just the reality of it. And you can say no, they don't know, yes they do. And if you look at the innumerable a number of interpretations offered over two thousand years of church history, everyone thinks their interpretation is right. Everyone thinks their interpretation is binding on everyone else. And now you say my interpretation is right, your interpretation is wrong. And it's just it's just it's basically everyone does what is right in their own eyes. It's complete chaos. It's confusion, confusion,

3:18 and it's well, it's it's at times discouraging and depressing. And if you go back and look at all the messages we did last week about I mean, I mean, it got crazy, right, I mean, who reads Proverbs chapter thirty and the next thing you know, you're having a discussion that there's coming a time where they will eat poor people, and they will chop off their head, drink their blood, and eat their flesh. You're like, how in the world did you get there from Proverbs thirty? I know, I still don't know how we got there. That's how crazy it got just showing you. And the goal wasn't even at that point to try to show you how crazy Bible interpretation can be. We just kind of stumbled into it. So that's what we've been doing. I'm not going to go back and you everything. I mean, there's so many hours of teaching on.

4:03 All of it. You should go back and just start listening to everything we've been doing over the last week, and you can listen to my messages from yesterday two plus hours going through hermeneutical principles. So this morning, I come up here to the studio, I sit down. I'm like, okay, so what's on the agenda today? Right, well, let me open up this sermons two point oh app let me go to newest sermons. And I'm like, you've got to be kidding me, because once again, what did I find? Second King's Chapter six? Eh? Yeah, I'm never leaving you alone. So I hit play for the first I don't know seven minutes, six minutes.

4:45 They just read. They just read the entire chapter of Second King's chapter six. They just read it what thirty three verses if I remember correctly, and they just read it right, It's just just the pastor standing there reading the entire chapter. Then he kind of starts working through Second Kings Chapter six pretty straightforward. It seem like it's not gonna be too sensational. It's gonna be pretty straightforward. I'm thinking, Okay, well, maybe this is gonna hold to somewhat of a kind of a literal approach to some level, gonna handle this following some basic hermeneutical principles. And the next thing, you know, he's citing Matthew Henry and let the spiritualizing, the allegorizing of the text began. So I fast forwarded this to basically really close to where he's going to read the Matthew Henry quote, and then I'm going to we're gonna challenge how and look, and here's the thing. He didn't justify the interpretation. He just quoted Matthew Henry as being authoritative, as being dogmatic, and then just moved on. He didn't say, well, wait a minute, how did Matthew Henry come to this conclusion?

5:52 What was the what let's let's justify it. Like like to me, I would have said, okay, ladies and gentlemen, let's take a famous commentary on Second Kings chapter six. Oh look, we have the Matthew Henry commentary here. All right everyone, here's what Matthew Henry said. So his hypothesis is that we can read Second King's chapter six about the floating axehead, and we can draw this principle. We can interpret it this way, we can apply it this way. All right. Now that's his hypotheses. Let's test it as a congregation. Let's test it now. I know people don't typically do church that way, but that's how I would do it. And I would be like, okay, let's test this, okay.

6:32 Claim number one, claim number two, and then well, I don't even know how you would test some of these, because again it's just basically reading a story and just making up whatever you want. But okay, so we're gonna what we're gonna do is just listen to this. I don't want this to turn into I mean, typically these messages go an hour, hour and a half. I'm just going to basically let you hear their basic hypotheses that they put forth and then I'm gonna challenge it a little bit, and just because at some point, maybe if I keep talking about Second Kings, Chapter six and the floating accid, the floating act said will go away, all right, Maybe someone will just go ahead and get the floating act head out of the water and just go away and I never have to deal with this ever again. But the reality is, it's not about the floating ac set. See, that's what I think people are misunderstanding.

