Clough Genesis Lesson 38

The lust for one-world culture; man’s autonomous intellect – Genesis 11:1-9

Let’s turn in our Bibles once again to Genesis 11. As we have been studying in the morning series in our series on origins or Genesis, we’ve pointed out that the tower of Babel incident is a very profound moment in the history of man; it’s one that is often overlooked, one that is hardly ever mentioned in history books, except in a condescending tut-tut sort of way. But no one really takes this thing seriously. God’s Word takes it so seriously that future prophecy about God’s program in Christ uses code words, such as “Babylon, the mother of harlots,” and so on, uses code words that have been developed from the tower of Babel. So it’s vital that the Christians whoever hopes to understand portions of prophecy understand what the tower of Babel is all about.

Last week we introduced the concept that Babel gave rise in history to a satanic movement that has not yet died away. Not only has it not died away but it is scheduled for a very firm revival in the last times before Christ returns. And last time we said that the structure, the inherent structure of Babylon, or the kingdom of man, is made up of basically four tiers or four levels, four strata; that the first strata, which gives all the rest of the strata the name, is indeed, the kingdom of Babylon. That was one of the first of the four great kingdoms of the Gentiles that the prophet Daniel, as a great believing statesman foresaw. This first level was modeled after the kingdom of Babylon; whereas the kingdom of Babylon did not last long in history it left its mark and forever after that date of the collapse of the Babylonian kingdom and empire, the Babylonian spirit has continued to be with us.

And then we have Medo-Persian Empire, that is the second great empire in the times of the Gentiles, and after that we have the Grecian Empire, and then Rome. Now the Bible is insistent that this, what we’ll call the four level systems, operates, and there’s just no way of really handling the Bible in a literal straightforward way without admitting this. Now the prophet Daniel mentioned these as historical entities but then he also very cryptically added that they shall be continued in their life for a time, pointing to the fact that they historically would seem to disappear; in spirit they remain.

Last week we pointed out that Babylon, the first layer of the overall structure, was basically grounded on economics; that is, money. And so money, in the Scriptures, is wealth, and wealth means the power of affecting history. There’s no getting around it, the Bible says that wealth exerts physical power in history. And it’s not being cynical to say this; it’s not even saying that wealth is wrong. It’s simply saying that wealth, undeniably, exerts power in history. And therefore, since we have the majority of men non-regenerate, therefore we would expect that proportionately the majority of very wealthy men are non-regenerate, and being non-regenerate you would expect them to come up with human viewpoint decisions. And indeed, this is what the system of Babylon is all about. The kingdom of Babylon was known in history for one of the great places of fractural reserve banking and with various forms of deficit financing of the nation’s economy. And that, of course, though may have preceded Babylon; Babylon is just simply noted for that in history.

We find then, as we said last week, that’s there’s a definite principle that Scripture asserts: that the one who loans money is the head; the one who borrows money is the tail. And God says to His people when He blesses them and He makes them wealthy, Deuteronomy 28:13, when he makes them wealthy they are going to be the head and when they are poor and they have to rely upon others for their capital assets then they are going to be the tail. Now it’s as simple as that. We are slaves of whomever we borrow money from. We can dress it up and say well, that’s because we go to the bank to borrow money and after all, the bank gets its money from other people that have saved their money. True, but the people who basically shape your life are the people that are responsible for the management of the money, which turns out to be the financiers.

So on a large, large scale, as we noted last time, this occurred between nations, with the national banks. In your bulletin there’s a tract written by one of the members of our congregation who is a banker himself, works for one of the larger banks in the city of Lubbock, and he’s put together this tract of applying parts of the Word of God to the area of finance. You see it, What About the Thirty Year Mortgage. Now there’s a mistake in that tract, one portion, so if you’ll take it out of the bulletin we want to correct the error, it’s not the man’s fault who wrote it, it was a typist’s mistake. You see in italics a quote that says: “The wicked borrows and payeth not again,” Proverbs 37:21. For the biblically illiterate you are going to have a hard time trying to find Proverbs 37; it isn’t Proverbs 37:21, it is Psalms 37:21. That section of the tract is important for the argument often put forward by well-meaning Christians that because we live in a day of high inflation, which essentially penalizes one… even in our own church building fund we say we’re losing $2,000 a month for every month we postpone building because of the eating effect inflation has on liquid cash assets.

Be that as it may, oftentimes Christians will justify high indebtedness, by saying well, it’s no problem, I’ll just borrow money and pay back the loan in cheap dollars. Well, that’s true, that’s a consideration, but you’d better consider something else, that when you put your money on the line, or you take somebody else’s money you put your signature on a contract, and the Word of God obligates you to pay. That’s what this is talking about; “The wicked borrows and pays not again.” Romans 13:8 says, “Owe no man anything,” that is, don’t violate the terms of a contract. So therefore, these verses clearly teach, both in the Old and the New Testament, that when we Christians put our name on the dotted line we are obligated, by way of honor, to pay back. And so if we borrow X amount of money we hope that we can pay it back in cheap dollars; we gamble on the future that that will be the case and sometimes that’s true. But just beware of what you are, in fact, doing. Don’t get into the sloppy human viewpoint unregenerate way of thinking that goes something like this: well, that’s all right, I borrowed some money and if the loan doesn’t work out and I can’t pay it back we’ll just declare bankruptcy or something else. Now that’s a heathen way of thinking; the Christian way of thinking, the Biblical way of thinking is, “The wicked borrows and pays not again.” The Christian man, particularly in business, is obligated to keep his word, regardless of what his heathen competitor decides to do. God blesses that kind of behavior and he promises that He will.

