In a sermon titled 'God Delivers His Church & His Servant', Peter Allison discusses Acts 18, focusing on Paul's trial before Galio, the proconsul of Achaia. The speaker draws parallels between Paul's experience and Old Testament stories like the attacks on Esther and Daniel, emphasizing God's unbreakable promises and power over rulers. Allison recounts Paul's numerous hardships, including persecution by Jews and physical harm, and highlights God's encouragement and protection through a vision. The Jews' attempt to use Roman law to stop Paul's preaching backfires when Galio dismisses the case, seeing it as an internal Jewish matter. The sermon explores the historical context of Jewish-Roman relations, noting Augustus' and Claudius' edicts granting Jews certain religious freedoms while restricting proselytizing. Allison interprets Galio's dismissal as God's intervention, protecting Paul and by extension, the early Christian church. The Greeks' beating of Sosthenes, the synagogue leader, is seen as a turn of events showcasing God's deliverance. The sermon concludes with a call to prayer for civil authorities, emphasizing their role as God's ministers and the power of prayer in influencing governance and societal peace.

Please turn in your Bible to Acts chapter 18. We will begin reading at verse 12, this account of Paul before Galio, the proconsul of Achaia. Hear God's word. When Galio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law. And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Galio said to the Jews, if it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I should bear with you.

But if it is a question of words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves, for I do not want to be a judge of such matters. And he drove them from the judgment seat. Then all the Greeks took Sostanis, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. But Galio took no notice of these things. Blessed are those who hear this word of God and keep it.

Almighty Heavenly Father, May this word that we have heard be mixed with faith in us, that we might respond in obedience and in hope. And I pray, Lord, that you would sanctify my sinful lips that they may proclaim the riches of your grace and that you would preserve me from error. I pray in Jesus name. Amen Well, we could have called this God's sermon God's marvelous grace to Paul, part two. But I have titled it God Delivers His Church and His Servant, because both are in play here.

This is a New Testament account that in some ways parallels Haman's attack on Esther and the Jews, or the Medo-Persian prince's attack on Daniel that put him in the lion's den. In this account, this short account, God demonstrates that His Word is absolutely true, that His promises are absolutely sure, that they are yea and amen in Jesus Christ, that they cannot be broken and that He is all-powerful over kings and rulers. That's the message. God's word is absolutely true. His promises are absolutely sure.

They cannot be broken. And that He is all-powerful over kings and rulers. That's what this passage demonstrates. Now just to Refresh our memory on all that Paul has endured in getting to this point. And remember, most everything that he has endured has been at the hands of Jews, not the Romans.

You'll recall that on his first missionary journey at Antioch of Pisidia, the Jews stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas and got them expelled. And So they went to Iconium. And at Iconium, the Jews and the Gentiles made a violent attempt to abuse and stone them. So they fled to Lystra and continued preaching. But at Lystra, the Jews from Iconium and Antioch stirred up the crowds to stone Paul.

And they actually did stone him this time, and dragged his body out of the city and left him for dead. On his second journey, he gets to Philippi, where he is caned severely. Then he goes to Thessalonica, where the house that he is staying is raided by a mob stirred up by the Jews. Now they don't find Paul who has escaped to Berea, but a bond is required of Jason and the other saints there that prevents Paul from being able to return to Thessalonica. But at Berea, he escapes another mob stirred up by the Jews who had come down from Thessalonica.

So he goes to Athens, where he's seized or taken to Mars Hill and called to give an account of his doctrine and teaching. And so from there he goes to Corinth, where he continues preaching, but he says, as we saw last week, he did it in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. I mean, after all, he's been through a lot. And he lists, and that's not everything, he lists what he's been through in his letter to the Corinthians, And there's a whole lot more that he lists there. Being shipwrecked multiple times, flogged five times, beaten three times.

So this is an abbreviated account of all that Paul has suffered. And we saw though last week that God powerfully encourages Paul, and in fully restoring him to service, God gave him this very special promise. God appeared to him in a night by vision, and He said, "'Do not fear, but speak and do not be silent, for I am with you and no one will attack you to hurt you, for I have many people in this city." And then we have, immediately following Luke's account of that promise, then we have this account of God's marvelous protection from the Jews' rabid attacks. Now there's a lot of extra-biblical history that is available to us and would have been common knowledge to these first century readers. There would have been common knowledge to theophilists as well, whom this book was written to.