7:19 It's not about the floating act sad. It's about the two thousand year history of how Christians have handled the Word of God. We can't even agree on the hermeneutical principle. We don't even agree on which hermoneutical system hermeneutical method should be utilized, and the average per and well, I don't want to go back through the problem. I spent almost an hour yesterday going through the history of the problem. But I just want to maybe if we address this enough. We can move on to something else. But it was there, so here we are, are you ready. It's not my fault, blame, my blame. The sermon's two point. Oh app all right, Remember this whole year is about just listening to random sermon on the sermon's two point oh app and so I mean, how could I pass up one that said Second King's Chapter six. Literally the title of it is Second Kings Chapter six are Second King six Old Testament.

8:11 Spirit Scripture reading. So I thought, oh, well, maybe it's just a reading of Second But then I was like, it was thirty something minutes. I'm like, well, obviously it's going to do more than just reading it. So what is this? Well, here we go, here's what I heard. This jumps right into the middle. I think he's just now he's getting ready to mention verses four and five where they come down to the Jordan and the axe head falls, and then it'll go into verse. Six and seven. So I backed it up a little bit so that there's some context. I was just going to fast forward it right to where he reads. Matthew Henry may have been more effective. That way, but then someone would have. Said, you're taking it out of context. So here at least have some level of context.

8:52 Verse three, verses four and five, they go to Jordan, they begin to cut, and a borrowed axe head slips off and fall into the Jordan river. Notice the extraordinary means employed verse six, He cut down a stick and cast it in. Thither you have a felled tree. Elisha takes an axe, cuts off one of the sticks, throws it in, and by God's power, that stick draws up the iron to the surface. The iron did swim, confirming the Elisha's words, his preaching, his doctrine. These miracles confirm these words.

9:35 Now that's pretty text based right there, right hey, this miracle confirms the words of Elisha, confirms him being a prophet. Okay, all right, okay, you could. Say one of the main reasons for these miracles is to confirm him being a prophet, him being from God, God blessing his God, God blessing his ministry, you know, confirming that his words are from God, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, that's all right, that's pretty good. All right, we could do something with that, right now, What do we take from that? What do we learn from that? Well, then it would raise a very important theological question. If the words of the prophets. Were confirmed by miracles and second Kings Chapter six, then how is that to be applied to us in twenty twenty four that the words of a pastor is confirmed by miracles. Well, many charismatics would carry on that idea, So how do we approach that? He said, Well, this was done at this time because they did not have the an errant, infallible Word of God completed. Right, So, and there were a lot of people walking around claiming to be prophets, so you had to have some way to confirm who was who was the true and who was the false? Okay, you can make some kind of argument like that. All right, there's a lot of directions you could go there, right, But.

10:51 At least it's dealing. It's staying within realm of textual possibility. Right, at least that makes some form of sense that connects it to the history, that connects it to what's going on at that time. That it's still logically consistent. So all right. So I was like, okay, well this could be an example of handling it in a good way. Right. So I was kind of like, all right, that's interesting. It does raise lots of questions. Hmmm, okay, do I do anything with that? Well he didn't stop there. Matthew Henry comments. He says, God's grace can thus raise the stony heart, which has sunk into the mud of this world, and raise up affections naturally earthly to bring them above.

11:41 Pray, God, give my. Heart no more stoniness as iron that sinks in water, but raise it up to you from the mud and the muck, even as he did here. Ray is us, o Lord, that we may not mind earthly things. As Paul says in Philippians three nineteen, that means to set your mind as if the horizon of where you can see is this world. That's all I can see are the things of this life. No, raise your eyes. Up to heaven. The son of the Prophet then takes. The There you have it.

12:23 So wait a minute. So all of a sudden the axe head sinks, and that's us sinking into the muck and the mire of the world. And then then the stick being placed in is God miraculous rising us up again. You're supposedly giving us a new heart, removing us stony heart. Okay, that's from Ezekiel thirty six. If you look at Ezekiel thirty six, that has nothing. To do with us. That's with Israel. It literally says Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel. I'll give you a new heart. Then you'll go into the land that I promised your father's. There's no way to get so I don't even know where everyone runs to that constantly has nothing to do with us. But that's okay. So but all of a sudden, then it's raise us up, raise our affections. So we'll put our eyes on the things of God. But then he says, but raise your own eyes, put your own Well, so is it God doing it?

