I don't know if this is true or not, but I really hope it is. I heard a while back that the astrophysicist, I think that's what his job description is, Stephen Hawking threw a time travelers party. He put out invitations and posted all the dates and times and locations and everything on the internet. And I don't know if he went and catered stuff and hung out and just waited for time travelers to show up. And as far as I have heard, no time travelers showed up. Which means there's no time travelers. And it's a really interesting thing that he did there. If you think about it logically, he's kind of playing a game. On the one hand, like, hey, maybe you luck out and you throw this out there, and then time travelers show up, and you're like, how's the future? And it's amazing, and time collapses on itself, and we now operate outside of time, and humanity takes a giant leap forward. I mean, that would have been interesting. That didn't happen. Then in case that doesn't happen, you still look real smart because you're making this really great epistemological point about confirmation bias and some of the logical circles that we can use in an abstraction to create truths using only silence or the negative side of the discussion. To prove that time travelers are real, if they showed up, that would be positive evidence that they are real. But the fact that a time traveler didn't show up by no means disproves time travel. It doesn't really prove anything because there are lots of reasons a time traveler wouldn't show up. Surely someone in the future could get your invitation and just think the party looked lame. Or maybe there's some kind of time cop in the future that goes around protecting people from traveling because it would melt the brains of people in the past. So the point is, as ridiculous as this all sounds, it doesn't prove anything. And the Simpsons, we've talked about this before, had an episode where, in just one little incident, they jabbed at the mind of the theist, my tribe, and how sometimes we will use these same goofy arguments from silence to try to craft a positive reality or a positive truth about God. Remember Homer Simpson, he's got the donut, and he's like, Lord, if you want me to eat this donut, signify that by doing nothing at this time. And then he waits a second, then he's like, Thy will be done. And he eats the donut. Again, genius writing to point out how this argument from silence doesn't really prove anything one way or the other, but also demonstrating how we really can twist ourselves into logical knots. It feels like the passage we're looking at in Matthew chapter six kind of lends itself to this. And whenever we get to a passage about God's provision or things kind of working out for the person who loves God or is in the kingdom, there's gonna be a temptation to do the Stephen Hawking time traveler party logic or the Homer Simpson donut logic to make the whole thing work. I think the better approach to passages like this is to just let it simmer and be difficult for a little while and let the text unfold, and then we can read back into this as we have a bit more data. So once again, Jesus goes into all of this stuff about don't worry about your life, what you'll eat or drink, or about your body, what you'll wear. Is not life more important than food and the body more important than clothes? He says, look at the birds of the air, look at the lilies of the field, the father feeds the birds, the father clothes the lilies of the field, more impressive than Solomon and all of his splendor. So don't worry saying, What'll we eat? What will we drink? What do we wear? For the pagans run after these things, and your heavenly father knows that you need them. Here's where we get into the Hawkins time travel Simpson donut paradox. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness. Okay, that is consistent with everything we've seen in the Sermon on the Mount. I get it. And all these things will be given to you as well. Whoa, how does that work? Because I think we all would be prepared to assume that there are Christians who have died of exposure. People who sought first the kingdom of God and then found themselves in either poverty or difficult circumstances, maybe a shipwreck, or they got stuck on a mountain, and then they died because they didn't have shelter, or they weren't clothed like the lilies of the field, like Solomon and all of his splendor, and they froze to death and they died. I mean, Christians starve, right? Hunger is a problem that affects Christian people. Doesn't Jesus say himself that the rain falls on the righteous and on the wicked? But right here, it looks like he's saying, if you seek first the kingdom, you get all of these things. Don't worry about it. And if we apply the Hawkins time travel party or Simpson Donut logic to this, we could say, well, if some Christians sought first the kingdom and then they died of exposure or starvation or not having clothes to wear, that would mean that they didn't really need it. That God, who knows all things, had ordained that their time had come, and therefore God did not provide for those things in that moment, and that is okay. Or we got to go with the other, I would argue, maybe even more dangerous solution to this conundrum, which would be, well, I guess they didn't seek first the kingdom of God, or they wouldn't have died freezing to death on top of that mountain after their plane crashed. Well, I guess that poor person didn't believe in God enough, or they would have been able to find more cornmeal mush to keep their belly barely full long enough for them to survive. And this kind of reasoning is how you get to the weird backwards prosperity Christianity stuff, which is honestly, I'm not trying to be mean to people who think it, but that is pretty much a different religion and entirely a different equation than what we're seeing laid out here in the Sermon on the Mount. So there really aren't that many options with what we can do with this conundrum that is posed by this apparent promise for provision that looks to be an extension of what just happened a few verses earlier in the Lord's Prayer. Give us this day our daily bread. And again, one of those is to say, if we don't get our daily bread, it means we didn't really need it, and we're just going to have to accept that argument from silence about the will of God. Or if we don't get our daily bread, it's because we were actually very bad and did not seek first the kingdom of God, and this is some sort of cosmic punishment, and we would have been blessed with wealth and prosperity had we just believed harder. Or option number three would be this isn't a promise at all, and maybe we're just misreading the passage. And I think some combination of the first