And so where It adds to our understanding of Scriptures and what is going on. We will look at it. But let's first look at this assault of the Jews. Why did they think this would work? There's a couple of reasons why they thought this attack, this court case, you don't bring a court case unless you have some confidence that you will be successful.

There's a fair bit of risk in bringing court cases. And if they're deemed frivolous, you can actually be liable, even in our world, you can actually be liable for bringing a case. And so one reason they thought they might be successful is this opportunity that presented itself with the new proconsul. After Paul has been preaching and teaching in Corinth, converting some of the Jews, in fact even Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, is converted. The synagogue is converted.

The Jews seize this opportunity when Galio becomes the new proconsul of Achaia to attempt to use the Roman authorities to stop the Christian erosion of their synagogue. They're bleeding people. They lost the ruler of their synagogue. They're losing people that are being converted and are going over to the church that Paul is establishing that's meeting in the house of justice. And so one reason they may have chosen to move forward under Galio when they had not done so previously is that Galio is known for having a very pleasant and amiable disposition.

And that's what they want in a judge. Somebody that's easy to get along with, somebody that's likeable, somebody that's pleasant. There was a Latin poet that wrote a ballad to Galio's nephew, Lucan, who was a famous poet in his own right and he was killed by Nero at 26 years of age. In this ballad, the poet makes a passing reference to Galio and to Galio's younger brother, Seneca. Yes, Seneca the Younger.

And this poet said that what Lucan did excels what either of his uncles did. He said, quote, it is more than what Seneca gave to the world or what sweet Galio begot. Seneca is the younger brother of Galio and he was the tutor for Nero as well as being a philosopher in his own right. He's the son of Seneca the Elder. According to Jerome, he was, quote, much beloved for his amiability, and he was an eminent declaimer or orator.

Seneca told a friend that Galio had a great ability to get along with other people, and his unaffectedly pleasant personality charms even those it pays no attention to. No other human being is so charming to just one person as he is to all people." That's Jerome's assessment, or Jerome's quote. So we might think that Galio had charmed the Jews so that they thought that he would be favorable to him. I mean, Seneca said he charms people even that he pays no attention to, and yet the people think that they are liked by him. So he possibly has charmed these Jews to think that he would be favorable to them.

Secondly, Galiel was a very important and powerful person with connections to the emperor. As I said, his younger brother was one of two tutors to Nero. And Galiel was a personal friend of Claudius. We know that because Claudius said that and it was found in an inscription. And so a ruling against Christians, and Paul in particular, would have a significant chilling effect on people evangelizing.

It would certainly make it easier for them to prosecute. And so they thought this would be a good opportunity to get Paul convicted and thrown in prison. But as we see, God caused their plan to completely backfire. I would point out that this is another example that Luke calling Galio the proconsul of Achaia is another example of his accuracy as a historian. His carefulness and attention to detail as a historian.

Luke writes in a very formal Greek, And he uses a number of words that other writers in the New Testament didn't use. And he has a lot of detail in his writings that isn't available elsewhere. And we've seen that at Thessalonica where he called them Politarcs basically, and that's a word that people would say, well where'd that word come from? It turns out dug up something out of the ground and yeah, that is the right word. For those particular rulers at that city.

So this is another example of this, where he called Gallio a proconsul. You see, senatorial provinces were governed by the Senate in Rome, and they required little, not very much military presence to maintain order, and they were governed by proconsuls who were appointed annually. Whereas imperial provinces were ruled directly by the emperor, they were often farther from Rome, or they were newly conquered territories that required stronger military presence. And they were governed by procurators who had direct control over armies. And so Achaea had been a senatorial province under Augustus.

But under Tiberius, it was an imperial province with a procurator. And then under Claudius after 44 AD it switched back to being a senatorial province with a proconsul as governor. So this event happened probably six or seven years after it was switched back, and Luke uses the correct term to describe Galio, not the one that had been in effect for a long time. So what is the charge then that these Jews bring? In Acts 18-13, their charge is that this fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.

Well, was that a true statement? Was he persuading men to worship God? Well, yes he was. He was actually, the Lord was blessing that. And he was persuading many people.

So that much they got right. But is this a crime? So he's persuading men to worship God contrary to the law. Yes, we see He's persuading men to worship God. Is it contrary to the law?