13:12 Is that I'm doing it? And what has any of this got to do with an axe head sinking into water? Who gives Matthew Henry the authority to go to this text and say, wait, wait, wait, what we should take from this is, see, we are like the axe head. We fall into the water and we sink down. And then this is a being you know, we're we're we have sunked into the we have been swallowed up by this world, and so now we have to be raised up right. Well, wait a minute. First of all, the axe head is borrowed, so wait, so we are borrowed or it's our affections borrowed. Okay, wait, so now this gets all kinds of how does this work, but as and then we're we're supposedly raised up. But where do you get this? How do how does water represent this? How does the axe head represent this? Where do we show up in the tag? Where do our affection show up? Where does any of this show up in the text? Now, people love the Matthew Henry commentary.

14:09 Oh that's so good, it's so devotional. It does my heart good. Well, something can sound spiritual, something may even you may even be very convicting and challenging and maybe even somewhat spiritually beneficial to. You, at least to some human level. The only problem is your benefit does not negate abusing the text or misapplying the text. I know you can view it from well, I liked it. It made me feel good, it benefited me, So that's all that matters. Now, what matters is our handling of the text. I love the fact that you were convicted by it, you're encouraged by it.

14:51 You've great. It was a wonderful sermon. That's great, wonderful. If that's all you care about, great, someone has to say. But the text matters or does it not? Now? I think interpreting the miracle of the floating accent in Second Kings Chapter six as a picture of God raising us up spiritually or transforming us poses several philological and hermeneutical challenges. While the desire to find spiritual lessons in the text is understandable, such an interpretation can be very problematic.

15:32 Let's look at a couple of possible issues. How about textual integrity and the author's intent. I mean, what, matt is it all about getting a spiritual lessons or is it about staying having some integrity of the text and trying to figure. Out what the author intended? You see? The primary issue with doing this to the text is once again you're allegorizing the text and it moves away from the historical and literary context of the narrative. The story is a part of the Elisha cycle, in which God works through his prophet to perform miracles, demonstrating his care for the people and the authority of Elisha as a prophet. Now, I do agree it shows his care for the people and it demonstrates Elisha's authority as a prophet.

16:19 He did mention that that is awesome, But then immediately he goes into the Matthew Henry quote and he doesn't prove the Matthew Henry quote, doesn't justify the Matthew Henry. Quote, just states it that way. Oh okay, so what what did you go? Oh? I went to church and they were reading Second Kings chapter six, and I saw that. How the when the axe head fell into the water, that's us falling into the into the world and being overwhelmed by the world, and our affections get get messed up. But praise be to God. They put the stick in the water, and this is him raising me up, raising my affections so I can seek now the things in heaven and not the things on this earth.

17:02 Oh wow, that sounded really good. That's some good preaching. Yeah, but what's the How about integrity to the text? How about the author's intent? There is no indication in the text itself that the floating act set is meant to represent spiritual transformation or any abstract philological concept. To impose such an interpretation risk distorting the author's intended meaning. The immediate purpose of the miracle appears to meet a practical need, the recovery of a valuable borrowed tool. Now listen, I got no problem. I will be the first to admit there's Sometimes you're reading a text you're like, hmm, this seems odd. This seems kind of this seems kind of weird, It seems out of place. There's something unique about it. I wonder if it's possible that this could be picturing this or this could be picturing. This seems kind of odd, right, maybe there's a clue here. So in some ways I could see Second King six, all of a sudden you go out all of these miracles, and then all of a sudden you got raising a flow an axehead that had sunk to the bottom of the of the Jordan, Like, hmm, is there.

18:15 Is that possible? So I can see why, right, I can see why. But then this is how I would approach it. I'd be like, ladies and gentlemen. The following three things in this text gives me at least suspicion that there's more going on here. So let's try to put this with this and and see if it works textually, see if it works. In the in the story. Like the main key in Second King six is whatever you say this represents this or this represents this. You gotta go with the idea. Though it was borrowed So if you say it represents this, then how does that fit that it's borrowed. The whole key of this miracle is it's a borrowed axead. That's why losing it was such a big deal, because it was a very valuable tool at that particular time, and it's a historical and cultural context. It was borrowed. If you lose something that's borrowed, that's not good. And not only that it's very valuable. How are you going to pay the person back? So it seems insignificant and light of the other miracles, But then maybe that's the whole point.