So we have, then, an example in this particular tract of application of low indebtedness; that’s all we’re saying, is how this Babylonian systems get started—it’s simply the lust to have something that we think we need right now instead of being future oriented. I remind you as a point of history that it was the effect of Calvinism in Western Europe that was able to amass the fortunes that gave birth to what is known in history as the industrial revolution. It was Calvinism that told the people to save for the future. Today, when we have undeveloped countries all over the world wondering where they’re going to get their capital to have their industrial revolution, always trying to borrow from Uncle Sap or someone else, when they always want money, money, money to go to their high level of development, they forget one little thing. Where did we get our money from? Nobody gave it to us; nobody gave it to the industrial nations of the West. The reason the money was there was because Christians or even the non-Christian were infected with the Calvinist way of thinking about the future, and therefore they saved; they were optimistic about the future and they saved for the future, and that’s how the money was amassed. So capitalism historically has much to owe to the Word of God.

Now that’s the first level of the kingdom of man or Babylon. The second level is the Medo-Persian kingdom; that came into history after the Babylonian kingdom declined, the book of Esther in the Old Testament is a book written about the time of the Medo-Persian Empire. The Medo-Persian Empire was known in history for a mixing of the cultures of East and West. The boundaries of the Medo-Persian Empire extended to the west all the way to the Aegean and on the east all the way to the Indus Valley of India; the mixing of Greek and Indian cultures, or the west and the east together. And that spirit, though the Medo-Persian Empire physically has disappeared from history, the spirit of that empire has gone on and survived, and we call that spirit the lust for a one-world culture.

Now let’s examine this little idea; just as deficit financing is the base, economic power is the base of Babylon, the next step or the next level is the vision of one world, the idea of all cultures being a little right and what we have to do is mix a little of that, a little of this and a little of that and we come up with a one-world culture. And it’s interesting that the Scriptures and the very passage we’re studying, just go back one chapter, chapter 10, you will see very unambiguously stated the idea against one-world culture.

In Genesis 10:15-19 we have a complete outline of the culture of Canaan. The culture of Canaan is a damned culture in the Scripture; it’s the culture that bears the judgment of Almighty God upon it for its corruption. The Bible is clearly arguing against the idea that all cultures are good. Now a belief that accompanies this belief, one-world culture, is a word which we ought to know—relativism. Relativism deeply infects our generation; relativism is that belief that all truth is relative, that is, we go over to this country and well, they have their religion and their way of doing things and who knows, they might be right. If we go over to this country on this other continent, they have their religion and their way of doing things, and who knows, they might be right too. In other words, nobody knows what is sure for right so we take a little bit out of each culture. That’s relativism; in other words, there’s no absolute over it all.

If that’s really the case, and this is basically what is taught in social studies, if that’s really the case, culture relativism, we are dead as Christians. The Christians, the Bible-believing Christian cannot coexist with relativism and here’s why. What does the gospel say? Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me.” Well, if Jesus Christ is there declaring Himself… “no man,” whether he’s in this country or that country, this religion or that religion, no man comes to the Father except he comes to the Father through Christ, then Christ is believing in an absolute, an absolute that transcends the Indian tribes of South America and their beliefs; the white man’s beliefs of North America, the Asian’s belief, we don’t care who the man is, what his cultural background is, if no man can come to the Father except through Jesus Christ, then no man can come to the Father but through Jesus Christ, and all other answers are wrong.

So the Christian has to deny relativism at the very start. Our gospel is an attack against relativism and this is why today a real strong Christian gospel is totally hated by most people, because we have the strange idea that whereas 2 + 2 is 4 in physics, chemistry and other fields, when we come to religion 2 + 2 is whatever a sincere person says it means. Now this is a strange change in the rules. Why do we, in the middle of the stream, change horses? Every other place we assume what is true is true and remains true, but now when we cross into this sacred area called religion, now suddenly truth doesn’t make any difference, it’s just what you believe from the heart. That is otherwise known as insanity; insane people believe from the heart, they believe that whatever one thinks is real. The insane person, you can go to the funny farm and you meet them all the time, they believe that all purple and that makes all people purple simply because they believe it and they believe it very sincerely. They could pass a lie detector test that all people are purple. Does this make all people purple? Well why is it, then, that we engage in a sort of insanity when it comes to spiritual and religious truth. That’s the problem in the area of culture.

Last week we were careful to point out that there have been in the past and are now still, powerful and wealthy families that carry on the spirit of Babylon. Our criticism is not meant that everybody in these families are wrong; we’re not even saying some of them can’t be Christian. We are simply saying that this is the way the system works; that is, that God has so structured the universe that wealth speaks, that money talks. Well, that was an illustration of the first tear in the kingdom of man. This morning we’ve introduced the second tier; that is one-world culture, that idea. Now that idea also has its advocates.

Let’s look at some of the modern evidence that this relativisms is being promoted, not just by a few thinkers here and there, but is being promoted systematically on a worldwide scale by people whom you’ve read about in the newspapers. One person who became deeply suspicious that though there might be surface differences between East and West, there might be surface differences between communism and anti-communism, and became suspicious that it seemed to be the same people behind both sides, was Dr. Bella Dodd who was a former member of the national committee of the United States Communist Party. Dr. Dodd said she first became aware of some serious super-leadership right after World War II, when the United States communist party had difficulty getting instructions from Moscow on several vital matters requiring immediate attention. The American communist hierarchy was told that anytime they had an emergency of this kind they should contact any one of three designated persons at the Waldorf Towers. Dr. Dodd noted that whenever the communist party obtained obstructions from any of these three men, Moscow always ratified them. What puzzled Dr. Dodd was the fact that not one of these three men was a Russian, nor were any of these three men communists. In fact, all were extremely wealthy American capitalists. Dr. Dodd concluded before the United States Congress, (quote): “I would certainly like to find out who is really running things,” (end quote).

That’s an example of someone who’s working in the extreme left who has found this sort of thing. Last week I introduced to you some quotes from Dr. Quigley’s book, Tragedy and Hope. Dr. Quigley was a Professor at Harvard for many years and has worked on the peoples who have this mentality. Dr. Quigley is not writing as an extreme right-winger; he is not here to dredge up all sorts of plots and counterplots. Dr. Quigley is simply writing a straightforward history informing us of this group. Let’s listen to what he says because Dr. Quigley is a man who is not a right-winger, and he can’t be accused, certainly, of being a witch hunter. Here’s what he says, he lashes the American rightwing, but after he lashes them he says, talking about the rightwing preoccupation with conspiracies, he says, (quote):

“This myth, like all fables, does, in fact, have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in exactly the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its roll in history is significant enough to become known. The Round Table group…” and he goes on to mention various ones, and then he says they were “semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups, organized by Lionel Curtis, Philip H. Kerr, and William Marris in 1908 to 1911. This was done on behalf of Lord Miller, the dominate trustee of the Rhodes Trust in the two decades 1905-1925.”