Well, we need to look a little bit at the law at that time. The Jews had long cultivated a relationship with the Roman Empire, going all the way back to the days of their independence under the Maccabees around 130 BC. Here Canis I had been a part of building that relationship with Rome. It was mutual, it was symbiotic, it was beneficial to both, even before they were a Roman colony. And after they were assimilated into the Roman Empire, they were granted very wide liberty under Julius Caesar to practice.

Augustus Caesar extended similar privileges to the Jews, including the Jews of the diaspora. In 1 AD, he issued an edict because Jews were being mistreated in Asia and Libya, And he recognized that the Jews were and had been grateful to Rome under Hyrcanus II. That's the high priest in the days of Julius Caesar. And so he ordered that the Jews have liberty to make use of their own customs according to the law of their forefathers, and that their sacred money is not to be touched but to be sent to Jerusalem, and that they are not obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath day or on the day of preparation until after the ninth hour. He didn't have to go to any judge or court on a day of preparation after the ninth hour or on a Sabbath day.

He further decreed that if any be caught stealing their holy books or their sacred money, whether it be out of the synagogue or public school, he shall be deemed a sacrilegious person, and his goods shall be brought into the public treasury of the Romans. So that's the penalty if you falsely accused or troubled these Jews by taking their books or their money By the but by the time Claudius becomes emperor in 41 AD the Jews had begin had begun to get into fights with Christians to the point of causing civil unrest. And so while still recognizing Judaism's long history and favorable relationship with the Romans, And while he still granted the Jews the privilege of practicing their own religion, Claudius is much more restrained with his favor in his edicts. And so in AD 41, which is the year that he became emperor, Claudius replies to a delegation from Alexandria with a letter containing directions on a number of matters, one of which was the Alexandrians' conflict with Jews. And in that letter, He commanded the Alexandrians to behave gently and kindly with the Jews.

He calls them the inhabitants of the same city. They're in your same city. They've been there a long time. And he said, don't be disrespectful of the customs used in the ritual of their God, but let them use their own customs as in the time of the god Augustus." They called their emperors gods. "...even as I myself, after hearing both sides have confirmed.

So Claudius goes back to Augustus granted this favor, he's confirmed that and he's upholding that. But unlike Augustus, he goes on to place some restrictions on the Jews, giving them, quote, strict orders not to agitate for more than they had before, nor as though dwelling in two cities to send two separate delegations to him. He didn't want two delegations from the Jews. You're in one city, I just want one delegation from you. And he also told them not to intrude on the gymnasial contest, in other words, and reap the fruits of their households while enjoying the abundance of benefits without envy in a foreign city.

He's basically telling the Jews that they can't double-dip. You can't enjoy the privileges of being a Jew and reaping the benefits and protection of that law, and then reaping the benefits of other religions at the same time. And so essentially what Claudius has done here is to tell the Gentiles to let them alone and to forbid the Jews from proselytizing. He said you can't agitate for more than you already have. That's proselytizing.

He said you can't do that. Respect my goodness in allowing you to practice and and don't agitate for more don't proselytize And he sent a similar letter to all his other Regions and I'll just read that to you. It says, upon the petition of King Agrippa and King Herod, those were rulers of Israel, who are persons very dear to me, that I would grant, they basically asked him to grant the same rights and privileges to the Jews which are in the rest of the Roman Empire that he granted to those of Alexandria. And he said, I very willingly comply with this. And I grant, And this grant I make not only for the sake of the petitioners because he said they were his friends But as in judging those Jews for whom I have been been petitioned Worthy of such a favor you say I'm doing it because I'm friends with these not only because I'm friends with these guys, but because the Jews are worthy of this on account of their fidelity and friendship to the Romans.

I think it also very just that no Grecian city should be deprived of such rights and privileges since they were preserved to them under the great Augustus. So he doesn't want to change what Augustus did. It will therefore be fit to permit the Jews who are in all the world under us to keep their ancient customs without being hindered. And I do charge them also to use this my kindness to them with moderation and not to show contempt of the superstitious observances of other nations, but to keep their laws only." So he's basically saying, I grant you the right to practice as you see fit, but keep to yourselves. And be considerate that I'm showing this kindness to you, and in return, Keep your own laws also.

