There has been a popular line of sentimental argument for at least the last few years that says, "I want to be on the right side of history." I actually think it's an oddly spatial reference to a chronological discussion. History is like a river, but being on the "right side" is not a comment on which bank is better, it's a declaration that a moment ago in the stream is so outdated and prejudiced that all the mature people want to get away from that moment. For example, there was a lot of racism against black people, but we want to be on the right side of history among those who look back and saw how wrong the racism was. (Of course, racism is sinful, but that is true all the time, no matter the current cultural attitude.) The typical use of the argument today concerns gender identity and sexual orientation, and clearly the enlightened don't want to be where we currently are, which is, discriminating against anyone.

The desire to "be on the right side of history" starts with criticism of the past, and usually has a hard time seeing all the reasons we should be thankful for those in the past, even if they were seriously wrong in some ways. But the desire to be on the right side of history also presumes that people who look back on us will agree that we were right. That is quite an assumption. It's actually quite arrogant, and a lot of people have ridden the arrogant canoe down the river of history.

What the sentiment allows us to do is to indulge our sense of judgment. We get to seem righteous, especially compared to all those others who weren't. It transfers the focus off of our problems/issues/sins. We get to feel good that we know what is right without needing to feel bad that we haven't done what is right.

But men aren't the standards, and this generation, nor some future generation, will be evolved enough to set the standard. God is the standard, and we ought to be concerned with His judgment, not ours, nor the popular sentiment of the society.

There will always be judgment because God isn't going anywhere. Either we will submit to Him by judging according to His Word, or we will indulge our desires and be judged by His Word. This is the reminder of Jesus to the church in Pergamum, and He calls them to repent and just conquer their indulgence.

Jesus identifies Himself to the Pergamumites.

And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write, 'The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.'

Pergumum was built on a hill about a thousand feet tall, and the name in Greek came to refer to any “citadel” (Mounce). They also had a temple built to the living and “the divine Augustus” (Tacitus, Annals, Book III), 29 BC, along with committed worship of Zeus, Athene, and Dionysus (Beale). Among the architecture,

the most remarkable was the great altar of Zeus that jutted out near the top of the mountain. A famous frieze around the base of the altar depicts the gods of Greece in victorious combat against the giants of earth (symbolizing the triumph of civilization over barbarism). (Mounce)

Part of this altar is in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.

“If Ephesus was the ‘New York City’ of Asia, Pergamos was its ‘Washington, DC’” (Gregg). The city boasted a library with 200,000 books—the second most famous after the library of Alexandria, it was the home of Galen—the second most famous medical physician after Hippocrates, and was a political and intellectual center (Osborne).

As in every message, Jesus refers to some part of the vision that He gave to John about Himself in chapter 1. Whatever part or parts Jesus repeats connect to something specific that the church needed to hear.

To the Ephesians Jesus walked among the lampstands and was about to remove their lampstand if they didn't repent. To the Smyrnaeans He died and came to life and promised them that if they were faithful to death they would also get the crown of life. Those in Pergamum were under threat of judgment, and they needed to make some judgments, or else they would face judgment. The sharp two-edged sword is a reference to what comes out of Jesus' mouth, to His Word, and it is a word of judgment. In Isaiah 11:4 the branch of Jesse will “strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.”

Like the Smyrnaens, the Pergamumite Christians were faithful as a lampstand.

I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

The thing that stands out most in this affirmation is that Pergamum was a rough place for Christians. Things in Smyrna were bad; there was a "synagogue of Satan," but twice Jesus mentions Satan connected to Pergamum, as Satan's home and base of operations.

Was Pergamum really where Satan ruled from? This was the place of his throne, where Satan dwells? That might be hard to believe based on Pergamum's lack of fame in history. Satan is not omnipresent, so he can only be in one place at one time, and he chose Pergamum? Some would say that Satan is a term that represents all of Satan's forces, including human agents and systems. Since Pergamum had close ties with Rome, even building a temple to Augustus while Augustus was alive, perhaps Pergamum was the central outlet of the Empire in Asia, and Satan was using the Roman Empire against believers. But this makes Satan symbolic and it makes the throne and dwells not only symbolic, but distant references. Whatever the exact interpretation, this was hostile territory for believers.

Things were bad enough in Pergamum that Antipas ... was killed among you. Jesus calls Antipas my faithful witness, which is quite a compliment, since the same description is given to Jesus in 1:5. Witness is the Greek word martyr, and though it didn't mean "one who was killed for his testimony" in the first century, based on how many people were faithful to death, the word took on that import by the third century. History records that Antipas “was burned to death in a bronze bull during the reign of Domitian” (Thomas).

The Christians in Pergamum remained committed to Christ. Jesus commended them: you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith, meaning that they acknowledged Him before men, even when the situation was antagonistic against them.

As with the Ephesians, Jesus had some issues with the Pergamumites.

But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

There are three groups within the church: a group who were indulging themselves after the manner of Balaam, a group who were indulging themselves after the ways of Nicolaus, and the other group who were indulging the first two groups.

Jesus addresses the church, not the city. He says, you have some there, so not all, and He narrows His target again in verse 15. Some...hold the teaching of Balaam, the prophet for hire in the OT, whom Balak attempted to pay to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). That didn't work, but a few chapters later in Numbers we learn that Balaam came up with another idea for Balak to mess with the Israelites: tempt them with the Midianite women who then tempted them to worship false gods. Balaam's plan to ruin Israel was more subtle, and very effective (see Numbers 31:16).

While it was true that the church was not denying Christ's name in Pergamum, it was also true that some in the church were not denying the passions of their flesh. It seems that these some were willing to stand out from the unbelievers in certain ways, but also wanted to indulge themselves like the unbelievers in other ways.

So also you have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

We first heard about the Nicolaitans in 2:6 when Jesus addressed the Ephesians. The Ephesians hated the works of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus commended them for, because He also hated the Nicolaitan ways. Because of how it's phrased, this was a second group, distinct from those who held to Balaam's ways, but the two seem very similar. The Nicolaitans and the Balaamitans got to the same point of indulgence just with different rationalizations.

Neither group belonged, but the church wasn't making the judgment.

Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

Repent is the solution for five of the seven churches. Stop what you're doing and do something different. In Pergamum the church needed to stop indulging the indulgers. This meant making a judgment against those who weren't living obediently in their personal choices.

Interestingly enough, the angel of the LORD came to kill Balaam with a sword (Numbers 22:23, 31).

Either we make the judgment or we are judged. The Ephesians judged but didn’t have love. The Pergamumites needed to judge. God disciplines those whom He loves, and Jesus promises to war against those who won't obey Him. For Jesus to war against them requires consideration. Was Jesus only going to war against the Balaam/Nicolaitan groups, or against the whole church? It was the whole church, which is who He was addressing, and who He called to repent.

Orthodoxy had stood its ground, even martyrdom had been endured, but spiritual purity had sustained loss and moral power had been broken. (Kuyper)

To those in Pergamum, and beyond, there is a great promise.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.

There are two promises to the one conquering, and both of them are probably the least obvious promises to the churches.

The one who conquers is the one who doesn't listen to Balaam, to Nicolaus, or tolerate those who do. The one who conquers, conquers indulgence.

First, the one conquering gets some of the hidden manna. This might refer to a Jewish tradition that Jeremiah hid the manna placed in the ark of the covenant (Exodus 16:32-34) until the Messiah returned, or it could refer to divinely given food that isn't visible. Jonathan Edwards thought it referred to the seal of the Spirit, and it certainly has supernatural origin: The Father gave manna, Jesus gives this manna, it is hidden from someone.

The second gift given to the one conquering is a white stone with a new name written on. There are a cornucopia full of possible interpretations for what the stone means and what the name is doing on it. In Roman culture, a judge often put a white rock in a jar to indicate innocence compared to a black rock for guilty. That fits in this context of judgment, but what is the name for? Some have suggested that it could be like a ticket into an event, or a token to an after party. This fits with the context of a promise of eternal life that is better than indulging oneself now.

As for the name, is each individual believer getting a new name? Or do all believers get a stone with the name of Jesus written on it? See Revelation 19:12, and Jesus’ new name in Revelation 3:12. This promise is to each one who conquers, but not individualized.

JustConquer Promise #3: Christians will be fed by God Himself and invited to His eternal feast.

Peter told his readers not to be surprised that people would mock them for holiness (1 Peter 4:4-5). In Pergamum, the Christians must have avoided the civic worship of Caesar as Lord and so stood out in the city. But not all of them stood out in their private behavior, and for this indulgence they needed to repent.

We have our own forms of self-indulgence among Christians today. Our culture tempts us to fit in publicly and behave how we want privately. Instead, let's discriminate the right way, and just conquer indulgence.

You are in a spiritual battle. Marysville is not Satan's throne, but he, and his forces, are opposed to everything you are doing. He is opposed to who you are. He is opposed to what you stand for. Be steadfast, immovable. Fight the good fight.

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 5:8–11, ESV)

Revelation 2:12-17
Series: Just Conquer #7

# Introduction

There has been a popular line of sentimental argument for at least the last few years that says, "I want to be on the right side of history." I actually think it's an oddly spatial reference to a chronological discussion. History is like a river, but being on the "right side" is not a comment on which bank is better, it's a declaration that a moment ago in the stream is so outdated and prejudiced that all the mature people want to get away from that moment. For example, there was a lot of racism against black people, but we want to be on the right side of history among those who look back and saw how wrong the racism was. (Of course, racism *is* sinful, but that is true *all* the time, no matter the current cultural attitude.) The typical use of the argument today concerns gender identity and sexual orientation, and clearly the enlightened don't want to be where we currently are, which is, discriminating against anyone.

The desire to "be on the right side of history" starts with criticism of the past, and usually has a hard time seeing all the reasons we should be thankful for those in the past, even if they were seriously wrong in some ways. But the desire to be on the right side of history also presumes that people who look back on *us* will agree that we were right. That is quite an assumption. It's actually quite arrogant, and a lot of people have ridden the arrogant canoe down the river of history.

What the sentiment allows us to do is to indulge our sense of judgment. We get to seem righteous, especially compared to all those others who weren't. It transfers the focus off of our problems/issues/sins. We get to feel good that we know what is right without needing to feel bad that we haven't done what is right.

But men aren't the standards, and this generation, nor some future generation, will be evolved enough to set the standard. God is the standard, and we ought to be concerned with His judgment, not ours, nor the popular sentiment of the society.

There will always be judgment because God isn't going anywhere. Either we will submit to Him by judging according to His Word, or we will indulge our desires and be judged by His Word. This is the reminder of Jesus to the church in Pergamum, and He calls them to repent and just conquer their indulgence.


# The Sword-Bearer (verse 12)

Jesus identifies Himself to the Pergamumites.

> **And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write, 'The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.'**

Pergumum was built on a hill about a thousand feet tall, and the name in Greek came to refer to any “citadel” (Mounce). They also had a temple built to the living and “the divine Augustus” (Tacitus, _Annals_, Book III), 29 BC, along with committed worship of Zeus, Athene, and Dionysus (Beale). Among the architecture,

> the most remarkable was the great altar of Zeus that jutted out near the top of the mountain. A famous frieze around the base of the altar depicts the gods of Greece in victorious combat against the giants of earth (symbolizing the triumph of civilization over barbarism). (Mounce)

Part of this altar is in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.