Now keep in mind if we look at the second tier of Babylon, what was the objective? One-world culture. Now here Dr. Quigley says: “The original purpose of these groups was to seek to federate the English-speaking world along the lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes and William Stead, and the money for the organizational work came from the Rhodes Trust. The attitudes of various groups were coordinated by various visits and discussions and by a well-informed and totally anonymous quarterly magazine, The Round Table.”

And it goes on to describe, “the money for the widely ramified activities came originally from the associates and followers of Cecil Rhodes, chiefly from the Rhodes Trust itself and from wealthy associates, such as the Beit Brothers, Sir Albert Bailey, and (after 1915) from the Astor family. Since 1925 there have been substantial contributions from wealthy individuals and from foundations and firms associated with the international banking fraternity, especially the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and other organizations associated with J. P. Morgan, the Rockefeller and Whitney families. At the end of the war of 1914 it became clear that the organization of the system had to be greatly extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis, who established in England, and each dominion of the British Empire, a front organization to the existing local Round Table group. This front organization, called The Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table group. In New York it was known as the Council of Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company, in association with a very small Round Table group.”

And he goes on to describe some of the men, we’re not interested in naming all the men but there are people that you know from the newspapers. “On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody, there grew up in the 20^th century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy. In England the center was the Round Table group, while in the United States it was J. P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland. Some rather incidental examples of the operations of this structure are very revealing, just because they are incidental. For example, it set up in Princeton a reasonable copy of the Round Table Group’s chief Oxford headquarters All Souls College. This copy, called The Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, is best known, perhaps, as the refuge of Einstein, Oppenheimer, John von Neuman and George F. Kennan, and was organized for Abraham Flexner of the Carnegie Foundation, and Rockefeller’s general education Board, after he had experienced the delight of All Souls while serving as the Rhodes Memorial Lecturer at Oxford. The American branch of this “English establishment” exerted much of its influence through its five American newspapers (The New York Times, The New York Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript). In fact, the editor of the Christian Science Monitor also happened to be the chief American correspondent [anonymously] of The Round Table. It might be mentioned that the existence of this Wall Street, Anglo-American axis is quite obvious once it is pointed out. It is reflected in the fact that such Wall Street luminaries as John W. Davis, Lewis Douglas, Jock Whitney, and Douglas Dillon were appointed to be American ambassadors in London.

This double international network in which the Round Table groups formed the semisecret or secret nuclei of the Institutes of International Affairs was extended into a third network in 1925, organized by the same people for the same motives,” one-world culture. “The new additions,” included “China, Japan, France, the Netherlands, and Soviet Russia”

“The chief aims of this elaborate, semisecret organization were largely commendable: to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of all the English-speaking world into one; to work to maintain the peace,” etc. etc. etc. “It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the framework of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930’s. It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power” and never the “Communist power” it was always “the power of the international financial coterie,” and he describes that one time in American history, when this started to come to the surface, those of you who are older remember the famous McCarthy hearings in the 1950s. And he talks about “through Alger Hiss” and others, “the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations. The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece, of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the “most respected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions.” And it goes on to describe how they gradually put the hiatus on the whole thing.

So there is a vast plan, a vast group of people, not all of them evil, we’re not saying all of them evil; we’re not accusing them of being communists, we’re not even accusing them of being anti-Christian, we’re simply saying there are a lot of people in this world, extremely wealthy, dominated by human viewpoint and they are very dangerous people, and they have exercised tremendous things that have shaped the lives of all of you here this morning. That’s the second level of this system.

The third level, according to the Bible, was the third kingdom in the world, Greece. Greece, largely under Philip of Macedon and Alexander conquered much of the known world of Medo-Persia and beyond; Greece was known for its intellectual achievement. And though Greece declined in history, and though it doesn’t physically represent a great kingdom any more, the spirit of Greece remains. What is the spirit of Greece? Man, taking his autonomous intellect and subduing the earth with it, human viewpoint ideas, deeply anti-biblical ideas, by which he can subsume and rule over all.

But now here’s the amazing thing that may pull together a few things that may have bothered you before about things you just observe in our own country that you never could quite put together, and that is, why is it that you tend to find the large, powerful, academic institutions lining up with the same idea. What is the connection? Well, the Bible is giving us a hint. First we have the wealth; then we have the vision of a one-world culture, and now we have the wealth and the vision informing academia, or the academic establishment.

Now let’s think a moment; in history who was the most famous Greek? Who was the most famous Greek of all time who, more than any other individual, affected the way we think? A man who developed a system of philosophy that dominated the Church for the first 400 years of its existence. That man’s name was Plato. Most of us know Plato because of his book, that we usually have to read somewhere in our schooling, called The Republic. But has it ever dawned on you what the subject of Plato is? The subject of Plato’s book isn’t philosophy; the subject of Plato’s book is politics. Plato did not have as his fundamental objective the giving forth of a philosophical system. Plato’s chief objective was to justify wealth and power.

Here is one of the great students of Plato writing: “The first great thinker to provide the ruling classes of the Greco-Roman society was an ideology by means of which to justify their exercise of power was Plato. His first ambition had been to enter public life in the role of a reformer of his country’s ills. Then he discovered his true vocation was a man of letters, and so he founded the Academy where he hoped to train future rulers, both of Athens and other Greek city-states.” Now what was the purpose behind the first thing; we use the word “academy” as a common noun in our everyday language, but how many of us realize that the word “Academy” is a proper noun; that’s the name of the first great school of learning in the West formed by Plato. Historically what was his purpose? Historically his purpose was to train the philosopher kings that will rule the world for tomorrow. And what were these philosopher kings going to do on the basis of human viewpoint and anti-biblical thinking?