option and the third option are probably the best read. Ultimately, if there is a God, and the reason that I would think there is a God is not because of this passage. I mean, if you come to a passage like this, and this is the one you're going to because you want to figure out the big question of is there a God or not, I think it's going to be very disappointing. It should be very disappointing because ultimately this sets up an ambiguous equation. If something happens, there's a God. If nothing happens, there's a God. Yeah, the thinking person is going to have to go beyond this. And I don't think this passage is in here. I don't think this teaching of Jesus is in here to make the argument for theism to people. Rather, what I think is going on in this passage is that Jesus is talking to people who are already in. Remember, Matthew chapter 5, the very beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, says, Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him and he began to teach them, saying, So this is not to the crowds. They're listening in. Some critics are listening in, clearly, but this was a teaching to his disciples, people who were bought in and committed to this thing, and no doubt would have had serious questions about where following this homeless guy is going to lead. They're wondering about whether the life they're leaving behind is the better investment, or whether this thing that they've started to embark upon is the better investment. And Jesus seems to be profoundly reassuring them, this kingdom is real. This is where you want to be. This is the truest, realist thing. Pursue this. For the individual who isn't already in, this teaching is meant to raise questions, questions that are going to be answered later when we come off this mountain. I mean, at this point, there's nothing that Jesus is going to say to round out this speech where people are going to be like, ah, there. That gives me the empirical data I needed to believe that God can deliver on all of these promises, that I can totally trust him, bro, to deliver on all of these things. No, no, no, no, no. That evidence and proof stuff that we need to look back on the Sermon on the Mount and determine whether it's trustworthy or whether this guy could ever deliver is going to come after the fact in Matthew chapter eight, and that will read truth or falsehood back into all the things that we're considering. If we interpret this passage through the lenses of the person who the text specifically says is being talked to here, I think it makes a ton of sense. If we assume, as Jesus was assuming, that his disciples are in and they are committed, then this is a teaching for the person who has already decided this kingdom is real and this king is real. I just don't totally get the ground rules of what it's going to look like to participate in this thing yet, especially on the practical side. If we read it that way, then verse 27 really stands out. Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Quit freaking out about stuff. You are in the place that is the truest and realest, and panicking about the things that are going to come and go and eventually fail you is not the best use of your energy. God in his sovereignty has got that covered for as long as that actually needs to be covered. Verse 27 then pops, and the first half of 33 and verse 34 pops, but seek first his kingdom and his righteousness. Just worry about that stuff. Remember the whole thing at the Beatitudes at the very beginning? I mean, blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Blessed are the pure in heart. Remember, we talked about singularity, we talked about focus, we talked about a visceral desire for what is true and right and good. Well, that is the same exhortation that Jesus is giving here. It's blessed to put your sights on this thing that is true and real and in Christ and pursue that. And then finally, verse 34 pops if we read it through the lenses of Jesus talking to people who are already in. Therefore, don't worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. Now think about how that would have sounded to the disciples and the original audience. Two and a half, three years later. Wow. This moment was short, and there was so much trouble ahead that Jesus had to walk through, that we had to walk through. I mean, every single one of the disciples, except for one, died a violent death. You're kind of in the golden age, right, at this moment, and panicking about your inevitable mortality or the horrible things that were coming down the pike physically for these disciples who were on the hill with him. Well, Jesus is right. It wasn't gonna add a day to their lives anyway. And the father was going to, and in fact, did provide for them everything they needed. Now, Jesus is gonna develop this idea a little bit more when we get into Matthew chapter 10, and we will look at that in a bit. Huh. I wanted to talk more about the worry thing. Solution. I'm giving you homework. Go and check out the parable of the sower, which in Matthew is in chapter 13, because that's where all the kingdom parables are. And in Luke, it's in nine or eight. That's gotta be eight. And it's in Mark too, but I don't know Mark as well as I know Matthew and Luke. So it's somewhere in Mark in the first part. You can find it. Go and read one or all of those accounts of the parable of the sower and note that there's one type of dirt that a bunch of this seed gets thrown down on and it starts to grow, but then it gets choked out by all these other thorns or plants or things going on. And this is representative, according to Jesus, of the worries of the world. And I think if you do your homework assignment, which I have just apparently anointed myself as able to dictate to you, but if you do it, I think that will read back clarity onto Matthew chapter six as well and help you to see that Jesus is giving a fatherly exhortation and warning, proverbial words of wisdom about where this is all headed and what to watch out for to his disciples. Now, ultimately, the parable of the sower has a much greater meaning than that, but I think there's some overlap there. Man, I wanted to talk about this for like twice as long as we had, but yeah, we got in what we got in, and we need to get on to chapter seven. So we will do that tomorrow. I really like doing this with you guys. Thank you so much. You all support the program at patreon.com slash the tmbh podcast are awesome, and frankly, so are the rest of you. It really is just a tremendous honor and joy to get to do this with you every day. So thank you. Seriously, thank you for hanging out with me. And we'll do more of that hanging out tomorrow. I'm Matt. This is the 10-minute Bible hour podcast. Let's do this again soon.