“If Ephesus was the ‘New York City’ of Asia, Pergamos was its ‘Washington, DC’” (Gregg). The city boasted a library with 200,000 books—the second most famous after the library of Alexandria, it was the home of Galen—the second most famous medical physician after Hippocrates, and was a political and intellectual center (Osborne).

As in every message, Jesus refers to some part of the vision that He gave to John about Himself in chapter 1. Whatever part or parts Jesus repeats connect to something specific that the church needed to hear.

To the Ephesians Jesus walked among the lampstands and was about to remove their lampstand if they didn't repent. To the Smyrnaeans He died and came to life and promised them that if they were faithful to death they would also get the crown of life. Those in Pergamum were under threat of judgment, and they needed to make some judgments, or else they would face judgment. The **sharp two-edged sword** is a reference to what comes out of Jesus' mouth, to His Word, and it is a word of judgment. In Isaiah 11:4 the branch of Jesse will “strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.”


# The Throne of Satan (verses 13-16)

## Affirmation (verse 13)

Like the Smyrnaens, the Pergamumite Christians were faithful as a lampstand.

> **I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.**

The thing that stands out most in this affirmation is that Pergamum was a rough place for Christians. Things in Smyrna were bad; there was a "synagogue of Satan," but *twice* Jesus mentions Satan connected to Pergamum, as Satan's home and base of operations.

Was Pergamum really where Satan ruled from? This was the place of his **throne**, **where Satan dwells**? That might be hard to believe based on Pergamum's lack of fame in history. Satan is not omnipresent, so he can only be in one place at one time, and he chose Pergamum? Some would say that **Satan** is a term that represents all of Satan's forces, including human agents and systems. Since Pergamum had close ties with Rome, even building a temple to Augustus while Augustus was alive, perhaps Pergamum was the central outlet of the Empire in Asia, and Satan was using the Roman Empire against believers. But this makes **Satan** symbolic and it makes the **throne** and **dwells** not only symbolic, but distant references. Whatever the exact interpretation, this was hostile territory for believers.

Things were bad enough in Pergamum that **Antipas ... was killed among you.** Jesus calls Antipas **my faithful witness**, which is quite a compliment, since the same description is given to Jesus in 1:5. **Witness** is the Greek word *martyr*, and though it didn't mean "one who was killed for his testimony" in the first century, based on how many people were faithful to death, the word took on that import by the third century. History records that Antipas “was burned to death in a bronze bull during the reign of Domitian” (Thomas).

The Christians in Pergamum remained committed to Christ. Jesus commended them: **you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith**, meaning that they acknowledged Him before men, even when the situation was antagonistic against them.

## Admonition (verses 14-16)

As with the Ephesians, Jesus had some issues with the Pergamumites.

> **But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.**

There are three groups within the church: a group who were indulging themselves after the manner of Balaam, a group who were indulging themselves after the ways of Nicolaus, and the other group who were indulging the first two groups.

Jesus addresses the church, not the city. He says, **you have some there**, so not all, and He narrows His target again in verse 15. **Some...hold the teaching of Balaam**, the prophet for hire in the OT, whom Balak attempted to pay to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). That didn't work, but a few chapters later in Numbers we learn that Balaam came up with another idea for Balak to mess with the Israelites: tempt them with the Midianite women who then tempted them to worship false gods. Balaam's plan to ruin Israel was more subtle, and very effective (see Numbers 31:16).

While it was true that the church was not denying Christ's name in Pergamum, it was also true that some in the church were not denying the passions of their flesh. It seems that these **some** were willing to stand out from the unbelievers in certain ways, but also wanted to indulge themselves like the unbelievers in other ways.

> **So also you have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.**

We first heard about the Nicolaitans in 2:6 when Jesus addressed the Ephesians. The Ephesians hated the works of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus commended them for, because He also hated the Nicolaitan ways. Because of how it's phrased, this was a second group, distinct from those who held to Balaam's ways, but the two seem very similar. The Nicolaitans and the Balaamitans got to the same point of indulgence just with different rationalizations.

Neither group belonged, but the church wasn't making the judgment.

> **Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.**

**Repent** is the solution for five of the seven churches. Stop what you're doing and do something different. In Pergamum the church needed to stop indulging the indulgers. This meant making a judgment against those who weren't living obediently in their personal choices.

Interestingly enough, the angel of the LORD came to kill Balaam with a sword (Numbers 22:23, 31).

Either we make the judgment or we are judged. The Ephesians judged but didn’t have love. The Pergamumites needed to judge. God disciplines those whom He loves, and Jesus promises to **war against** those who won't obey Him. For Jesus to war against **them** requires consideration. Was Jesus only going to war against the Balaam/Nicolaitan groups, or against the whole church? It was the whole church, which is who He was addressing, and who He called to repent.

> Orthodoxy had stood its ground, even martyrdom had been endured, but spiritual purity had sustained loss and moral power had been broken. (Kuyper)


# Conquering Indulgence

To those in Pergamum, and beyond, there is a great promise.

> **He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.**

There are *two* promises to the one conquering, and both of them are probably the least obvious promises to the churches.

The **one who conquers** is the one who doesn't listen to Balaam, to Nicolaus, or tolerate those who do. The one who conquers, conquers indulgence.

First, the one conquering gets **some of the hidden manna**. This might refer to a Jewish tradition that Jeremiah hid the manna placed in the ark of the covenant (Exodus 16:32-34) until the Messiah returned, or it could refer to divinely given food that isn't visible. Jonathan Edwards thought it referred to the seal of the Spirit, and it certainly has supernatural origin: The Father gave manna, Jesus gives this manna, it is **hidden** from someone.

The second gift given to the one conquering is **a white stone with a new name written on**. There are a cornucopia full of possible interpretations for what the **stone** means and what the **name** is doing on it. In Roman culture, a judge often put a white rock in a jar to indicate innocence compared to a black rock for guilty. That fits in this context of judgment, but what is the name for? Some have suggested that it could be like a ticket into an event, or a token to an after party. This fits with the context of a promise of eternal life that is better than indulging oneself now.

As for the name, is each individual believer getting a **new name**? Or do all believers get a stone with the name of Jesus written on it? See Revelation 19:12, and Jesus’ new name in Revelation 3:12. This promise is to each one who conquers, but not individualized.

JustConquer Promise #3: *Christians will be fed by God Himself and invited to His eternal feast.*


# Conclusion

Peter told his readers not to be surprised that people would mock them for holiness (1 Peter 4:4-5). In Pergamum, the Christians must have avoided the civic worship of Caesar as Lord and so stood out in the city. But not all of them stood out in their private behavior, and for this indulgence they needed to repent.

We have our own forms of self-indulgence among Christians today. Our culture tempts us to fit in publicly and behave how we want privately. Instead, let's discriminate the right way, and just conquer indulgence.

--------------------

## Charge

You are in a spiritual battle. Marysville is not Satan's throne, but he, and his forces, are opposed to everything you are doing. He is opposed to who you are. He is opposed to what you stand for. Be steadfast, immovable. Fight the good fight.

### Benediction:

> Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 5:8–11, ESV)

It is possible to learn by watching others who have problems. It is also possible to learn from those who don't. The church in Ephesus had problems, Jesus called them to repent, and the Spirit calls everyone with an ear to hear and learn. The church in Smyrna had a different sort of problem, a kind that didn't require repentance. Likewise, the Spirit calls us to learn, and to conquer like Smyrnaeans.

Prior to last week I had never thought about being like a Smyrnaean. I am now.

Of the seven messages to the churches in Revelation 2-3, the message to the church in Smyrna is the shortest. According to history, Smyrna was the smallest of these seven cities. It was the operational base for no apostle; we don't even know for sure who started the church there. This is the only place in the Bible that Smyrna is mentioned (along with 1:11 where Jesus first named all the cities).

The city itself was 30 or more miles north of Ephesus, another port city like Ephesus on the Aegean Sea. They boasted a large mountain and good trade and claimed to be the home of Homer. Mostly they boasted in worshipping the Roman Emperors. In AD 26 Smyrna won a bidding competition to build a temple to the Emperor Tiberius (Tacitus, Annals, Book IV), and their allegiance to Rome was well known. This would have been an easy place for Christians to compromise in order to keep themselves out of trouble.

But Jesus has no reason to call the church to repent. This doesn't mean that Christians in Smyrna were sinless, but it does mean that as a community they were shining bright as a lampstand. Of the seven churches, only the Smyrnaean and Philadephian churches received no call to repent.

The Smyrnaeans were not cold souls like the Ephesians. They were not flirting with false teaching and idolatry and sexual immorality like those in Pergamum and Thyratira. They were not dead in good works like those in Sardis, or lukewarm like those in Laodicea. The Smyrnaeans were the kind of Christians that every Christian should want to be like. And yet they would have had a hard time convincing other believers to make Smyrna a destination.

The message to the Smyrnaeans follows the pattern of the other messages, starting with a fitting description of Jesus.

"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: "The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life."

I keep thinking about what angels Jesus tells John to write to. While there is something to be said for the idea of seven different messengers taking these messages from the island of Patmos, where John was exiled, back to the cities on the mainland, it introduces more questions than it answers. How did these human messengers coordinate their travel to Patmos, or did they come individually? Did all seven start in Ephesus, but drop off by one until the last and lone messenger made it to Laodicea? I only have a small dogmatic in the fight, but I still think a heavenly rather than a human being fits with the vocabulary and supernatural context of the revelation.

Jesus identifies Himself with another part of the initial vision, this time from 1:18, where He also added that He held the keys of Death and Hades. The first and the last picks up Old Testament descriptions for Yahweh, the LORD, that describe His ever-existence and omni-control (such as Isaiah 44:6). As the first He is the grounds for what happens, as the last (ὁ ἔσχατος) He is the goal for what happens. As first, nothing was before Him. As last, nothing is beyond Him.

What is especially fitting to the Smyrnaean Christians is that Jesus, as the first and the last, is also the one who died and came to life. This is a historical truth, but here it is a glorious title. The good news includes the details, and they are of first importance: the eternal, cosmos-ordering Logos took on flesh. And also, "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, He was buried, He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3). We need to know it for sake of our forgiveness. But the Smyrnaeans, and all those with ears to hear, needed it for sake of their faithfulness to death.

Jesus is the one who walks among the golden lampstands, so He knows what is happening in and to His churches. He’s attentive to their troubles.

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

There are four types of tribulation in verses 9-10, with tribulation or "affliction" or “pressure” as a general category. When Jesus tells them that they are about to suffer in verse 10, He explains that the tribulation was about to pick up.

Tribulation can look like 1) loss of money and material possessions, 2) loss of reputation, 3) loss of freedom, and up to the 4) loss of physical life. Jesus knew that the Smyrnaeans were already facing the first two, and He exhorts them in preparation for the last two.