Here are some of the things, for those of you who have forgotten The Republic. The abolition of marriage; every woman would be the possession of every other man. The abolition of the family unit; children would be the possession of society, not the possession of their parents. Women would be equal and required to do everything men did. There would be a selective breeding of children with the people who were the deformed people simply eliminated. And the society would be ruled, not by the people, not by a constitution; society is to be ruled by the philosopher kings, the powerful elite. Now how convenient that such a philosophical system becomes the root and the basis for the West when that is precisely the basis of Marxism and everything else.

Let’s turn, for the Biblical alternative to Plato, to Deuteronomy 17. The Bible also recognizes that society has to be ruled and ruled wisely. The Bible also recognizes that your ruling class has to be trained; that they have to be given very special training and so therefore the Bible doesn’t deny that the ruling class must be trained. The Bible denies the method by which they are trained and here is where Plato fights Moses. In Deuteronomy 17:14, here is God’s training for the rulers. “When you are come unto the land which the LORD thy God gives thee, and you will possess it,” there is wealth, possession of land is wealth, I don’t know what the land sold for per acre in the time of Moses, but when they secured the land obviously they had secured capital assets; the land was the capital asset. When you “possess it, and you dwell therein, you will say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are about me.”

All right, so you see the principle; the principle operates; it just operates in a different direction. First you have wealth and power, and capital assets, and God says when you get that, as a nation, verse 15, you must “set in any way a king over thee whom the LORD thy God shall choose,” notice he is not democratically chosen. So the Bible, Moses, agrees with Plato, that democracy is not the best form of government, but the Lord is going to choose him, “from among thy brethren shalt thou set a king over thee; you may not set a stranger [foreigner] over thee, [who is not thy brother.]” And there you have the second platform of Babylon denied, one-world culture. Not every culture qualifies, says God, there are degenerate cultures and you don’t want a degenerate person to be your leader. So here you have discrimination; not racial, I didn’t say racial, I said cultural in verse 15, a cultural discrimination against anyone not sympathetic with the values of that society. Foreigners are not to hold high offices in any country; that’s nationalism. And here in verse 15 we have nationalism; the Jews were not to have a stranger ruling them. Verses 16-17 discuss limitation of wealth.

But the important thing is the training of the ruler, Deuteronomy 17:18, “And it shall be, when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests, and the Levites. [19] And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them, [20] That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left; to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom.”

Notice then, the Bible, like Plato, agrees that rulers must be trained, and historically in the history of Israel this training was known as the wisdom schools. And the wisdom schools produced part of the Bible, those books most familiar to you that were cranked out by the writers of the wisdom school were: Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; the book of Daniel, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, these were all developed out of scholars in the Jewish schools of wisdom. They trained David, they trained Solomon, they trained the great kings that sat on the throne. So like Plato, they agree, there must be this intellectual level, but the difference is that the schools are training on the basis of God’s Word. There’s the difference. Plato says the schools must train on the basis of autonomous reason and there is no compromise between the two. We still have naïve people in the United States who think that education can be neutral; it can’t be any more neutral than the bull and the bullfighter; there is just a war going on about whose presupposition is going to control. One is going to dominate to the expense of the other.

Well, along in modern times came a man by the name of John Ruskin. In 1870 John Ruskin took a chair at Oxford University and began to teach what Anglophilism is all about, that is, that the English and the Americans are to rule the world. In his class he had a young brilliant student, who sat there day after day in that college classroom, chomping at the bit because he loved what his professor was telling him, couldn’t wait to get out of the classroom and go into business and put these into action. The young man’s name was Cecil Rhodes, who later went to Africa, developed the diamond mines of South Africa and other places, in Rhodesia, and later of course formed the financial source of a lot of Ruskin’s ideas. But isn’t it interesting, all of Ruskin’s biographers say that his key devotional text, that he truly read every day, was Plato’s Republic. And so you have a continuity of the intellect of Greece coming into the 19^th and now dominating the 20^th century.

Speaking of this group that grew around Cecil Rhodes, Quigley goes on: “This group, which in the United States, was completely dominated by J. P. Morgan and Company from the 1880’s to the 1930’s was cosmopolitan, Anglophile, internationalist, Ivy League, [eastern seaboard], high Episcopalian, and European-culture conscious. Their connection with the Ivy League colleges” and this is the other thing we want to see because in our own day what is the substitute for Plato’s Academy? With all due respect to Texas Tech University, the real center of the intellect of this country is in the northeast. It is Harvard, it is Princeton, it is Yale, this is where the elite area, and it’s not to say that Tech isn’t a good university; it’s just to say that customarily this is where the power is, less so, perhaps now, than it used to be but very powerful.

Well now the question is, what is the linkup between these people and the Ivy League colleges. How do they get their say? Why is it, for example, I’m asking a practical question, why is it that conservative outstanding professor doesn’t get hired at Harvard faculty? Why is this? I used to go down to Harvard, when I was going to MIT, for guest lectures. Find a conservative on the college faculty, where you could go in and take a course on government under one. They’re not there. Why aren’t they there on the college faculty? There are conservatives, we think of Russell Kirk, we think of some of the other conservatives in this country who have the academic credentials, why is it that academic credentials suddenly don’t mean anything any more once you’re a conservative. Well here’s the answer.

“Their connection with the Ivy League colleges rested on the fact that the large endowments of these institutions required constant consultation with the financiers of Wall Street. As a consequence of these influences, as late as the 1930’s, J. P. Morgan and his associates were the most significant figures in policy making at Harvard, Columbia, and to a lesser extent Yale, while the Whitneys were significant at Yale, and the Prudential Insurance Company dominated Princeton.” And so we have the power exercised on the institution. If you control academia, you control the leaders of tomorrow; it’s as simple as that.