And this is what he says, I will that this decree of mine be engraven on tables by the magistrates of the cities and colonies and municipal palaces, both those within Italy and those without it, both kings and governors, by the means of ambassadors, and to have them exposed to the public for full 30 days in such a place where they may be plainly read from the ground." So he wanted these things both in Italy and those without, both kings and governors, to everywhere. He wanted this edict distributed throughout the entire Roman Empire. But a few years later, by 49 AD, it's changed even more. He expels all the Jews from Rome, like we read in verse 2 of this chapter, because of the unrest created by the Talmudic Jews who were attacking the Messianic Jews like Paul. So he just said, get out of here, all of you.

I don't want this fighting going on in my city." And he didn't distinguish between which Jews were right. He didn't distinguish between the Messianic Jews like Aquila and Priscilla, or the Talmudic Jews. Okay, so the substance then of this charge is that Paul was proselytizing. He was persuading men to worship God who were not previously worshiping God. And this was certainly true.

Paul wrote to 1 Corinthians 6, 9, Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do you not be deceived? Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revalors, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God, and such were some of you." Such were some of you. Paul was reaching these kinds of people, at least some of these people that he lists there, would have been persuaded by Paul to worship the true and living God. They weren't Jews, in other words.

So that was proselytizing and technically that would have been against the spirit, if not the letter of Claudius' edict. But Sosthenes, who's presenting this as the rule of the Jews, failed in a very significant way. That's not what he presented to Galio. He didn't argue that. From Galio's perspective, Paul was a Jew, and he was being accused by Jews, And so he ruled in accordance with that picture that was presented to him.

Luke records the Proconsul's legal ruling was based on three points. Words, names, and your own law. Three reasons that Galio gave. Words, the term logos, can be used to refer to a declaration of immunity. And as we've seen, the Jews had a legal immunity, a legal right to practice their religion, and for which they offered sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem on behalf of the Empire.

Yes, Emperor Augustus even paid for the cost of those sacrifices. So the Jews weren't offering the sacrifice to Augustus, but they were offering it for Augustus. And so they thought that they could keep their law and not worship an idol and still satis- placate the Romans by offering these sacrifices on behalf of the emperor. And so this was going on. It was a comp...

This relationship between the Jews and the Romans was complicated and at times it was a strange relationship that required continual negotiations, attention and so on. But these negotiations and concessions that were made between the Jews and Rome didn't directly concern Galio. They were specifically between Jerusalem and the emperor directly. You see, Sassanis did not specify that Paul had left the synagogue and separated himself from the Jews. But even if he had, Galio would have asked or at least thought, well then why are you bringing a charge and not the Greeks who are being proselytized?

In other words, if he said, well, Paul has left the synagogue, he's not a Jew, he doesn't have any immunity, he's proselytizing, Galileo would wonder, where are the people he's proselytizing? Why aren't they here bringing the charge? Why are you Jews worried about this? This isn't your matter. If...

You see, the Jews couldn't have it both ways. If Paul had separated from the Jews and was proselytizing Greeks and Romans, then why were the Jews concerned about it? On the other hand, if Paul was still with the Jews, then they are bringing a charge against one of their own for some internal thing. And so in either case, I think Galio rightly perceived that this was a matter of envy and intramural conflict in the same family. And they didn't bring any Gentiles who had been proselytized.

So Galio decided this is entirely an internal matter of Jews who are simply envious of another Jew and he didn't want any part of it. The second basis of his ruling is that this charge was concerned with names, which is used to mean the opposite of a real person. You can refer to pretexts or terms or false names or so on. So Roman law held a person liable for actions, not for any name they professed. You had to do something.

So Galio enunciated this important principle that would have precluded him hearing these charges as in a criminal action. This isn't about names, not about actions. The third basis of Galio's ruling is that this matter concerned internal details about their own Jewish laws and not Roman law. He said if it pertained to wrongdoing or to crimes, to actual crimes, then there would be a reason for him to bear with them in this matter. But since this pertained to their own law, as he saw it, he flat out rejected their lawsuit and threw them out of court.

So what's the result of this lawsuit now? Well, I think as we said, God was demonstrating that the heart of the king was in His hand and He could turn it withers whoever He wanted to protect Paul so nobody could touch him. Galio throws this case out before letting the defense respond to the charges. Paul says he's about to open his mouth when Galio throws him out. And Paul doesn't even have to open his mouth to defend himself.