The first pressure was poverty. There are two typical Greek words for lack of money and material goods, and this one (_ πτωχεία_) is often used in contexts of extreme deprivation; reduced to the status of beggars. Because of how Jesus connects poverty with slander, it is likely that the Christians in Smyrna were losing jobs and business opportunities due to their unwillingness to just join the system. Their poverty wasn't because they were slaves, it was because they were the Savior's.

Jesus adds, however, an important parenthesis. He knows the bottom line of their bank accounts, both of them, the tangible and the spiritual: (but you are rich). This is not figurative richness, like something that the Smyrnaeans were supposed to feel. It is actual but spiritual and eternal richness. It's not that they were in a condition of having something like riches, they did really have "every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 1:3), and "the riches of his glorious inheritance" (Ephesians 1:18). It's why James asked his beloved brothers, "has not God chose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?" (James 2:5).

But on earth their treasures were being taken, or at least money was lost because of their love for and loyalty to Jesus as Lord.

Such loyalty to Christ as Lord made some jealous, but not in a Kuyperian Dispensational (Romans 11:11) sort of way. The second kind of tribulation was loss of reputation: and the slander of those who say that they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

There was a good size population of Jews in Smyrna, that is the genetic, nationally-identifiable kind of Jews. During this time of the Roman Empire, Jews received special dispensation not to worship Caesar as long as they didn't try to upset the political apple cart. Jesus said that there were some who say that they are Jews, in the physical sense, but are not in the spiritual sense. John heard Jesus say something similar in John 8. They claimed that Abraham was their father (which he was in one way) and Jesus told them that Satan was actually their father (which was true in a different way). That same was true of the Jews in Smyrna.

A few early church writers recorded that the Jews were jealous of the apparent successes of the church (Ignatius, Smyrnaeans, referenced by Beale), including some Jews who converted and worshiped Jesus as the Messiah. So the Jews not only exposed Christians as trouble makers, they even resorted to slander, to telling lies, for sake of harming the Christians. Jesus said that such behavior identifies them as a synagogue of Satan, an interesting description since Satan (Σατανᾶ) means “adversary.” The Jews colluded with the Romans, or at least reported, Christians for being a threat to the system.

Jesus exhorts His congregation in Symrna:

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Suffer and tribulation are synonyms for painful pressure. Jesus does not rebuke them and tell them to stop fearing, but He does urge them: Don't fear. He describes the reasons why they would be tempted to fear, and then gives a few reasons why they shouldn't.

Some of them were about to lose their freedom: the devil is about to throw some of you into prison. Prison was usually a means, not a long-term end during this time. Prison was used to coerce people, or as a holding ground before a trial or before killing people, which is implied here. The devil (διάβολος) is a second name used for Satan, here with an emphasis on “accuser, slanderer.” The devil himself wasn't binding and dragging, but the devil was behind it.

One reason not to fear is to know the purpose for the tribulations: that you may be tested. The loss of material goods as well as the loss of reputation were also tests, but the possible imprisonment intensified the test. Don't be surprised by it (see also 1 Peter 4:12); this is what shows the genuineness of faith and even purifies faith.

Another reason not to fear is to know the duration: and for ten days you will have tribulation. We have no historical record of a unique persecution in Smyrna that lasted for ten days. This has caused a number of interpreters to conclude that ten days doesn't mean ten days. Some go so far as to say that ten days referred to ten successive stages of persecution by ten Caesars. Some say that days stands for "years" so that this was a decade-long persecution. Others say that it symbolizes a complete time of some shortish duration.

But what about this message makes it seem like ten days should not be taken as a week and a half? If “days” doesn’t mean days, the does “poverty” really mean poverty, and “prison” really mean prison? Does it mean “death” doesn't really mean death, or “life,” life?

“Nowhere was life more dangerous for a Christian” (Thomas).

Jesus calls the Smyrnaeans to endure: Be faithful unto death. Not every Christian was going to prison, just some of you, and not necessarily all of those were going to face capital punishment. But the finish line was death. Don't be loyal to Christ partially, even if it's a high percentage.

The last reason provided here not to fear is to know the promise: Be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life. This is the victor's crown rather than a royal crown, a prize or reward. This is winning. This is eternal life, just as eating from the tree of life (2:7), and it goes with the final extended exhortation.

Again, at the end of each direct message to a church, a general exhortation is given with a different twist on the promise.

He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.

There is no question that Jesus and the Spirit equate conquering with refusal to compromise. Overcoming is overcoming poverty and slander and prison and martyrdom by trusting the first and the last, who died and came to life. Conquering is conquering like Christ, which includes suffering like, and for, Christ.

I do believe that as God blesses believers, blessing them with material goods not just poverty (see: Psalm 112:1-3; 1 Chronicles 29:12), and blesses them with a good reputation not just being slandered (see: Proverbs 22:1; 1 Timothy 3:7), and blesses us with civic freedoms rather than imprisonment (see: Psalm 68:6; 146:7), and even with long life rather than pot-smashing death (see: Deuteronomy 6:2; Psalm 91:16; Proverbs 3:16), He will make the Jews jealous and grant them repentance to life.

However, we are being tested in gains given by God and also in our losses, by obvious blessings and by giving up obvious blessings because of our spiritual ones.

JustConquer Promise #2: Christians only have one life to suffer.

The second death is explained a little more in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8 (see also Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29).

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

It doesn’t mean that believers won’t be hurt by the “first death.” The exhortation not to fear wasn’t based on getting out of suffering, but that Christians only have one life to suffer. He who is “the first and the last” knew what was coming, and chose for the Smyrnaeans to just conquer death.

Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna in AD 115, and was martyred in Smyrna c AD 153, accused by the heathen and Jews, burned on the Sabbath (Osborne). Even though this wasn’t during the ten-days testing, Polycarp is a good example of being faithful to death.

There is something compelling about a people who are really soul rich. These were a non-fussy people. Jesus gives no word of rebuke, no call for their repentance. And yet wouldn't we rather be the Ephesians, threatened by Jesus rather than comforted by Jesus and threatened by haters? But in fact, we should want to be like the Smyrnaeans.

When you suffer troubles (that are not a result of you foolishly poking a hornet's nest), you are sharing in Christ's sufferings. As you share in His death, you will share in His resurrection. As you share in His sufferings, you will share in His glory (1 Peter 4:12-13). Entrust your soul to your faithful Creator while doing good.

In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:6–7, ESV)

Revelation 2:8-11
Series: Just Conquer #6

# Introduction

It is possible to learn by watching others who have problems. It is also possible to learn from those who *don't*. The church in Ephesus had problems, Jesus called them to repent, and the Spirit calls everyone with an ear to hear and learn. The church in Smyrna had a different sort of problem, a kind that didn't require repentance. Likewise, the Spirit calls us to learn, and to conquer like Smyrnaeans.

Prior to last week I had never thought about being like a Smyrnaean. I am now.

Of the seven messages to the churches in Revelation 2-3, the message to the church in Smyrna is the shortest. According to history, Smyrna was the smallest of these seven cities. It was the operational base for no apostle; we don't even know for sure who started the church there. This is the only place in the Bible that Smyrna is mentioned (along with 1:11 where Jesus first named all the cities).

The city itself was 30 or more miles north of Ephesus, another port city like Ephesus on the Aegean Sea. They boasted a large mountain and good trade and claimed to be the home of Homer. Mostly they boasted in worshipping the Roman Emperors. In AD 26 Smyrna won a bidding competition to build a temple to the Emperor Tiberius (Tacitus, _Annals_, Book IV), and their allegiance to Rome was well known. This would have been an easy place for Christians to compromise in order to keep themselves out of trouble.

But Jesus has no reason to call the church to repent. This doesn't mean that Christians in Smyrna were sinless, but it does mean that as a community they were shining bright as a lampstand. Of the seven churches, only the Smyrnaean and Philadephian churches received no call to repent.

The Smyrnaeans were *not* cold souls like the Ephesians. They were not flirting with false teaching and idolatry and sexual immorality like those in Pergamum and Thyratira. They were not dead in good works like those in Sardis, or lukewarm like those in Laodicea. The Smyrnaeans were the kind of Christians that every Christian should want to be like. And yet they would have had a hard time convincing other believers to make Smyrna a destination.


# Words after Death (verse 8)

The message to the Smyrnaeans follows the pattern of the other messages, starting with a fitting description of Jesus.

> **"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.**

I keep thinking about what **angel**s Jesus tells John to write to. While there is something to be said for the idea of seven different messengers taking these messages from the island of Patmos, where John was exiled, back to the cities on the mainland, it introduces more questions than it answers. How did these human messengers coordinate their travel to Patmos, or did they come individually? Did all seven start in Ephesus, but drop off by one until the last and lone messenger made it to Laodicea? I only have a small dogmatic in the fight, but I still think a heavenly rather than a human being fits with the vocabulary and supernatural context of the revelation.

Jesus identifies Himself with another part of the initial vision, this time from 1:18, where He also added that He held the keys of Death and Hades. **The first and the last** picks up Old Testament descriptions for Yahweh, the LORD, that describe His ever-existence and omni-control (such as Isaiah 44:6). As **the first** He is the grounds for what happens, as **the last** (*ὁ ἔσχατος*) He is the goal for what happens. As first, nothing was before Him. As last, nothing is beyond Him.

What is especially fitting to the Smyrnaean Christians is that Jesus, as the first and the last, is also the one **who died and came to life**. This is a historical truth, but here it is a glorious title. The good news includes the details, and they are of first importance: the eternal, cosmos-ordering Logos took on flesh. And also, "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, He was buried, He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3). We need to know it for sake of our forgiveness. But the Smyrnaeans, and all those with ears to hear, needed it for sake of their faithfulness to death.


# Faithful Unto Death (verses 9-10)

Jesus is the one who walks among the golden lampstands, so He knows what is happening in and to His churches. He’s attentive to their troubles.

> **I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.**

There are four types of **tribulation** in verses 9-10, with tribulation or "affliction" or “pressure” as a general category. When Jesus tells them that they are about to **suffer** in verse 10, He explains that the tribulation was about to pick up.

Tribulation can look like 1) loss of money and material possessions, 2) loss of reputation, 3) loss of freedom, and up to the 4) loss of physical life. Jesus knew that the Smyrnaeans were already facing the first two, and He exhorts them in preparation for the last two.

The first pressure was **poverty**. There are two typical Greek words for lack of money and material goods, and this one (* πτωχεία*) is often used in contexts of extreme deprivation; reduced to the status of beggars. Because of how Jesus connects poverty with **slander**, it is likely that the Christians in Smyrna were losing jobs and business opportunities due to their unwillingness to just join the system. Their poverty wasn't because they were slaves, it was because they were the Savior's.

Jesus adds, however, an important parenthesis. He knows the bottom line of their bank accounts, both of them, the tangible and the spiritual: **(but you are rich)**. This is not *figurative* richness, like something that the Smyrnaeans were supposed to feel. It is *actual* but spiritual and eternal richness. It's not that they were in a condition of having something *like* riches, they did really have "every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 1:3), and "the riches of his glorious inheritance" (Ephesians 1:18). It's why James asked his beloved brothers, "has not God chose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?" (James 2:5).

But on earth their treasures were being taken, or at least money was lost because of their love for and loyalty to Jesus as Lord.