Now we look around as Christians; let’s take a little practical application spin-off, lest somebody think this is all theoretical here. Let’s take a little practical spin-off and see if we can’t watch how this happens. Here we are, the last half of the 20^th century, we are beginning to get some creationist scholars, beginning… for a hundred years this has not been articulated in the West, the creationist view of origins. For a hundred years Christians have slept while the unbelievers have taken over field after field after field after field and now they are jamming it down our children’s throats. For a hundred years this has gone on and now we are just seeing the young graduate students defecting from the ranks because they’re born again Christians and they realize we aren’t going to kowtow to this kind of thing. Where are they going to get their jobs; it’s as simple as that—money. The Christians don’t have control on any university I know of; there is no place for a PhD who has all the academic things. You think he’s going to be tolerated on a staff that is dominated by liberalism and humanism? Not on your life.

There is no such thing as academic open-mindedness. There really, in most colleges with some wonderful exceptions, but mainly the college campus is more political than the community around it. The politics that go on, on the faculty level, and on the graduate level, of academic institutions would make your head spin compared to the politics that goes on in the street. It’s as simple as that. We have had people in Lubbock Bible Church who have mysteriously lost their fellowships right down in the last years of their doctrinal program because they let it be voiced abroad on a certain university campus that they were creationists. Now of course we can’t prove anything, of course they’re all “A students” but somehow or other their scholarship program dries up. Now I wonder how that happens, in this higher learning environment of complete open-mindedness. It isn’t that way; the system is going to attack.

And I warn some of you graduate students here, keep your mouth shut about your beliefs. If they want to teach you evolution, let them teach you evolution, don’t jeopardize your doctorate; deceive them, it is war that you are in. Deceive your professors into thinking, letting them think that you think the way they think. Go ahead, but then when you get your doctorate, then you fly your flag, but don’t commit academic suicide like some have in this congregation, by trying valiantly to stand for the faith and losing tons of hours that can never be made up again and thousands of dollars of tuition because a professor, a thesis advisor, didn’t like the Christian position being articulated. It is war out there and you are naïve if you thing you’re going to open your mouth and walk away unscathed without a vicious stab in the back. I’m not being cynical; I’m just telling you what the real life is.

So we find the third level of the establishment operates this way and then we come to the fourth level, Rome. And everybody knows that Rome was known in history for its tremendous political and military organization; Roman law, forming the basis of Western European common law and on down into our own day. So Rome is organization, both politically, legally and in other ways, and that’s the fourth and final tier on this great Babylonian establishment.

Now the question is, we see this today in the form of many abusive forms of politics and we get frustrated, we try to attack the system, we say well let’s run our candidate for public office, well let’s get into the political party and do this. All right, but don’t be naïve because you are fighting the tip of a vast iceberg. If you want to go ahead and fight, fight, but look what you’re fighting, you’re fighting the academia. If you want a debate, for example, the benefits of Medicare on a national scale, and you want a conservative option to that scheme, where are you going to get your academic professors to come to the hearings and testify while the other side has 25 PhD’s to come testify for their side? Where are you going to get that? You need your academic backup and we don’t have those. Where are you going to get the wealth to articulate the program? We don’t have it. That’s why we always run a losing battle; we are trying to fire bullets into the top of an iceberg and then we are wondering why the iceberg doesn’t move.

Now for some very revealing remarks about how this operates, we want to take two remarks directed at each of the political parties. We want to be completely non-partisan. So we’ll read about a very famous document by one of the outstanding Democrats of the 20^th century, Alfred Smith. Alfred Smith was key and instrumental in getting F.D.R. elected in the northeast. Al Smith was governor of New York State and was one of the most colorful politicians in the late 20s, but by 1936, after he had worked so hard in the democratic party to secure a platform for F.D.R. and to get this thing going, he felt betrayed, along with millions and millions of other democrats, and he rose up on January 225, 1936 with this speech; it subsequently became an essay and at the time was widely circulated in American newspapers.

The title of it is The Betrayal of the Democratic Party. This is Al Smith talking: “I have no axe to grind. There is nothing personal in this whole performance so far as I am concerned. I have no feeling against any man, woman or child in the United States. I was born in the Democratic Party and I expect to die in it. And I was attracted to it in my youth because I was led to believe that no man owned it. Further than that, that no group of men owned it, but on the other hand, that it belonged to all the plain people in the United States.”

“It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against the Democratic Administration. This is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger, I say danger, that is the “Stop, look, and listen” to the fundamental principles upon which this Government of ours was organized,” and it goes on. One more excerpt from the speech. “Well now, what am I here for? I am here not to find fault. Anybody can do that. I am here to make suggestions. What would I have my party do? I would have them reestablish and redeclare the principles that they put forth in that 1932 platform. The Republican platform was ten times as long. It was stuffy, it was unreadable, and in many points, not understandable. No Administration in the history of the country came into power with a more simple, a more clear, or a more inescapable mandate than did the [Democratic] party that was inaugurated on the fourth of March in 1933. And listen, no candidate in the history of the country ever pledged himself more unequivocally to his party platform than did the President who was inaugurated on that day.”

“Well, here we are! Millions and millions of Democrats just like myself, all over the country, still believe in that platform. And what we want to know is why it wasn’t carried out.” The Betrayal of the Democratic Party under the influence of the same little clique of people that we have been discussing here in the service.

Now the other side of the story; listen to Quigley’s book, page 1247, when he describes something that I’m sure some of you have intuitively sensed all along, and it will come as a revelation to you because this man doesn’t speak as some sort of a rightwing malcontent. He speaks as one who has lived with the people in both political parties. Now as I read this section see if this doesn’t strike a familiar cord because I’m sure you’ve thought the same thing. I know I have thought this same thought a dozen times myself, every Election Day I think of this same thought.