This was like the children of Israel at the Yom Suph. They saw, remember, the sea in front of them, the mountains on either side, the Egyptian army coming through, the wadi behind them, and they're completely trapped. And what is God? What does Moses say in Exodus 14? He said, Don't be afraid.

Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will accomplish for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you will never see again. No more forever. Then he says this, the Lord will fight for you and you shall hold your peace. Now, they wouldn't even have to talk.

God would do the fighting, and they wouldn't even have to speak a word, and that's exactly what Paul sees. And I'm sure he noticed. He didn't even have to speak. God fought this for him. Galil not only dismissed the case out of hand, rendering a summary judgment, but he also drove the Jews away.

He drove them away. That means, I think, that the Roman lictors, those are the people that bore the rods. Those are the people that did the caning if somebody needed caned. People that would have caned Paul and Philippi. They were driving Sosthenes and the Jews out of the court, and they probably used some force in doing so.

Maybe Sosthenes was slow to go. And so Galio forcibly expels them, drives them away. Now, the third result of this Is that just like the attack of the Egyptian army on the Israelites at the Yom Suph, or like the attack of the Medo-Persian princes on Daniel, or the attack of Haman on Esther, it is the attacker of Christ's church and His people that is punished. It's Sosthenes that gets the beating that he expected Paul would get. And like the Israelites watching The dead bodies of the Philistines wash up on the shore of the Yam Suph.

Paul watches Sosthenes get a beating. And I can't help but think that Saul could not help but remember the Lord's promise to him, no one will attack you to hurt you. And I think that's why Luke records this account here. Notice that it explicitly mentions Greeks and not Jews that engage in this beating. You know, some commentators have suggested it was lictors doing the beating.

Those are the enforcers, the court police. But lictors would usually be Romans, not Greeks. And Luke is very specific about this. He says Greeks. Now I know in 2% of the least reliable manuscripts that is omitted.

But in the majority text, it's there, Greeks, Lucas specific. So what's going on here? Well we know that leading Roman citizens typically attended these courts and functioned as loyal supporters. They attended with their clients and functioned as loyal supporters of their patron. And so when they saw the dismissal of the Jews' case in Roman civil court And then they see these people being driven away.

These clients could have seen this as an opportunity to demonstrate their support to the emperor. Everybody always wanted to show their support to the emperor, just like everybody's trying to kiss the ring of the president-elect right now, even the people that hated him. So, whenever people see, like this synchophant, see these kinds of opportunities, they usually take them. And so they may have seen this as an opportunity to support the emperor's recent anti-Jewish decree. Remember, he kicked them all out of Rome, and that would have been just a year or two earlier from this.

And I think this is consistent with the general expectation that good citizens of Roman colonies looked for ways to demonstrate their loyalty to the Roman Empire. So I think that's what's going on. Now, Luke's closing comment about this response is difficult to interpret. And that has resulted in commentators being really all over the map on this. The New King James reads, Galio took no notice of these things.

And this suggests maybe that Galio took no notice of the beating Sosinese was receiving. I think these difficulties in interpretation arise from two different things here. The first is, what do these things refer to? Many assume it refers to the beating of Sassanis. But I think it could also refer to the issues raised by their Jews in the legal petition, because these issues could not stand up in court.

And I think that's a preferable understanding. It's the issues that they were raising, the legal issues that Sosinese took, that is being referred to here. The second issue is a textual one regarding this word, notice, in the New King James. Other translations have the word concern. About 15% of the Greek manuscripts have the word for concern or take notice of.

And these minority manuscripts are the basis of the Greek text used by most modern translations. But the majority text has a slightly different word. It has mellow, which means about to do something. It's the exact same word in verse 14 where it says Paul was about to open his mouth It's the word mellow. It's the same word here And that word can also mean a Delay it means about to do something about to do something about to do something intending to do something But you never get around to it So it can mean a delay it apparently One lexicon had that definition of it and so what And and so this closing statement that I think could be understood as a summary statement that none of the matters raised by the Jews, none of the legal matters raised by the Jews were a delay to Galio.

He had moved on. He threw this case out and went about his work. Now The fourth result of this attack is that there is now an adverse ruling from a Roman provincial criminal court on the status of Christians. There is now a formal ruling. This is the first hearing in a Roman criminal court on the status of Christians, and it's a straight-up win.