Such loyalty to Christ as Lord made some jealous, but not in a Kuyperian Dispensational (Romans 11:11) sort of way. The second kind of tribulation was loss of reputation: **and the slander of those who say that they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.**

There was a good size population of **Jews** in Smyrna, that is the genetic, nationally-identifiable kind of Jews. During this time of the Roman Empire, Jews received special dispensation *not* to worship Caesar as long as they didn't try to upset the political apple cart. Jesus said that there were some who **say that they are Jews**, in the physical sense, **but are not** in the spiritual sense. John heard Jesus say something similar in John 8. They claimed that Abraham was their father (which he was in one way) and Jesus told them that Satan was actually their father (which was true in a different way). That same was true of the Jews in Smyrna.

A few early church writers recorded that the Jews were jealous of the apparent successes of the church (Ignatius, _Smyrnaeans_, referenced by Beale), including some Jews who converted and worshiped Jesus as the Messiah. So the Jews not only exposed Christians as trouble makers, they even resorted to **slander**, to telling lies, for sake of harming the Christians. Jesus said that such behavior identifies them as a **synagogue of Satan**, an interesting description since **Satan** (Σατανᾶ) means “adversary.” The Jews colluded with the Romans, or at least reported, Christians for being a threat to the system.

Jesus exhorts His congregation in Symrna:

> **Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.**

**Suffer** and **tribulation** are synonyms for painful pressure. Jesus does not rebuke them and tell them to stop fearing, but He does urge them: **Don't fear**. He describes the reasons why they would be tempted to fear, and then gives a few reasons why they shouldn't.

**Some** of them were about to lose their freedom: **the devil is about to throw some of you into prison**. Prison was usually a means, not a long-term end during this time. Prison was used to coerce people, or as a holding ground before a trial or before killing people, which is implied here. The **devil** (διάβολος) is a second name used for Satan, here with an emphasis on “accuser, slanderer.” The devil himself wasn't binding and dragging, but the devil was behind it.

One reason not to fear is to know the purpose for the tribulations: **that you may be tested**. The loss of material goods as well as the loss of reputation were also tests, but the possible imprisonment intensified the test. Don't be surprised by it (see also 1 Peter 4:12); this is what shows the genuineness of faith and even purifies faith.

Another reason not to fear is to know the duration: **and for ten days you will have tribulation.** We have no historical record of a unique persecution in Smyrna that lasted for ten days. This has caused a number of interpreters to conclude that **ten days** doesn't mean ten days. Some go so far as to say that ten days referred to ten successive stages of persecution by ten Caesars. Some say that **days** stands for "years" so that this was a decade-long persecution. Others say that it symbolizes a complete time of some shortish duration.

But what about this message makes it seem like **ten days** should not be taken as a week and a half? If “days” doesn’t mean days, the does “poverty” really mean poverty, and “prison” really mean prison? Does it mean “*death*” doesn't really mean death, or “life,” life?

“Nowhere was life more dangerous for a Christian” (Thomas).

Jesus calls the Smyrnaeans to endure: **Be faithful unto death**. Not every Christian was going to prison, just **some of you**, and not necessarily all of those were going to face capital punishment. But the finish line was death. Don't be loyal to Christ partially, even if it's a high percentage.

The last reason provided here not to fear is to know the promise: **Be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life.** This is the victor's crown rather than a royal crown, a prize or reward. This is winning. This is eternal life, just as eating from the tree of life (2:7), and it goes with the final extended exhortation.


# Conquering Death (verse 11)

Again, at the end of each direct message to a church, a general exhortation is given with a different twist on the promise.

> **He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.**

There is no question that Jesus and the Spirit equate *conquering* with refusal to compromise. Overcoming is overcoming poverty and slander and prison and martyrdom *by trusting the first and the last, who died and came to life.* Conquering is conquering like Christ, which includes suffering like, and for, Christ.

I do believe that as God blesses believers, blessing them with material goods not just poverty (see: Psalm 112:1-3; 1 Chronicles 29:12), and blesses them with a good reputation not just being slandered (see: Proverbs 22:1; 1 Timothy 3:7), and blesses us with civic freedoms rather than imprisonment (see: Psalm 68:6; 146:7), and even with long life rather than pot-smashing death (see: Deuteronomy 6:2; Psalm 91:16; Proverbs 3:16), He will make the Jews jealous and grant them repentance to life.

However, we are being tested in gains given by God *and also* in our losses, by obvious blessings and by giving up obvious blessings because of our spiritual ones.

JustConquer Promise #2: *Christians only have one life to suffer.*

**The second death** is explained a little more in Revelation 20:14 and 21:8 (see also Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29).

> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

It doesn’t mean that believers won’t be hurt by the “first death.” The exhortation not to fear wasn’t based on getting out of suffering, but that Christians only have one life to suffer. He who is “the first and the last” knew what was coming, and chose for the Smyrnaeans to just conquer death.


# Conclusion

Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna in AD 115, and was martyred in Smyrna c AD 153, accused by the heathen and Jews, burned on the Sabbath (Osborne). Even though this wasn’t during the ten-days testing, Polycarp is a good example of being faithful to death.

There is something compelling about a people who are really soul *rich*. These were a non-fussy people. Jesus gives no word of rebuke, no call for their repentance. And yet wouldn't we rather be the Ephesians, threatened by Jesus rather than comforted by Jesus and threatened by haters? But in fact, we should want to be like the Smyrnaeans.

--------------------

## Charge

When you suffer troubles (that are not a result of you foolishly poking a hornet's nest), you are sharing in Christ's sufferings. As you share in His death, you will share in His resurrection. As you share in His sufferings, you will share in His glory (1 Peter 4:12-13). Entrust your soul to your faithful Creator while doing good.

## Benediction:

> In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:6–7, ESV)

Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

Father we thank you for today and for a day that we do set aside to worship you. Help us to understand our place in the history of mankind and in your history for it is your story that we study when it is history. Help us to understand when we should push buttons and stand on things and when we should stand back and and just love the weaker brother, and just understand how to live our Christian life in a better way. So we thank you for those things, and we thank you, of course, for your son. Amen. Alright, my task for the elders and for our series is to talk about Hyperionism and religion.

If you haven't read this book, I recommend that you read the book, but even if you don't like reading, we have a masterful presentation of Glenn Wainwright reading this book, and it's really good. I've listened to him read the chapter I'm talking on three times over the last three or four weeks. He's very good. He's a very good reader. He is as good as anybody I've heard on the thing where we get all the guys reading the books that we listen to for Audible. He understands. It is not an easy thing to read a book, especially this one, because this guy has very foreign terms and he's coming at it from a hundred-year-old perspective and he is Dutch in the European tumult of right before World War One and he is feeding all of this stuff in there as a pastor, as a politician, as a school starter and all of that. The guy was incredible. He had energy beyond belief and he would would crash and have these depressive states, and then he would come out of it stronger and do a whole new thing.

So it's a good thing. And I really appreciate that, that there are different times in your life and God turns the screws on you and makes you do different things that maybe you don't wanna do. The whole thing can be summed in these two quotes that I chose right off the top to start this from. And these are from Kuyper in Christianity, a total world and life system. Both these quotes are out of that book. And the idea is, the domain of Calvinism is indeed far broader than the narrow confessional interpretation would lead us to suppose. Calvinism is an all-embracing system of principles. It is rooted in a form of religion which has peculiarity its own, and peculiarity its own, and a form that specified religious consciousness where there was developed first a particular theology, then a special church order, then a given form for political and social life.

So he is composed, as Calvin saw it, God was over all. We all know the quote, not one thumbs width is not under his control. But we're trying to talk about now just religion, but in that Calvin saw that the Bible taught that it was all over religion, we have to think on the history of Christianity and that when Calvin came along, what was going on with Christianity. Remember that it was like 1600 years, 1500 years after Christ had done the ultimate sacrifice and caused a way for us to even get to him.

Calvin saw this system and then proclaimed it out there as a Catholic priest asking for the Catholic religion to reform, okay? And in this book, in the same chapter that we're talking about, Kuiper comes up with four main points that you need to think about as you look at religion on the big, broad perspective. These four main points are this, and I'm going to constantly go back to them as I talk to you tonight. First, man's religion ought not to be egotistical and for man, but ideal for the sake of God.

In other words, God created religion for us to worship him. He's the creator, we're the creature, we worship the creator. It doesn't go the other way around. He's not the slot machine that if I get the right combination he's gonna give me what I want, all that kind of stuff, or I act just right, He's gonna do that. That our worship of God is not for us, it's for God.

We are created for his pleasure. He is a jealous and all-consuming God that wants us to worship him. That's number one. Number two, it has to operate not immediately by human interposition, but directly from the heart. God relates to us as individuals. You are the individual that when you were a little kid and you laid on the ground and you looked up and you saw the stars in the sky and everything, you realized something bigger than me made this. Who's that? And then as you learn more and more, you worship God. You don't need a priest to worship God for you or you come to me and tell me what your problem is, then I go to God and I come back to you and no, no, no, no, no.

Straight, you and God. Your heart, your creator is the one that you're worshiping, not the mediator. That's a big thing and I'm gonna bang on that as we go through these points in history. Number three, it may not be partial as running alongside of life. It may not be partial as running alongside of life, but must lay hold upon our whole existence. When you worship God, you realize he's the one that allows you to have the next breath, allows you to do the next thing, arranges it so that you can even get there, arranges the molecules so that this podium stays where it is right now as I'm talking to you. That's like, whoa, you know?

But we worship a God that great who's holding the universe together. and we don't even know the universe. As I've said in other things and other guys have said, you know, we build a Hubble telescope to go up and look and then we found out, oh, there's all kinds of more universes and there's more of this and more of that. He's holding all that together by his strength, okay?

Then number four, it is, its character should be so terriological, i.e. it should spring not from our fallen nature, but from the new man restored by a palan genesis to his original standard. Until you become saved and God through his Holy Spirit gives you the wisdom to understand what you're looking at, you don't get it. Sinful man cannot understand what we're talking about to them. Of course they think it was the big bang and it just boomed into existence and we worship this order that I discovered when I took my science class and found this thing out. They don't understand something way bigger than us did this, and only through his Holy Spirit and dwelling us can we even understand what he has done for us.

So it can't spring from our fallen nature. Now, remember, their broken watch gets the right time of day, twice a day, So those guys can discover things, they can loop in and find it and go, oh, look at this, oh, look at that. And we look at that and go, well, of course, because God did that. Oh, you can't say that, you know, there's nothing bigger than that. So you have to remember that we see it differently than they do. Now, does that mean we should be mean to them? No, but we should call them out when they don't see that God is the one in control. So its character should be so terriologically, so terriological, in other words, you need to be saved.

You need to recognize who God is in order to get in the situation where you can understand what's being put in front of you. And it only can be restored, we're fallen, and it only gets restored when we become that new man, that Ephesians one creature. He reached down and touched us and told us what God has done for us. So those four principles need to be used as the, like sieve that you put all religions that mankind has come up with, all denominations that man's come up with, all systems within denominations, which is this whole discussion of Hyperionism and religion. I really believe and I propose that I'm going to demonstrate to you now over back the next 20 minutes or so, of I believe that we are sitting on a tipping point in Christian history where we can introduce a whole new way of looking at what the Bible is teaching at us, standing on the shoulders of men for the last 2,000 years and putting it together in a way that I believe makes more sense of what the Bible teaches.