“The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two parties more national and international. The argument that two parties should represent opposed ideal and policies, one, perhaps, on the Right and the other on the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so the American people can [quote] ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound shift in policy.” The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer the subject of debate among the people.” “…are no longer subject to debate among the people.” What did Plato say was going to rule? The people or the philosopher kings, and he goes on to list these. “Either party in office becomes, in time, corrupt, tired, unenterprising and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace that party, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things, but will still pursue with new vigor the same basic policies.” And he points out in the case of the Republicans the only time this was ever threatened was in 1964. The capture of the Republican National Party by the extremist elements of the Republican Congressional Party in 1964, and their effort to elect Barry Goldwater to the Presidency with the petty-bourgeois extremists alone, was only a temporary aberration on the American political scene.”

Did you know that you were “petty-bourgeois” middle class? And that was the only… this is the philosopher-king speaking; he doesn’t like this. So it goes on to show you how the system functions, first from the money, then the vision, then the academic group that justifies it all and makes it sound good, and then the political rule.

Now as Christians we don’t stop here. What we want to do is say what is our counterpart. We don’t want to leave in depression. What does God have to say about this kind of thing? That’s the kingdom of man, what does the kingdom of God have to say? Well, God’s Word says that in history, as we go on, though Satan will have his schemes of human good and though he will try to establish his kingdom, Satan’s kingdom, based on a principle of human good and morality, remember Satan doesn’t come along with a red suit and a pitchfork and say hey, you wanna sin? He’s far more subtle than that; Satan is not stupid, he is a genius, and he has very many sincere people, do-good people, wealthy do-good people, in his camp, politically powerful do-good people, and these people are the most dangerous people in any community. The corner prostitute doesn’t have power; the wealthy do-gooder does have power and therefore he’s a far, far greater evil. So the system, then, has this evil streak in it and Satan always wants to do this and we know that there’s going to come a time before the return of Christ when he will almost succeed.

But when God’s kingdom comes and Jesus Christ is its ruler, over here we want to look at some of the characteristics of God’s kingdom, because if we can look at God’s kingdom and what it is going to be like, we will get some truths into our souls to give us wisdom when we look out here and the whole scene is just a boiling mass of disorder. We, at least, as Christian citizens, want some insight as to what would Jesus Christ do if He ruled the scene. That’s easy to find out. Let’s just go to some of the prophesies in the book of Isaiah and look at what Jesus Christ is going to do when He rules in this area, and let’s look at them, for a maximum contrast with what we’ve been studying, let’s look at them in the same order we’ve looked at the Babylonian kingdom, or the kingdom of man.

Let’s look at first from the standpoint of what is Jesus Christ going to do about wealth and power, for it’s a political, physical kingdom as well as a spiritual one. What is the Lord Jesus Christ going to do about unifying world culture? What is the Lord Jesus Christ going to do about academia and education? And finally, what is Jesus Christ going to do about political and military power? First turn to Isaiah 62 and let’s look at what Jesus Christ does economically. What are some of the economic policies that will be pursued by Jesus Christ in the millennial kingdom? Much to the shock of some of my socialist Christian friends, Isaiah 62 shows that the policies that Jesus Christ will carry out are free market, laissez faire capitalism; not true laissez faire in the sense it’s controlled by the Word of God but it corresponds to that.

Isaiah 62:8-9, “The LORD has sworn by His right hand,” that is a Messianic label, by the way, in the Old Testament, “by the arm of His strength: Surely I will no more give thy grain to be food for thine enemies; and the sons of the foreigner shall not drink thy wine, for which thou hast labored. [9] But they who have gathered it shall eat it, and praise the LORD,” “…they who have gathered it shall eat it,” private ownership, work and the response to what you have produced. Someone else is not going to confiscate wealth. The wealth remains in the hands of the producers of the wealth. That is not socialism; socialism appeals to the Christian conscience because it sounds like charity. Now you can see this all the time. Here’s the difference, so let’s just understand something.

The difference between charity and socialism is this: When the socialist politician gets up and says hey, aren’t you a Christian, aren’t all you people Christians, why aren’t you compassionate to the poor? Why don’t you do this? Do you see all these poor people? Do you see these people who can’t pay their medical bills? Do you see this problem and do you see that problem, and you have no compassion, what is wrong with you? And he shames everybody into voting for his program. What is his program though? His program isn’t charity; his program is that by force of law your wealth is going to be, whether you like it or not, confiscated and given to the poor. That is not charity! Charity is the Christian mission or some other voluntary mission, the Goodwill Industries or some other mission that we have in town, where you have voluntary giving of wealth to these things. Now that’s where the appeal ought to be made but it’s foolish to appeal to your conscience… you’re not compassionate, won’t you back me. Rather, what you ought to say to be perfectly honest: you’re not compassionate so I’m going to take it away from you. That is socialism, confiscation of wealth.

Turn to Isaiah 65:21-23 where it comes out even clearer, the economic policy of the kingdom of God. “And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. [22] They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat; for like the days of a tree are the days of My people, and Mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. [23] They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of Jehovah, and their offspring with them.” Notice, you couldn’t have a more dogmatic verse than verses 21-22, private ownership of wealth; it is owned in the family, not by the state.

So the first thing we understand from all the prophecies, and you could go on and on through the Bible for the prophecies of God’s future kingdom, and you’ll see every one of them is based on private ownership of wealth over against socialism. The second level of the kingdom of God; we’ve talked about money, we’ve talked about in the kingdom of man it’s the wealthy that dominate, and in the kingdom of God the people who own the wealth are going to dominate, but the point is that they own the wealth, not the state.

Let’s look about culture, Isaiah 2. What about this one-world culture? Is it true, relativism, that all cultures have a little bit of truth and therefore they’re all equally good? How is Christ going to solve that problem? What is He going to respond to the anthropology department with their ethnocentric and predicament problems? Isaiah 2:2-3, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations will flow to it.” To what? To God’s house. Well, why are they flowing there? [3] “Many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways….” So then, instead of having cultural relativism with one opinion here and another opinion here and a third opinion over here, we’re going to get God’s opinion. God’s Word will rule all the different cultures; all the people will come and they will say let us learn, let us be receptive to the Word of God and we will shape our own, the black man will shape his culture by the Word, the white man will shape his culture by the Word, the yellow man, the Oriental man will shape his culture by the Word of God. No matter what their racial background is, and no matter how locally different the cultures are, they will basically be shaped by the Word of God. That’s God’s answer to the culture problem, not a mishmash of relativistic truth but the absolute Word of God over all.