19:22 It demonstrates God's care for that which may seem insignificant. Maybe that is the key of the story. Maybe now I know we're we have desire to turn it into everything else, But maybe the key is I don't think there's any indication in this text that it represents anything, all right, The immediate purpose of the miracle appears to meet a practical need, the recovery of a valued borrowed tool. So when we look at the text, it's not about ooh, we can make this devotional, Ooh, we can make this practical. Who we can give some spiritual lessons because people in the church will get bored. No, it's about textual integrity and the author's intent, not your intent as a pastor to preach a sermon, but the author's intent.

20:11 It's and if we believe all scripture is given. By inspiration of God, what was God's intended reason for placing this story in the text. Now some people say, well, but all scripture is given by God, and it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction. I think scripture in general is do we take that to every. Single word that's still profitable in some level because it's demonstrating God's power to do that which is not natural. Right, You've got an axe head which does not float, so he's overcoming basically the physical laws, but he's doing so in care. And what may seem to be insignificant, there could be some practical lessons there that still remain true to the text. So textual integrity and the author's intent.

21:00 Number two, the historical grammatical approach. The historical grammatical method of interpreting scripture encourages us to look at the plain meaning of the text, rooted in its historical context. When we take this approach, we see the passage recounts a physical miracle with no explicit indication that it should be read as a metaphor for spiritual transformation. The historical grammatical approach just says you interpret scripture and its plain meaning. The plain meaning is there is a miracle here about a lost axehead which was borrowed. The end, there's no indication of it meaning this or this or this or this.

21:41 It recounts a physical miracle with no explicit indication that it should be read as a metaphor for spiritual transformation. The miracle emphasizes God's concern for the everyday needs of his people, demonstrating that God's intervention is not limited to grand or spiritual events, but extends to even mundane and material problems. Maybe that's the lesson, at least in this particular context. So I think when we have to consider the textual integrity and the author's intent, and if we're going to hold anything close to a historical grammatical approach, do we go with the plain meaning of the text. We don't come in and add all of this. Why do we add all of this? Because it's the sermon, it's the sermon.

22:22 The whole structure, the whole concept of sermons has turned into this almost taking the text and making it almost an hour of entertainment, in this sense that you say, whatever is necessary to have a good sermon, it's got to have it's got to be interesting, you've got to have a hook. No, it's about studying the text. It's not about preaching sermons. Number three, we have the danger of over spiritualizing. Interpreting the aset is representing our spiritual condition can lead to speculative, speculative everyone hear that speculative and subjective readings. By spiritualizing every detail of the story, the oxhead is representing the human soul, the water is symbolizing sin, or death or the world, we risk imposing meanings that the text itself does not su port. This can lead to different conflicting interpretations that may stray from sound exit Jesus and confuse the original message of the text.

23:20 And that's what I told everyone to go grab the sermon's two point oh app and just start listening to sermons on second Kings, chapter six, and let me know what you find. Well, I know I didn't hear from I don't think it. Maybe a few people, because I know what you were finding. Well, this one says it represents this, and this one says it represents this, and this one says it represents this, and this one says it represents this. Because there's no end to what it can represent other than your own imagination. I mean, I could go see the axehead. It was chopping down wood. The axehead represents Satan, and Satan was working for God. But he he ultimately fell and he and he was submerged. But one day God is going to raise him up and save him.