And what I would call that is the Hyperion Dispensationalist. Now, if none of you have gone to Sean's website that he created about a year ago, or maybe even a year and a half ago now, and read it, I have stayed away from it till last week. I have been careful not to read what he has written in there. I know that I agree with the general thought that he's putting out. I totally am behind that. I have argued this with people for the, ever since I got saved, I could not understand how I could sit across from R.C. Sproul for five days, two hour lunches, arguing, debating, and him not getting this. And I didn't even know what I was talking about.

at that point, it'd only been saved about three years. And he would just, you know, you can't say that because this church father said this and this guy said that and I said, yeah, but the Bible says this, so let's put this together and move ahead from that. I've had that argument with all kinds of different people. And then on the other side, had that argument with people like MacArthur who sits in the other camp. But the interesting thing is I want to tell you that the quote, professors or studiers in theology that go to the conferences and sit around and write papers and then argue with each other, the good ones that are true believers, when they get together in those conferences, they go to lunch and realize we're very close here.

We don't understand how to put this all together in a system that really makes sense. But I believe what you believe about this, and you believe what I believe about this, and how can we put this together? I truly believe that shuffling the deck with Hyperionism and Dispensationalism, with everybody just staying calm and talking about it, is a way bigger step forward in understanding the bigger picture, all right?

The first article that Sean wrote, I think I'd like to read the last three paragraphs that he wrote before I start in my little history lesson of why I think we are where we are. Just listen to this. I'm not looking to argue with anybody tonight. I don't wanna get in the whole discussion about, but the Bible says here and the Bible says here, try to keep your viewpoint right now at the 30,000 foot level and we're driving, or we're flying over all of this and looking at since Christ died, and here we are in the year 2019, what all this means to us? What has all been put in front of us? So in the last three paragraphs, Sean says, and this is just his introduction to the Hyperion dispensationalist, here we are trusting God and joyfully working in the world, knowing that he says things are going to go on from bad to worse, 2 Timothy 3.13.

See also 1 Timothy 4.1 through 2, Timothy 3.1. While we also trust that the power of the gospel is and will continue to make things better in other ways, we are thankful for the Christian accomplishments in missions and in medicine, technology, education, indoor plumbing, free markets, and internet publishing. Christians have made many things better because they are here on earth rather than pluck to heaven when they said the sinner's prayer. Morgan, my daughter, when she was like, eh, 14, she looked at me and she said, what next do we do? I'm saved, we're here, what am I supposed to do now? Now at that point, I haven't been a Christian for a long time, and I'm sitting there and I'm thinking, hmm, that's a really good question.

Why don't we just go to heaven? And so there is a big weakness in the dispensational, let's get in our bunker and just wait it out until Jesus comes again. We are to make it better and be that example, showing the power of the gospel. We are optimistic pre-millennials. This is how we read the Bible. It is what makes our hearts burn. A few summers ago, my friend Jonathan, that's Jonathan over there, was in Moscow, Idaho with some of our teachers from our school and he was talking with Doug Wilson about our muttness. In other words, we're the crazy shuffle deck of dispensational Kipurians.

Jonathan will be writing for this site as well and sometimes he will give a more detailed account of their discussion. Now, at this point, I want to tell you, I wish I could write. Shawn's a wordsmith. I am not. I can barely spell and get it out of here. I can write symbols for you logic students and talk about things. But if I had to write a whole paragraph about it, we'd probably flunk. But Doug, who is an ebullient post-millennialist, had no ready category in which to put this juxtaposition that Jonathan opposed to Doug. So he told Jonathan, you know what you ought to do? You ought to start a blog and call it the Kuyperian Dispensationalist.

He, Doug, doesn't think the two things go together, but he thought it might be fun to watch. Let's get these trains going, and man, this wreck is gonna be incredible when it happens, right? When Jonathan told me, Sean, about this idea, my heart burned. Even the name Kuyperian Dispensationalist rather than ism is so good because there may be only one other Kiparian dispensationalists in the world. We are on a mission to find that one. Actually, all the elders at our church would consider themselves to be such, while still trying to figure out what it means and what we should do about it. But we hope that there are more and more who think this way, but do not know how to describe it.

More who are primed to join in the work. Some who will need a lot of time to think about it, and that's why we're writing here. Others, of course, won't agree until we're raptured together in the air. Ooh, sticker. So with that in mind, we're doing this, being able to laugh at ourselves, we don't know. And the other thing that you have to remember is, they don't know either. We're doing the best we can with what we got. And we do stand on the shoulders of a lot of very intelligent men over the past 2,000 years. But remember, everybody in each generation comes with a new presupposition in their generation. When I got saved at 37, I had a kid that was in school.

And then we decided that we shouldn't have her in this godless system, took her out of it. Our son had just been born when both Gail and I got saved. And so then we decided, well, he can't be in it either. And we didn't have any real thing to put him in. And I barely got out of school. Gail graduated from college and all kinds of things. But really didn't know anything. The world had taught her a bunch of crap. And so we got out of school. on board and said we need to teach them about what the Bible says and what Christ wants us to do. So we just jumped in. We didn't know. And as we got better and better we thought we were really doing a great idea. And then we came along, the kids grew up, they got married, we met Shawn, we were all in this proposition. And as we got along we realized Wow, this is really good.

And then all of a sudden, they started discovering classical schooling that Doug Wilson had started back in the early nineties, cause he was in that same proposition. His kids were growing up, need to homeschool. But somebody had turned him on to that classical system to read the great books and understand the great Christian minds of the past 2000 years that we need to read how they stepped us along in this process. And we kind of knew about it. I mean, I'll never forget, I was part of a apologetics institute and this one guy that had his doctorate was in it and we had another guy that was an attorney there in LA and everything.

And they were talking to me one day and this guy said, well, as Anselm said, and I went, who's Anselm? I don't know that guy. You know, is he in LA or whatever? And he said, what? You don't know who Anselm is? And I said, oh, that's what I told you. I don't know who answered. And he said, well, he's one of the most preeminent theologians of the year 1000. And I said, oh, that's good. That's why I didn't know him. And so as we discuss these things, you realize these people, they get in their own little categories. They learn all this stuff. And then you're an idiot if you can't talk their lingo. The bottom line to all of this is If we don't put the cookies on the bottom shelf and everybody can't have a bite of the cookie, we're not really transforming the population.

We're not transforming our society. If we can't speak to the guy in the corner that doesn't know who Anselm is, but you give him the ontological, blah, blah, blah, blah, argument about why there is God, then all of a sudden he goes, well, that makes sense, yeah, there probably is a God. So all of a sudden you're using these tools, you just don't know where they came from. We now are installing so that the next generation after us will know where we got them. And they'll be able to say, oh yes, that's page 373 of this book or whatever. Which is good, but the bottom line is, you never then look down on the guy that just says, I don't know, teach me.

That is the perfect disciple that you wanna meet with and teach those things to. So that religion, and Kuyperianism and that religion, is the transfer of this information to the next generation. And we are sitting on 2,000 years of generations that have brought us to the point where we can even talk about this. This book could not have been written without Calvin in the 1500s. This book was basically written in 1898. So then you move back 100 years and you got the French Revolution and the world's exploding and they're doing away with God and the French then invade Italy and capture the Pope because they're running the show now.

We don't need these Christians, we're gonna kill them all. So you realize, oh my goodness, now I go 100 years back, 1600, and I realize, oh, something's going on then. And then 1500, something's going on then, and 1400. And it's not that far away. I think one of the greatest history lectures I ever listened to was, you used to have these history conferences in Moscow, and they started talking about, just think about your grandfather and his father, your great grandfather. When you start putting that together, you realize, oh, my great grandfather was a guy of 20 years old before the Civil War. I'm just talking about myself.

So this guy is draftable age in America right before the Civil War. He gets thrown into the Civil War. Then my grandfather comes along as a kid of that guy and runs through the West in the 1880s. Wyatt Earp is Marshall the Tombstone. All kinds of things are going on and you realize there is all this connection to all of us that way. And you have to think about those things and put it together in your own life and realize we're not that far away from these things you think are ancient history and don't have any effect on you. They have a lot of effect on you, okay? So I wanna read these major principles again. Then I'm gonna read a lot of historical dates to you and I'm gonna stop near where we are and then pound home while we are Kuyperian dispensationalists.

And hopefully we can shuffle the deck and put all that together at the end of this, and you go, oh, I kinda get it, okay? So first off, man's religion ought not to be egotistical and for man, but ideal for the sake of God. Second, it has to operate not immediately by human interposition, but directly from the heart. Three, it may not be partial as running alongside of life, but it may slay a hold on our whole existence. No dualism, everything is under God. Number four, its character should be so terriologically, so terriological, i.e. it should spring not from our fallen nature, but it should spring from the new man restored by the palangenesis to his original standard, before the fall.

When you get saved, you are moved back and you understand and you have God within you. We as New Testament Christians remember have God lives within us with the Holy Spirit. That's a tough gig, okay? That's why you get that guilty feeling when you do something wrong. And pay attention to that and correct that and you'll be a lot better off, all right?

So out of that, I have some other Kuiper quotations that I'm gonna insert as we go through this historical timeline. But just hang in there. This is going to be a little bit of me wandering around, but I think it'll all come together as you go. So we start now. Christ dies or comes to life zero, the year zero. He then gets crucified, approximately 33. And then by 220, Origen comes along, a church father, who starts looking at the Bible in a kind of bizarro way. He starts looking at things and not reading them like what it says, but comes up with all kinds of different interpretations. Then that's 220. 312, Constantine comes along.

And Constantine makes what? The whole Roman Empire Christian, and he gets baptized right before he dies and declares that the Roman Empire is now Christian. 324, Eusebius, who we in the school have read, his history on Christianity writes his history. Then 395 to 430, Augustine, or Augustine, comes along and writes his confessions and the city of God and all of those things. 499, the scriptures are in 13 languages. Then 640 comes along, And Islam conquers Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa. Okay, this is 640. So, remember Augustine's writing the books that we read and have to write all the reports on and all the papers and we're reading in the Lux thing and all that kind of stuff.

And 640, Islam now is taking over Palestine, Jerusalem, all the rest of it. 720, Bede writes his Christian History. By that time, it's needed. Somebody has to do something about these Islams in Europe. In 732, Charles Martel the Hammer has the Battle of Tours and throws the Islamic invaders out of Europe. So now we get another 300 years. And 1054, the great schism happens between the Eastern Church and the Western Church. Then, this is 1054, in 1066, the Norman Conquest happens in Britain, the French Conquest, England, all right? 1093, Anselm is writing his papers. 1097, notice how close all this stuff is. 1093, Anselm's writing his papers.