Now let’s talk about the intellectual life; what about academia in the days of the kingdom of God. What do we do then? Everybody park their brains in the closet or are they trained? Well, obviously God’s Word wants people trained and God’s Word wants us to think. God did place something between most of our ears and therefore we are to use that. Isaiah 11:9, “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” “…the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah,” in other words, whether it’s Harvard, Yale, whether it’s the London School of Economics, whether it’s the University of Paris, whether it’s Wittenberg, wherever it is the intellectual climate will be dominated by God’s revelation. You could go in the millennial kingdom… you won’t be able to go into the field of chemistry, physics, biology, philosophy, the social sciences, music, art, without being consciously led by the Word of God, and God’s viewpoint of that subject. There’ll be research to do, much research to do, there won’t be any laziness, but it will be conducted within the framework of being submissive to the Word of God, not being defiant against it.

That’s the intellectual climate; now we come to the power base; back to Isaiah 2 for the most famous passage in Isaiah, non-Christian’s know this passage, if you have occasion sometime to walk into the United Nations building you will see there inscribed the only amount of the Word of God allowed in the building, Isaiah 2:4, and by the way, they only inscribe part of it. Let me show you; let’s begin halfway through verse 3 to get the context. Remember, we’re looking at the fourth layer of the kingdom of God. “…out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” So internationally law will derive from the categories of the Word of God. Law will be made in Jerusalem; it will be the world capital, not New York City, not Babylon, Jerusalem! And the basis of law will be God’s law; man’s human law will be reflective of divine law. They will have restitutionary justice, for example. Isaiah 2:4, the power that backs up the law, “And He,” who’s He? The pronoun, “He” refers to the last major noun; the last major noun in verse 3 is Jehovah, “And Jehovah shall judge among the nations, and Jehovah shall rebuke many peoples,” so who’s the law enforcer? Jehovah Himself! “…and they,” now look, this is the… nobody ever sees this, it’s amazing, you can take an intelligent person, look at verse 4 and they never notice the subject shifts. The first couple of verbs in verse 4 have singular masculine pronouns, referring to Jehovah. Halfway through verse 4 the subject changes, it is now the plural pronoun, “they” and it refers to mankind. “…they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

The military power will not be needed, but why? Because the first part of verse 3, that’s why. You’ve got a world government run by the Lord Jesus Christ. And when Christ comes back to rule you don’t need a military machine to defend national sovereignty because that national sovereignty will be protected by the Lord Jesus Christ. Disputes won’t be settled that way. But the key to the disarmament at the end of verse 4 is the investiture of Jesus Christ as Lord of the international political community. And until the investiture occurs you can’t have disarmament; it’s as simple as that.

So here’s another one of the mystical things that happen in our day. Everybody’s upset about nuclear war; oh, if we have nuclear war it’ll be so horrible, it’ll be tragic, we can’t have nuclear war, it’s the unpardonable sin. No it isn’t! Let’s conceive of a blackmail situation, which we’ll probably get by 1985. Let’s conceive of a blackmail situation: Mr. Brezhnev informs Mr. Carter, or whoever is President in 1985, that we want Western Europe and we’re going to take it in the next 48 hours, therefore get your troops out or they will surrender to us and if they don’t, we have posted off the coast of California, the coast of Texas, Louisiana and Florida, and along the east coast our Russian sub force; we have our ICBM’s that have a [can’t understand word] weight of five to one against yours; we have already taken your satellite communications out of the sky with our anti-satellite devices. You have only 48 hours to decide what you’re going to do. The phone hangs up. You know what we’re going to do; we’ll retreat, that’s what we’re going to do and everybody will be having their tranquillizers, worried about nuclear war. That is compromise with evil. It used to be thought in this country, in the days of 1776, when the British had greater power than the Americans and had the potential of wiping Colonial cities off the map, it was thought at that time, we don’t care whether they destroy us, “give me liberty or give me death.” That used to be the spirit. Now, “give me security or give me death” is the answer.

Do you see what a change has happened? A complete wholesale shift of mental attitude, and you know why? Because the Word of God no longer has roots. As I said last week, if the Word of God had real root in the souls of the people they would stand up and say we will not be blackmailed; if we fight to the last man in the streets, we are not yielding. And in the final analysis the materialist always has to back down. From a nuclear confrontation, I as a Christian, can say go ahead baby, press the button, I’d just go to see the Lord faster, that’s all, it doesn’t bother me in the least, to be “absent from the body, face to face with the Lord,” no sweat with me; nuclear war is just a quick way out, I’d rather have that than cancer. So in that situation what would a materialist do, faced with that kind of a chess game? With that kind of an eyeball he has no other option left in his hand; we have the ace in our hand, why don’t we play it? But you know, we don’t play it because there are not enough Christians in high office that have the guts to play the ace in the hole. But we have; it’s the doctrine of eternal security; go ahead, I defy you to start nuclear war, I’ll [?] you right down to the button. Now that is righteousness, but that can’t happen in a disarming type environment. And verse 4 warns us that disarmament follows… always remember, the last half of verse 4 follows the first half of verse 4 and when you visit the U.N. building and the guard shows you this great quote in stone along the wall, just notice where the quote starts: it leave off the part about Christ, the beginning of verse 4, it’s missing. And that’s the whole problem, He is missing, and until He is here there can be no peace and the kingdom of God hangs in tension over against the kingdom of man.

Let’s return to Genesis 11, concluding very quickly with the last few verses in the Babel incident. Having taken this tour through some modern history to show you the outflow of the Babylonian plot and scheme, you can appreciate now why the incident ends, as it does, on this last note. In Genesis 11:5, after they have built the first city, and remember, keep in mind now what you would have. At this point you’ve got one world government. Said another way, carefully, delicately, verse 4 is the first United Nations building and verse 5, “And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men built. [6] And the LORD said, Behold, all the people are one, they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained [withheld] from them, which they have imagined to do.” And the word “imagined” there is the Hebrew word that’s reflective of chapter 8 and chapter 9, talking about the imagination of man’s heart is sinful, depraved, and so we don’t want depraved people to do this. “…nothing will be restrained from them.”