24:09 He said, well, that's ridiculous. The Bible doesn't teach it. Well, the Bible doesn't teach a lot of things you claim. This text says. But the point is, once you start down that speculative path, you can just go crazy with it. Now. I know you can make an argument against that one, but the point is you can just start making anything represent anything. There's God to. That's where you have to stop this over spiritualizing, because it becomes subjective, it becomes speculative, and it becomes ridiculous. Now as long as you can make it sound good, though, the people in the pub will just say amen and say, Pastor, that was so good. Yeah, and I've never seen that in the text because it's not there. That's that's why you haven't seen it, all right, Okay, So that there's the danger of over spiritualizing inconsistent application. If one reads the flow voting act, seat is representing God's act of spiritually raising up believers are transforming them. Consistency would demand that every Old Testament miracle be interpreted in the same allegorical way. This approach could quickly lead to a method of interpreting scripture where historical events are seen primarily as symbolic rather than real events with real meaning in their historical context. Now what some people say, No, it's a real event. It's a historical event. We are not denying that.

25:26 I know you're not denying that. But the sermon goes, this was real, it was a real event. But it represents this, and it represents this, and it represents this, and it represents this, and the entire sermon is all about what it represents or how we're going to apply it, and that real historical authors intent just gets an intent gets lost. Not all miracles in the Bible convey a spiritual allegory. For example, Jesus feeding the five thousand is a literal, historical miracle of provision, and while it has stillological significance, it's not primarily intended as an allegory for something. Now we will do that, right, we will say, well, see, oh Jesus fed the group.

26:06 But you know, he took a little and he turned it into a lot, and if we'll give him our little, he'll turn it into a lot. Is that the purpose of the story? Can we even draw that lesson from it? And that particular case he did. Not only that? So so we if we just consider all of this when we when we start doing this type of thing, we almost destroy textual integrity and we almost ignore the author's intent. We definitely are avoiding and ignoring and moving away from a historical grammatical approach. There is a great and we're basically entering into the danger of over spiritualizing our our our application becomes really inconsistent at this point.

26:57 And if we do it this way, is it possible we're distorting the Suppose that theology of transformation, the miracle of the floating acts head is about a temporary practical need being met, where the concept of spiritual transformation is about deep ongoing work of God in the believer's life. To conflate the two could minimize the way of transformation the scripture describes Elsewhere, the process of transformation is much more clearly taught in other passages. All right, there is no need to impose philological concept on a passage like Second Kings, where the focus is on a physical, immediate miracle. The most faithful approach to interpreting Second Kings is to see it as a part of a broader narrative of God's providence and power through Elisha's ministry. The miracle highlights God's concern for the material needs of his people and confirms the authority of his profit. While it's possible to draw general lessons about God's care, intervention, and provision, the text itself does not lend support to deep allegories about spiritual transformation. It should be understood within the context of the historical narrative rather than a symbolic betrayal of spiritual realities.

28:05 Now, if I. Say that that destroys so much preaching, that destroys devotional type commentaries. See because if I just if I kind of go there, people go, well. That's that's all it means, I mean, come on, we got to do more with that. I mean, hey, the story of David and Goliath, we got to do more. Goliath has got to represent fear or temptation or their struggles in life. And and then David, he gathered these stones. They have to represent this, and they have to represent this, and they have to represent this. And and then Joshua marching around the walls, the walls of Jericho have to represent this. And and then marching around has to represent this. And then and then well, and then this, and then and then and and just goes on and on and on, and it just never stops. Now, it makes for good sermons if your focus is on well, something interesting, something supposedly practical, destroys the text.

29:06 Now are you saying, there's never a time? I'm saying, look, if the text tells me, hmm, there's something going on here, what do I do with this? What do I do with this? But we got to be careful because the thing is, even if we think there may be something there, what's our basis for it? Our what's how do we draw that conclusion other than our own imagination? And in many cases pastors come to those conclusions, not because they saw it because they read it in a book, they saw it in a commentary, they heard it in another sermon. So then you just perpetuate. This new idea or this this way of handling the text, and you're just basically following a basically or following tradition.

29:47 We condemn Roman Catholicism for that, right, Well, there's tradition. Well we say we were against tradition, but many pastors are just simply repeating how the text has been handled year after year after year after year after year after year after year, and nobody's like, wait a minute, wait a minute, why does everyone approach the text this way? Why? Well, because that's the way people have always done it. But we don't follow tradition, right, there has to be In other words, what I'm trying to say is there's got to be something that stops and go wait, that's now it's perfectly okay to say, look, guys, look, guys, I don't know what necessarily to do with this text.