1097, the First Crusade happens. We're going back to take back the Holy Land. Doesn't work out too well. 1170, 30 years later, Beckett is murdered in the cathedral by the state. So now we have a state church conflict going. 1146, the Second Crusade happens. 1170, Beckett is murdered. Then 1182, the Third Crusade happens. Now look at this. First Crusade, 1097. A hundred years later, the Third Crusade, 1182. A lot of people are dying, getting hacked by swords. They're fighting for Christendom. They're fighting for their eternal destiny, all that kind of stuff. All this is going on, and we don't even have a Bible that we can read.

We're going to a church, listening to some guy tell us stuff. Pretty much people are just trying to get people to memorize a confession, or maybe the Lord's Prayer, or something along those lines. Okay, so the third crusade is 1182. 1201, Pope Innocent III declares he can oversee and appoint rulers the height of papal authority. By that time, the Catholic Church has worked into a place where the Pope can look at a king and say, you're not worthy, you're outta here. That's a big deal.

1255, another 50 years goes down And Thomas Aquinas writes his great Summa Theologica. At that point, he has brought in all kinds of platonic thinking into religion and put together kind of an intellectual treatise about what we should believe, putting in a bunch of intellectual stuff from Plato instead of actually reading what the Bible says about it. And he's considered, oh, great scholar, blah blah blah. Okay, 1371, John Wycliffe, 1371, another 100 years.

Wycliffe takes the Bible into common language and the Lollards, this is what they were called, the Mumblers, from Latin to English. So Wycliffe brings a Bible, the Vulgate, to England so that they can actually read it. And out of that becomes the Lollards, the Mumblers, that can actually read their Bible and know what it says. 1371, 1456, another little period of years, Gutenberg prints the first Vulgate, so you can actually get a copy. Now, people don't have enough money to buy one, but at least it gets printed and starts to spread out. 1356, another 30 years, Savanarola, who is a Catholic priest in Florence, has the bonfire of the vanities.

He starts preaching against the government and telling them, you cannot do this. You need to worship God, not all this stuff. And he starts burning stuff in the thing. They then burn him at the stake. That's 1498. 1517, Luther comes along and writes the 95 thesis. Critical juncture now, 1500. So we now have 1,500 years of history since Christ has died. And basically, God has chosen only to give us revelation from the Catholic Church and discipleship. And I do believe a lot of discipling was going on. Because remember, if you understand, if you're discipled properly, people tell you the gospel. You tell somebody else.

You live with them. You conflict with them. So I think a lot of people are understanding Christ did something for you and all of that. I'm not saying all these people weren't saved, but they don't have a lot of theology going on. But they do understand through discipleship and watching other people's lives that they're getting saved. 1517, he writes the 95 thesis. 1522, five years later, the New Testaments translated into German. That's only five years. Remember that I've been jumping 50 year, 100 year cycles until this. 1525, Tyndale makes a New Testament from Greek, not from the Vulgate like Wycliffe did, but from Greek into English, and he was burned at the stake for that.

Not a good thing to be a Bible translator at this point. 1525, the Anabaptists start. Why do you think the Anabaptists started the same year that the Bible was put out from Greek to English, and they had only had it for three years in German, and Wycliffe had started in 1371 to give him the Bible. How do you think the Anabaptists started? They started reading their Bible and went, believe and be baptized. And they're going, wait a minute, what are we doing here? So there's a whole new section now talking about theology and how we do it. 1529, the term Protestantism starts. 1529, four years after that, that term is used.

1534, the act of supremacy happens. Henry VIII doesn't like his wife, wants to divorce her, the Catholic Church won't divorce him, what does he do? He tells the Catholic Church he's running the Church of England and he starts the Anglican denomination. That's 1534.

Two years later, Calvin writes the Institute of the Christian Religion. Then, 1545 and through 63, the Council of Trent, the counter-reformation. Calvin writes this stuff, and that counter-reformation has to deal with that. So the Catholic Church comes back at them. Now, during all these times, we still have to deal with our four principles. Man's religion ought not to be egotistical and for man, but ideally for the sake of God. Just on point number one, with all the things I read, If you understood that God is the one in charge, how do you think you as just a normal dude that was just trying to hack some potatoes and grow enough food for your family and everything, and you understand what a preacher might be telling you about Christianity, and they're talking about, well, you gotta talk to the priest, and you gotta do all this stuff, and you gotta tell you the rosary, you gotta do this.

How do you think if you just knew that one principle thing, you'd go, That doesn't seem right. And then it has to operate not immediately by human interposition, but directly from the heart. You might be going, wait a minute. God is the one that made me and put me in this spot. He's the one that I need to talk to. I don't need a priest to get there for me. And then it may not be partial as running alongside of life, but must lay hold upon our whole existence. I think those people understood duality is not a good thing, a lot better than we did because they're depending that God is gonna bring rain to grow the crops.

And if those crops don't grow, they starve. If we don't have rain or something, we can get a different job and get some money and go buy it at a different store or pay a little more to get this or that. We live in a time where we don't really get it. We think we can be so clever And we built all these systems. And these systems have been created because of Calvinistic Christianity that allow us to buy things at stores and do all this stuff. And its character should be so terriologic, so terriological. So at this point, the Catholic Church beating down on Calvin, he is called them out. And everything is out in the open.

Now, looking at just this much of history, Kuyper says something like this. Only he therefore who superficially confines his attention to predestination can confuse Augustinianism and Calvinism. Augustinianism, if you've listened to any R.C. Sproul lectures or whatever, Augustine or Augustine, like Mark Callender likes to say Augustine is a place in Florida, Augustine is the saint.

The idea is that it's not just predestination. There is a lot more to Calvinism than God predestined things to happen. A lot more. Augustine understood God was God, but Augustine was a creature of his time. Remember, he's clear back here in 324, is it? Yeah, where did I put his thing? Yeah, 395 to 430. He's way back there, man. He's 1,100 years before Calvin comes along. That's a lot of time, a lot of books, a lot of thinking, a lot of shoulders to stand on. Now, I think Augustine is a great person in the line of Christianity. But to go back to Augustine and start quoting him to build your theology on is not a good idea.

He has a lot of baggage. Of all of you, you've read the Confessions of St. Augustine. I mean, how many chapters do we have to read about being sorry that he sold some pears, okay? It's like, you know, beat a dead horse, baby. Just slow down a minute. And so that's interesting and good, and he's a very smart guy, But he is also bringing platonic thinking, Greek thinking, into what the Bible says. Again, read your Bible, understand what it says, and then kind of move ahead from there. These guys are smart guys looking at it, but you need to project those principles back on what you're looking at.

So at the point we're at now, I've gotten us to the Council of Trent. Now after the Council of Trent, the Protestants started coming up with confessions, all right? The Heidelberg Catechism, 1562. Jacob Arminius came up with Arminianism and wrote a kind of a challenge to Calvin. I think it's really interesting. If you carefully read Arminius's challenge to Calvin, there's not much challenging going on. He agrees with probably 75% of what Calvin said. He just thought people had a little more to do with it than Calvin did, which I think he had it wrong. But he isn't the great heretic you might think he is until you read his stuff.

1611, we come up with the King James Bible, which then put the Bible into English for everybody. Now 1611 happens. 1620 through 30, the separatists in England sail for America on the Mayflower. Okay, the Puritans come to America. Now we're getting closer to great grandfather, great grandfather, you know, we're starting to get up to where we are at at that point. 1646, the Westminster Confession is created. All right, 1646. 1678, John Bunyan writes Pilgrim's Progress in Prison. A blind preacher writing that book, understanding incredibly the soteriological part of theology, all right? 1678, that's Bunyan. 1700, slave trafficking is going nuts in Europe.

Everybody's making big bucks getting slaves from Africa, taking them to the West Indies, taking them to America, that kind of stuff. Another 64 years goes by and John Newton writes Amazing Grace and has his repentance from being a slave trader. That's 1764. 1789, the French Revolution happens. Now something happened before the French Revolution, our Revolution, 1776. We were influenced by Calvinistic Protestant guys, big influence on the thinking of the people that wrote our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, all of that huge influence of Christianity and Calvinism in those documents. Europe, on the other hand, happens in the French Revolution and it's straight from the pit of hell.

And it has infected us in ways we don't even fully comprehend. They was called the Cult of Reason. they proudly wore that moniker for the French Revolution. The Cult of Reason. We are reasonable, therefore we can take over mankind. Thousands of Christians were executed in France, and in 1799, France invaded Rome and took Pope prisoner back to France. So they really knew Christianity was the enemy for their thing. Now, keep in mind what I'm leading ups to, the very guy I'm quoted to start off was Abraham Kuyper who gave these lectures in 1898. That's 1898, 1900. We're now at 1800, okay? The 1789 revolution, 1776.

So now we're only 100 years back. Now we're only looking at grandpa grandpa grandpa, you know? This stuff all happens real close to where we live. And actually very close, you'll see as we go through these last little section getting us up to today how it influences our thinking and how it takes us away from these ideals that we keep trying to get back to with our, quote, Kuyperian dispensationalism. Okay, so 1789, the French Revolution. 1805 Harvard Divinity School was founded in 1693.

So bring back Harvard to 1693. It was founded by Puritan Congregationalists. Remember the dudes that came over in the Mayflower. They said, oh, let's make a school and teach our kids and bring them up in better things. By 1805, Harvard Divinity School put a Unitarian, Unitarian, Henry Ware, in charge of its theological department, a Unitarian, non-Trinitarian, heretic, god-hater, in charge of their theological seminary, causing the Calvinist conservatives to start and over theological seminary, and on it goes. Any time you study seminaries or places of theological training, you find the, it goes good for about 20 years, 30 years, and then you've got to be looking out because liberals get in, people get too smart for their own ways, and it starts to crumble.

So you've got to be really careful and you see it over and over. So 1805, Harvard's gone south. In 1830, Frederick Schleimacher, the father of liberal Protestantism theology, teaches that God is within human reality, not above it. Okay, now think about this. Teaching that God is within human reality, not above it. So God is in me as a human, and he's not really above me. He's like in me, and I in my humanness and understand what's going on. That is the rank start of liberalism. I feel that I'm a woman, therefore I'm really not a man. Or I feel like I need to do this, I'm deciding what I should do, not the supreme being that created me telling what I should do, okay?

That's 1830. Now we're getting closer to where we're at, okay? Remember, we're only 2019 right at the moment. 1859, Darwin writes The Origin of Species. Okay, 1859, 30 more years. 1861, the American Civil War happens. 500,000 people are killed in America. Brother against mother, family against family. What has it fought over? Slavery, I'll give them that. The issue was there were more people trying to get rid of slavery and institutions to get rid of slavery in the South than there were in the North. Something's wrong. We screwed up. We didn't need to be killing each other at this rate. They were going to get rid of it on their own.

That's the Civil War. 1898. 30 years later, who shows up at Princeton to give the lectures? Abraham Kuyper. At this point, he'd already lived in the Netherlands and became a pastor, starting universities, working in politics. He comes to America and gives these lectures on Calvinism's influence in art, science, religion, all this stuff. So now he is right in our stream. This is only 100 years ago now. He gives these lectures. It's straight up good stuff. and he is attacking, he's saying, only he, therefore, who superficially confines his attention to predestination can confuse Augustinium and Calvinism. So now he's attacked Augustine way back, okay.