So verse 7 and 8 is what God did to us, and all of us today bear the marks of this judgment. “Go to [Come], let Us go down,” notice “us” in verse 7, who are “us?” “Us” is the Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; “Let Us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. [8] So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of the city,” and you want to underline this last sentence, it’s the theme that ought to be engraved over all the worldly philosophers, over all the kingdoms and the schemes of communism and Plato and what else, “and they left off [ceased building] the city.” It is always a perpetually unfinished city; it can never be built. [9] “Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth; and from there did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

Here’s what God did. You can imagine this very easily if you think of the argument that was floated around in the naval architectural circles in the beginning of the 20^th century that led to the building of the great ship, the Titanic. The idea was that if you divide up a ship into watertight holes, that if the hull is penetrated at any point, then it will only flood one compartment, you won’t ruin the whole boat. And it would have worked had the Titanic not got gashed along the side by an iceberg. But the point remains that a ship has holds in it so that when these holds flood you can get some of them flooded and the ship will be saved; the flooding is controlled. Now that’s the picture of what God did at this point in time. He fractured the human race’s language and when you fracture language what else do you fracture with it? You fracture the way people think, and so thought patterns are actually different in different parts of the world, along with the languages. The languages and thought patterns are different.

This is why a pastor-teacher who does not study his Bible from the original language cannot teach you properly. If I didn’t spend hours studying the Greek language and studying the Hebrew language, and when I’m in Daniel the Aramaic language, I could not convey to you some of the nuances of meaning, simply because I am trying to read this out of a translation. Now most of the doctrine you can get without the languages; true. But the real niceties and the pearls and the real intimacy with the text comes only when you spend years and years working with the languages. Why? Because the thought pattern is slightly different. Semitic people don’t think like Americans. There’s a long difference between Mosaic Hebrew and Texas English. This is a vast chasm that has to be crossed and at times it’s very difficult. We naturally think differently.

Now that is a protection; it’s frustrating, if we didn’t have this we wouldn’t need Wycliffe and all the millions of dollars in Christian Bible translation, but we’ve got to have it for our own good. There is only one thing that can reach across these chasms. Here’s the Indian, here’s the North American, here’s the European and here are all these boxes with their linguistic differences. There’s only one scheme that is powerful enough to flood every compartment of the boat and that’s the Word of God, the gospel, the great commission, disciple all nations, Christ said, I am with you. And only the gospel can do this.

You see what God has done at the tower of Babel? He’s produced a filter. Now some of you who were here years back we had what we facetiously called an Arab in Arabia because somebody would go by 34^th street with their CB and we’d get the message beautifully on our P.A. system. Well finally we had one of our electrical geniuses develop some sort of a filtering device or a trap to filter out that stuff, and so all of the schemes of men, communism, for example, can try to bridge across and maybe it bridges across one or two but it can’t bridge across all of them. You see evidences of this in your daily newspaper. What’s happening along the Sino-Russian border? War. Why? Because the Chinese don’t think like the Russians. What’s happening after the Communists took over Vietnam? Did you read about what’s happening between Cambodia and Vietnam? They’re in a war. Why? Because the Cambodian communist doesn’t think like a Vietnamese communist. They have regional and local animosities and differences and that works to fracture constantly every one-world scheme that Satan can bring up, except… except the one thing the filter can’t filter out and that’s the Word of God. So Babel is a judgment and it’s there to weaken every human viewpoint scheme that Satan can come up with and to strengthen the opportunity for the gospel.

We’re going to finish by pointing out the last divine institution. We have shown over the time that we’ve been in Genesis, and this completes this section, we have shown you the various divine institutions that God has structured in society. The first one: responsibility, you exercise your responsibility when you trust in the Lord Jesus Christ or when you reject Jesus Christ, when you respond to the Word of God or you don’t respond to the Word of God, that’s strictly between you and God. This is why in this particular church we don’t have an invitation. I consider any time the Word of God is taught it’s an invitation; it’s an invitation to believe and we want you to have the privilege of exercising your responsibility without social coercion, without embarrassment, without pressure. It’s a decision that’s strictly between you and God, not between you and me and God, not between you and your loved ones and God, but between you and God. That’s the divine institution of responsibility.

The second divine institution is sex in marriage, and that’s described in Scripture as the fountainhead of all life in the world. And wherever you have marriage attacked you’ll have a weak society. And the third one is family; this is where the concept of authority is developed, where the concept of ruling is developed. All three of those first institutions are wealth producing institutions; therefore they are colored clear on this particular chart.

The next institution, which is the state, was inaugurated after the flood and it consists of man upholding in his fist the sword; the sword of the state to take life, and this is a new institution, the state, and it’s colored blue because it comes after sin. It’s an institution that exists, not to produce wealth. The state does not exist to produce wealth. See, this is again where we’re philosophically at odds with our socialist friends. The state exists to restrain evil so the family can produce wealth. It is the family in business, the family doing this, or a man over here in partnership with another man, that’s where the wealth if produced. It’s not produced by the state; the state can’t make wealth. We think it can because we can run the Federal Reserve presses, print out some more dollar bills that are useless, but that’s not creating wealth. It’s the hard working men in their own individual persons that produce wealth. So the state, then, restrains evil. If the state would just stick to its job of restraining evil we could have wealth and more employment.

Then we come to the fifth divine institution, which we just introduced, and that is the fracturing, the linguistic fracturing of humanity to prevent, to create snags in Satan’s scheme to produce one-world order before Christ comes back. So the last two institutions we have studied in the morning series, these institutions are restraining negative type institutions; they don’t produce anything, all they do is they keep evil minimized. If it weren’t for linguistic fracturing we’d be in a very, very bad way today.

Therefore, as we have reviewed all these institutions, if you’ll turn in your hymn books…