30:27 Like let's just say you don't really know what to do with this text. If we just look at it from a purely historical perspective, maybe we could get this lesson, maybe we could get this lesson. But I did find some interesting things about this, right. If you look at this, well, if you look at this, and if you compare it to this, and you compare, and then maybe you can build. But you should make it very clear that you're speculating. You should make it very clear that this is hypothetical. You can make it very clear that you just are finding interesting correlations or interesting connections because of the name of the play, so because of this or or or this scripture uses very similar language or like like you can start, like if you can start finding those correlations and those connections. But this is just people just goes to second Kings and they're just like the axid represents this or it pictures this, or hey, Matthew Henry said, it's about you know, ours being spiritually transformed, and we fall into the water and that's the world, and we submerged into the world.

31:23 But Jesus will. Raise this up and we can set our affections on things above. Okay, well wait, do I set my affections or does he raise my affections? Okay? Whatever, wait, and what's borrowed here? Okay, but just ignore. All of that yeah, But what we do is we just go to a commentary like that and then basically turn that into the sermon. Now it preaches better. It's just but what about the text? What about the text? So I can't get away from Second King six. It's haunting me, it's following me. It will not leave me alone. Now, now let me make it very clear. This is the reality of Christianity.

32:08 Though. Here's the reality of Christianity. No matter what I say, You're gonna come up with your own interpretation. You're going to go with the one that you think is right, and you're gonna think yours is right and mine is wrong. Because everyone does what is right in their own eyes. That's the reality of Christianity. I can offer, I can I can offer the most sound interpretation that I think is humanly possible, and anyone can choose to go wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and then. You pick the interpretation you think is right. You can go to a church, you can disagree with your pastor you can just leave your church and go to another church. Because everyone just opens the Bible and interprets it anyway that they want, and then they say their interpretation is right, and then they judge all preaching based on.

32:54 Their interpretation of Scripture. So people will. Listen to this and judge me based on their interpretation is script sure and tell me whether I'm right or wrong. Some may agree with me and then listen to other people and disagree with them. But everyone just has their own interpretation. There is no there is no end to the amount of interpretations. There's no end, there's no stop, there's no beginning. It's just chaos. And I think the more sermons you listen to, the more you start realizing this, the more you're like, wait a minute, this sermon says this, and this sermon says this, or if you start looking at commentaries, this commentary says this, this commentary says this, this commentary, this study.

33:37 Bible says this, this study Bible says that. Why can't know now? Why is there very little agreement? You know why there's no little, very so very little agreement. It's because we don't even agree on what are the hermonutical rules that should be applied in any given time. And even if you have two people who say they agree on a specific hermeneutical method, they will violate that method whenever they want, because there's no one controlling anything. It's a free for all. Now you can be in a church and then that church can say, well, we don't accept that interpretation, that interpretation or that interpretation, and the church. Can do that. The people in the pugue can just immediately say, well, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. I'm going to go to another church.

34:23 And that's why you have one church after another church after another church, and another church, and another church, and another group, and another group, and another group, and another group and another group and another group. Every Sunday, I'm holding up my Bible. The Bible is opened up, and all the churches preach it, and most of their all of their interpretations, and many cases are contradicting one another. And here we go, we have Second King six and now all of a sudden, it represents us falling into the basically the world, being submerged into the world world overwhelmed by it. But the stick is God raising us up, so our affections can now be put on things above.

35:09 No, no, no. I just but I guarantee you just go look up some other sermons on Second King sixth today, See how many. Agree with that? All right. I just had to address it because it was there. It's been addressed. Maybe today we'll move on to something. Much more. Hopefully we can move away from a lot of this, hopefully, hopefully, hopefully. All Right, we still got lots and lots of issues to deal with and with harmonutics, so we may do some more you know, hermoneutical concepts here at some point. We'll see. I don't I don't even know if I'm gonna do anymore today, but I wanted to at least get this out of the way because it's one of the very first things I saw when I opened the sermon's two point oh app So there you have it. Enjoy, Thanks for listening.

35:59 God bless