Then he says something like this, Lutheranism restricted itself to an exclusive ecclesiastical and theological character while Calvinism put its impress in and outside the church upon every aspect of human life. Luther, Calvin says, didn't take it far enough. Luther restricted itself to exclusively ecclesiastical. In other words, the priest is gonna tell you what to do, not you. They need a mediator. They need the priest to get you to the right thing. They missed it. Now, did they move it in the right direction that we need the scriptures and that stuff? Yeah, Luther needed to say those things and needed to challenge the Catholic Church, but he didn't do it far enough.

Then we move into the modern thing, the origin of species in the Civil War and then lectures at Princeton, and we start to have to deal with things like this. Sun, moon, and stars, this is another Abraham Kuyper quote, sun, moon, and stars beckon people to worship the creator until people lose sight of the living God and begin to worship the sun, moon, and stars themselves. How quickly our society from the modern interpretation, giving us to people like Schleimacher and people that felt within us we're understanding who God is, look at the creation and go, oh, that's so wonderful, and we start worshiping the creation.

Are we in the middle of that or what? Mother nature, we have to take care of what we're doing. Oh my goodness, if we don't take care of the oceans, we're all gonna die, we're gonna do this, you know, blah, blah, blah. Crazy, it's absolutely just turning it upside down. It is not God who exists for the sake of his creation, the creation exists for the sake of God. It is not God who exists for the sake of his creation, the creation exists for the sake of God, Kuyper. Then the bottom line quote that he gets that really goes after science and all of that and that they don't have any business in religion is, modern science is dominated by distrust when it comes to our own deepest sense of life.

And that distrust is nothing but unbelief. They study and study and study and then say, oh, we don't understand, we can't know. I just don't know, therefore I'm an agnostic, which makes them a big liar according to Romans 1. Everybody knows there is a God, they just suppress that truth, okay? So those quotes tell you why we see Kuyper as a great imprint upon our whole theological system.

Now we are 1898, he's given these lectures, and we start looking at America and what's happening. 1906, the Azusa Street Revival start to happen. People talk in tongues, that's an evidence that they have the Holy Spirit. Everybody starts running their Christianity on their feelings. By 1914, the Assemblies of God is created, and by 1930 through 1950, modernism demands a new way for our time, which then devolves into mysticism. Basically what people believe these days is just a bunch of junk. And they put it all together and they weave it together of how I feel and oh we have to be everything to everybody and oh yeah the Hindus have something to teach us and the Islamic have something to teach us and all these false religions.

And if we just shuffle the deck and put them neatly together, we'll all be happy and we can live forever after. Straight from the pit, okay? So to close it out, the major ingredients to Hyperionism and religion are these three major points. Now, he was baptizing babies, he was doing all kinds of interesting things. I think he was a creature of his time. I think that he made some political mistakes and all of that kind of stuff. But ideally he understood the relationship to God was, God's in control, we're not, all right? So man's religion ought not to be egotistical and for man, but ideally for the sake of God. It has to operate not immediately by human interposition, but directly from the heart.

It may not be partial as running alongside of life, but may lay hold upon our whole existence. Its character should be so terriological. It should not spring from our fallen nature, but from our new man restored by the palan genesis to his original standard. We, again, live a supernatural life. If we are Christians, God, through his spirit, lives inside of each one of us. When we are treating each other badly, not loving each other as the Ephesians did, and we got reprimanded this morning about that, we are suppressing, holding down what the Holy Spirit wants us to do. Now sometimes love is jumping down some guy's throat that's off on a bad track.

other times it's just giving somebody a hug. And not preaching any theology is just telling them you do love them. So all of those things need to be put together and lived out. But there are plenty of things you can study. Each one of these dates, when you think about it, it was a big deal to make those tiny jumps as time went on with the equipment those people had. We live in a time where we have all of this information. We can just get on our phones or on our computers or in books and, you know, just all kinds of different things and go and study with different people and ask them questions. We should take advantage of that and live our lives that way.

So be excited that I think our little congregation is really looking into something that we should be thinking about and trying to live through and build upon. And I'm excited that we are trying to challenge everybody to do that. And I think that we are on a good track. And that doesn't say that we have everything figured out, but I think this is the right track to be on. And so there you go. So let's pray and then we can go home. Father, we thank you for all this history and all these people and just all the situations you put people in. I mean, I think of Bede writing the history of the English church and how he had to listen to people say they had a little piece of the cross and people would get healed in this village and that village and he put it down and how they didn't have the Bible to read.

maybe learned the Lord's Prayer and maybe a creed and that was it and it was considered a great accomplishment to have a congregation to be just doing those things and here we sit with all the blessings we have help us to not be arrogant about it help us to not think we have everything we need and that we still need to be taught through your spirit and through the inner relations that you have with all the people and the souls that you have that have gone before us and will come in front of us. And we thank you that we're building a new generation that will even be stronger than us and help us to be faithful in that. We thank you for all these things and of course we thank you most of all for your son for it's in his name we pray Jesus Christ. Amen.

You can learn a lot from other people's problems. Of course it’s possible to become more proud when you see someone else's issues, especially if you think those aren't your issues. But it can be really beneficial to see what sort of damage comes from another person who is failing in a way you could also fail.

In my testimony, as I look back at the churches I've been most involved with over the last 25 years, I'd say that most of them are very similar to the church in Ephesus. We're starting our study of Christ's messages to the seven churches, and, all but two of the seven have serious problems. There will be other applications to make as we hear the Spirit's exhortation to the churches, and there is good that the Lord commends among the Ephesians. But their problem was dire: they had fallen from the heights of first love.

As we saw in the last half of Revelation 1, Jesus revealed Himself to John in a vision and commissioned John to write what he was seeing. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are seven letters, or at least seven parts of one letter, to the churches named in seven cities in 1:11. The descriptions that John gave of the one whose voice he heard will return in the addresses to the churches.

Before we hear Christ's word to the Ephesian church, there are some interpreters who take these seven messages to churches in seven cities not as messages to actual first century churches in the named locations. Idealists say that the whole of Revelation is symbolic, including these chapters, so that the application is universal. Historicists, and apparently some Dispensational Futurists, believe that the seven churches represent seven eras of the church (for example, the Dispensationalists Chafer and Walvoord, as mentioned in the commentaries by by Mounce, Osborne, and Thomas). Ephesus, as the first era, for example, would be the church from Jesus' ministry through the time of the apostles. That would place us in the Laodicean era of lukewarmness.

But each of these cities was known, and the historical and geographical background for the various cities fits with the messages to them. We, along with churches in all places in all generations, can still ask what we can learn and apply. We are not limited because the letter wasn't addressed to us, it just means we have to "hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

The Ephesians are commended before and after Christ warns them and calls them to repent. They were known for their patient obedience and their committed orthodoxy. But those qualities had gotten out of proper order. The Ephesians needed to first, love.

Each letter--not technically a separate letter, more like individual messages in a larger letter--follows a similar structure. Every one begins with a reminder of who it is addressing the church. It's always Jesus, but a different characteristic from John's vision in chapter 1 is referenced.

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: "The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands."

I mentioned last week that I lean toward understanding angel as an angel, that is, a heavenly being, not as a human "messenger." If it is a human, that human being has some connection to and responsibility for the church, and needs to pass on this message from Jesus. If it is an angel, this being also has some identification with and responsibility for the church, and it emphasizes the supernatural sphere in which each church exists.

I don’t usually mention textual variants, but it is interesting that, “Instead of ‘to the angel of the (τῆς) church in Ephesus,’ some manuscripts read “to the angel of the church who (τω) [is] in Ephesus” (A C 1854 pc), which locates the angel actually in the church. … Perhaps the change was motivated by an attempt to identify the ‘angel’ as a bishop, pastor, or elder in the church” (Beale). Usually, variants like this come when a copyist is trying to “fix” what he thinks is wrong. That’s not a proof either way, but it at least means that something is out of the ordinary.

“These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars” (KJV), isa a pattern among the prophets.

The description repeated from chapter 1, verses 16 and 13, is that Jesus holds the seven stars in his right hand, meaning that He is the ultimate power behind and controlling the angels. That He walks among the seven golden lampstands reminds each church of His presence, both for their encouragement and their conscientiousness. Jesus knows.

Jesus does know, and He knows what is good and bad. He starts with what is commendable.

I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary.

This is an impressive list of faithfulness: faithfulness in deeds, faithfulness in doctrine, faithfulness in determination. The Ephesians knew the truth, they were willing to defend the truth, they were unwilling to compromise. Their toil was a labor to perspiration, like the Corinthians “always abounding in the work of the Lord,” and their endurance was holding up under burden. They didn't just do what was easy and they didn't quit when it got hard.

In their teaching, and especially their reception of teaching, they couldn't bear with those who are evil. They held Scriptural standards and stuck with them. They tested those who call themselves apostles, who claimed authority, but whose lives and/or teaching didn't match. Paul exhorted the Ephesians elders that “fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock,” (Acts 20:29). The Ephesians took that warning seriously.

Somehow related to that, maybe in being tagged as intolerant, Jesus again says that they were enduring patiently and have not grown weary. They weren't doing it for their name, but for my name's sake.

They were both exhausted, and not exhausted. They were working to the point of being weary, and also weren't so worn out that they quit. They are an almost ideal model of truthfulness.

If Jesus had stopped there, we would have to have assumed that things were all good. Jesus didn't stop there.

But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If now, I will come to you and remove your lampstand, unless you repent.

Jesus does not qualify this admonition. He doesn't negate the good, but this is very bad, and the threat of lampstand removal is an ominous warning.

He says that you abandoned the love you had at first. There is something distinct, and good, about the initial time of conversion and the affections that go along with it.

Typically, humility is at a new low, in the good sense of low, because the Spirit has brought us to see what we deserved as well as the love and sacrifice of Christ.

There is also a height of love, and the first solution that Jesus gives is to Remember therefore from where you have fallen. They were supposed to bring back to mind their previous focus and intensity, for sake of returning. And so the follow up instruction is repent, and Jesus says it twice. The Greek word for repent is the idea of turning away from one thing toward another. As they returned to their first love, they would also do the first works. They were doing works, but they weren't doing those works from love like they used to.

Obedience and orthodoxy are good, necessary even. But they are not first. Love is first, and it is possible to have faithful looking motions without the proper motivation. Paul told the Corinthians the same thing. He listed a variety of significant religious knowledge and works and sacrifices that, without love, meant nothing (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

“It is clear that the Ephesians loved truth more than they loved God or one another.” (Osborne) (Love is first and last, following the chain in 2 Peter 1:5-7.) Paul, some three decades earlier, wrote to the Ephesians to speak the truth in love, so that the whole body builds itself up in love (Ephesians 4:15-16), and now their love tanks were empty.

Not having love is a big deal. The Corinthians in particular were not loving one another in the church, but Jesus doesn't say the who the Ephesians weren't loving. It could be other Ephesians in the church, though I think it is more a lack of love for God. The “love you had at first” belongs more with conversion and worship, though the first works that belong with first love probably are most visible in horizontal relationships.