And I think this ruling, as many people have noted, had a significant impact on the life of the Corinthian Church for the next several years in protecting it and preserving them from persecution. Because here, this eminent proconsul had ruled so clearly and decisively in their favor. Now the question is, as we close, was Gallio right in this assessment? The civil magistrate is, after all, to ensure that both tables of God's law are obeyed, and the violators of that law are punished. And later on, the Roman emperors did do exactly that.

Constantine and others, The last emperor of the undivided Roman world, the last emperor to rule the entire Roman Empire, did a lot to establish the Nicene Creed as orthodox. But we have Orthodox. But we have to distinguish between crimes and sins. The civil magistrate has jurisdiction over crimes, but not sins. In other words, if you covet something, the civil magistrate has no right to punish that.

Hate crimes where you have hateful thoughts is not a punishable crime. If you murder somebody, that is. And this goes for the first table as well. The Westminster Confession says that the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments were the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, yet he has authority and it is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed. Those are public blasphemies.

What do you do when some artist wants to create a blasphemous work of art? Desecrate, blaspheming Christ and things that are holy. Do you just have to stand by and wring your hands? What do you do when somebody wants to put a satanic idol in the Capitol building, as happened in Iowa? Do you just have to stand by and wring your hands?

No, No. The civil magistrate has the authority to ensure that such blasphemies are suppressed. All corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly subtled and administered and observed, for the better effecting whereof he is the power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." Now, he's not to be involved in debates about whether we should be Pato Baptist or Credo Baptist or these kinds of debates, but it is his responsibility to uphold the first table of the law is off limits to the civil magistrate. And in fact, In many people's minds, the whole world of politics is just kind of a dirty place and Christians really shouldn't be involved. Thankfully, I think we are seeing that change.

But I think that comes of these revisions to the Westminster standard of the London Confession that the London Confession wasn't revised, but their original confession that is totally silent, that takes away from the civil magistrate this responsibility in the name of separation of church and state. But yes, these two, but they're confusing separation of church and state and separation of God and state. Yes, church and state are two separate organizations, two separate institutions, both in mutual submission to each other and to God, but neither one over the other. And yet, that is not the same as... Yet God is not to be separated from the civil magistrate.

The civil magistrate is God's minister. He exercises God's authority. How can he be separated from God? You see, it's impossible to separate religion from the civil magistrate. The civil magistrate will always be religious.

It's a question of which religion and which law he upholds. Which law does he uphold as the truth? And which law does he destroy as a heresy? That's the question. It's impossible for the civil magistrate to separate himself from God or religion.

And so, Galio, I think, rightly recognized that this was a question, a theological question about who Jesus was. Paul was saying Jesus is the Messiah. And the Jews were saying, no, He's not the Messiah. And they can have that debate, but they can't attack Paul. They can't beat him or deny him his right to speak.

And so in conclusion, I have Two things. Do we pray for our governor, our legislatures, our judges, that they would uphold justice and that saints would be delivered? Do we pray for these things? Do we pray fervently and regularly for them? Because they are a part of our lives just as much as the church and the family are.

This is an institution that God has ordained, and we neglect praying for these people to our detriment. In fact, God commands us to pray for all manner of people so that we can live a quiet and peaceable life. And so we ought to pray that our civil magistrates would exercise their responsibility as God's ministers of vengeance to stop violations of His law, criminal outward violations of His law in both the first and the second table. And secondly, since the heart of the king is in God's hand, do we pray for the salvation of our rulers? Do we pray that God would move their hearts in very specific situations?

We ought to. And if we don't see that happening, we should ask, are we praying for it? Are we asking God to do that? Because Jesus says we often don't have, or James said, because we don't ask. Well, may the Lord bless this revival that I think is happening in our county as people are turning to the Lord and praying for their civil magistrates.

May we continue in this with with fervency and diligence. Let us pray. Almighty Father in heaven, we thank you that You are the sovereign, that You are the king above all other kings, that You are the ruler over the princes of this earth, and that You hold their heart in Your hand and You turn it whichever way You will, even as we can direct the channel of a river. Father, may we be faithful in prayer. For you have ordained to work through the prayers of your people.

And we see throughout the scriptures that it is when your people pray, when they return to you, and call upon you for help that you help. That you send help out of your sanctuary and you strengthen your people out of Zion, And you do bring great victories over your enemies. Father, grant us faith to believe these promises and to act upon them and to pray for the victory of your kingdom in our time and amongst us and in our land. We ask this in Jesus name Amen.