Their love was so bad that Jesus threatens to remove your lampstand from its place. We know that the lampstand represents the church, so that makes this somewhat odd. Jesus may come and remove the church from the church? Yes. If they weren’t living as lights then He would make that permanent. A church without love is on its way to losing status as a church, regardless of orthodox sentences. Jesus warns that they will lose their identity and witness as lights (John 13:35).

Jesus returns to one of their positive characteristics, with a more specific example than in verses 2-3. Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. It is possible that the Nicolaitans were an offshoot of one of the first deacons, Nicolaus (Acts 6:5). A number of early church historians make that connection. This group is named again in the church in Pergamum (2:15), who also had issues with a group following Balaam, for whom we have more evidence of their antinomian living and compromise with idolatry.

Whoever they were and whatever their issues, Jesus hated them, and the Ephesians hated them, too. Jesus targets the works, but God says at other times that He hates the workers who do the works (Psalm 11:5; see also Psalm 139:21).

The Ephesian response was right, but apparently they were having issues hating what was hate-able and loving those whom they were called to love. When hate of evil spills into a suspicious first attitude, when we act as if “you are a heretic until proven otherwise,” love has fallen. Heresy hunters do not do friendly fire.

The last verse expands the application of the message to the Ephesians. A similar expansion and promise happens in all seven messages.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.'

Jesus, the one who holds the seven stars in His hand, is the one speaking, but so is the Spirit. Jesus addresses the angel, and the Spirit is addressing the churches. Among the Ephesians, perhaps there were some who had an ear, meaning that they were attentive, to hear what the Spirit says. The concern about loveless living, though, has application beyond Ephesus.

And as in all seven messages, we meet the one who conquers (τῷ νικῶντι, a substantive participle in Greek emphasizing the action of the verb as characteristic of the person). Here is the overcomer, the one who endures and who endures in love. Of course Christians are tempted to give up doing good, to grow weary in doing good, to relax their hold on the truth, and to cool off in their affections. But in this spiritual battle, believers ought to want to win. Sometimes the winning follows the pattern of Christ's victory, which included faithfulness to death. Conquering doesn't always look like shiny trophies, it often looks like Spirit-enabled suffering. This is not #NextLevelDiscipleship, this is for everyone in the churches.

JustConquer Promise #1 is: I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. Later in Revelation the tree of life is located in the new Jerusalem, and is watered by the stream that flows from God's throne (Revelation 22:2). Its leaves are for the healing of the nations. The first time the tree is mentioned in the Bible is in Genesis (Genesis 2:9), and God kept Adam and Eve from eating it (Genesis 3:22, 24). It may be a specific contrast for the Ephesians:

“archeological evidence that the temple was originally a ‘tree shrine,’ and that a symbol of Artemis well into the NT period was a date palm. In other words, this is also a further counter to the idolatry and immorality of Ephesus (as a fertility goddess, Artemis signified “life” (Osborne).

What eating from the tree of life means here is eternal life, as every variation of the promise to each church points to. Keep enduring, keep hating evil works, keep loving God, and then you will get to the paradise of God.

There are cowards and there are conquerors. There are lovers and there are fighters, and what we really need are brother-warriors, those who fight because they love. It is very easy to fight as an excuse not to love. It is easy to claim love as an excuse not to fight. It is even easier to just give up.

But as Jesus and the Spirit say to the churches: obedience and orthodoxy are good, but first, love.

People do crazy things when they are in love. Between people, sometimes so-called love makes them act like fools, even blind to the truth. But when believers are full of Spirit-fruited love, it may look crazy, but crazy in faithfulness. Such love also knows what is true and good and beautiful, less like a math formula and more like opening the window blinds. May you be stirred up to love. May you remember your first love, and may your love not fall, but climb.

And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9–11, ESV)

Revelation 2:1-7
Series: Just Conquer #5

# Introduction

You can learn a lot from other people's problems. Of course it’s possible to become more proud when you see someone else's issues, especially if you think those aren't your issues. But it can be really beneficial to see what sort of damage comes from another person who is failing in a way *you* could also fail.

In my testimony, as I look back at the churches I've been most involved with over the last 25 years, I'd say that most of them are very similar to the church in Ephesus. We're starting our study of Christ's messages to the seven churches, and, all but two of the seven have serious problems. There will be other applications to make as we hear the Spirit's exhortation to the churches, and there is good that the Lord commends among the Ephesians. But their problem was dire: they had fallen from the heights of first love.

As we saw in the last half of Revelation 1, Jesus revealed Himself to John in a vision and commissioned John to write what he was seeing. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are seven letters, or at least seven parts of one letter, to the churches named in seven cities in 1:11. The descriptions that John gave of the one whose voice he heard will return in the addresses to the churches.

Before we hear Christ's word to the Ephesian church, there are some interpreters who take these seven messages to churches in seven cities *not* as messages to actual first century churches in the named locations. Idealists say that the whole of Revelation is symbolic, including these chapters, so that the application is universal. Historicists, and apparently some Dispensational Futurists, believe that the seven churches represent seven *eras* of the church (for example, the Dispensationalists Chafer and Walvoord, as mentioned in the commentaries by by Mounce, Osborne, and Thomas). Ephesus, as the first era, for example, would be the church from Jesus' ministry through the time of the apostles. That would place us in the Laodicean era of lukewarmness.

But each of these cities was known, and the historical and geographical background for the various cities fits with the messages to them. We, along with churches in all places in all generations, can still ask what we can learn and apply. We are not limited because the letter wasn't addressed to us, it just means we have to "hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

The Ephesians are commended before and after Christ warns them and calls them to repent. They were known for their patient obedience and their committed orthodoxy. But those qualities had gotten out of proper order. The Ephesians needed to first, love.


# A Powerful Presence

Each letter--not technically a separate letter, more like individual messages in a larger letter--follows a similar structure. Every one begins with a reminder of who it is addressing the church. It's always Jesus, but a different characteristic from John's vision in chapter 1 is referenced.

> **To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: 'The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.**

I mentioned last week that I lean toward understanding **angel** as an *angel*, that is, a heavenly being, not as a human "messenger." If it is a human, that human being has some connection to and responsibility for the church, and needs to pass on this message from Jesus. If it is an angel, this being also has some identification with and responsibility for the church, *and* it emphasizes the supernatural sphere in which each church exists.

I don’t usually mention textual variants, but it is interesting that, “Instead of ‘to the angel of the (τῆς) church in Ephesus,’ some manuscripts read “to the angel of the church who (τω) [is] in Ephesus” (A C 1854 pc), which locates the angel actually in the church. … Perhaps the change was motivated by an attempt to identify the ‘angel’ as a bishop, pastor, or elder in the church” (Beale). Usually, variants like this come when a copyist is trying to “fix” what he thinks is wrong. That’s not a proof either way, but it at least means that something is out of the ordinary.

“These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars” (KJV), isa a pattern among the prophets.

The description repeated from chapter 1, verses 16 and 13, is that Jesus **holds the seven stars in his right hand,** meaning that He is the ultimate *power* behind and controlling the angels. That He **walks among the seven golden lampstands** reminds each church of His *presence*, both for their encouragement and their conscientiousness. Jesus knows.


# Falling from Love (verses 2-6)

Jesus *does* know, and He knows what is good and bad. He starts with what is commendable.

## No Compromise (verses 2-3)

> **I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary.**

This is an impressive list of faithfulness: faithfulness in deeds, faithfulness in doctrine, faithfulness in determination. The Ephesians knew the truth, they were willing to defend the truth, they were unwilling to compromise. Their **toil** was a labor to perspiration, like the Corinthians “always abounding in the work of the Lord,” and their **endurance** was holding up under burden. They didn't just do what was easy and they didn't quit when it got hard.

In their teaching, and especially their reception of teaching, they couldn't **bear with those who are evil.** They held Scriptural standards and stuck with them. They **tested those who call themselves apostles**, who claimed authority, but whose lives and/or teaching didn't match. Paul exhorted the Ephesians elders that “fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock,” (Acts 20:29). The Ephesians took that warning seriously.

Somehow related to that, maybe in being tagged as intolerant, Jesus again says that they were **enduring patiently** and **have not grown weary.** They weren't doing it for their name, but **for my name's sake.**

They were both exhausted, and not exhausted. They were working to the point of being weary, and also weren't so worn out that they quit. They are an *almost* ideal model of truthfulness.

## Bad Love (verses 4-5)

If Jesus had stopped there, we would have to have assumed that things were all good. Jesus didn't stop there.

> **But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If now, I will come to you and remove your lampstand, unless you repent.**

Jesus does not qualify this admonition. He doesn't negate the good, but this is very bad, and the threat of lampstand removal is an ominous warning.

He says that **you abandoned the love you had at first.** There is something distinct, and good, about the initial time of conversion and the affections that go along with it.

Typically, humility is at a new low, in the good sense of low, because the Spirit has brought us to see what we deserved as well as the love and sacrifice of Christ.

There is also a height of love, and the first solution that Jesus gives is to **Remember therefore from where you have fallen.** They were supposed to bring back to mind their previous focus and intensity, for sake of returning. And so the follow up instruction is **repent**, and Jesus says it twice. The Greek word for **repent** is the idea of turning away from one thing toward another. As they returned to their first love, they would also do the **first works**. They were doing works, but they weren't doing those works from love like they used to.

Obedience and orthodoxy are good, necessary even. But they are not first. Love is first, and it is possible to have faithful looking motions without the proper motivation. Paul told the Corinthians the same thing. He listed a variety of significant religious knowledge and works and sacrifices that, without love, meant *nothing* (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

“It is clear that the Ephesians loved truth more than they loved God or one another.” (Osborne) (Love is first and *last*, following the chain in 2 Peter 1:5-7.) Paul, some three decades earlier, wrote to the Ephesians to speak the truth in love, so that the whole body builds itself up in love (Ephesians 4:15-16), and now their love tanks were empty.

Not having love is a big deal. The Corinthians in particular were not loving one another in the church, but Jesus doesn't say the who the Ephesians weren't loving. It could be other Ephesians in the church, though I think it is more a lack of love for God. The “love you had at first” belongs more with conversion and worship, though the first works that belong with first love probably are most visible in horizontal relationships.

Their love was so bad that Jesus threatens to **remove your lampstand from its place**. We know that the lampstand represents the church, so that makes this somewhat odd. Jesus may come and remove the church from the church? Yes. If they weren’t living as lights then He would make that permanent. A church without love is on its way to losing status as a church, *regardless of orthodox sentences*. Jesus warns that they will lose their identity and witness as lights (John 13:35).

## Good Hate (verse 6)

Jesus returns to one of their positive characteristics, with a more specific example than in verses 2-3. **Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.** It is possible that the **Nicolaitans** were an offshoot of one of the first deacons, Nicolaus (Acts 6:5). A number of early church historians make that connection. This group is named again in the church in Pergamum (2:15), who also had issues with a group following Balaam, for whom we have more evidence of their antinomian living and compromise with idolatry.

Whoever they were and whatever their issues, Jesus hated them, and the Ephesians hated them, too. Jesus targets **the works**, but God says at other times that He hates the workers who do the works (Psalm 11:5; see also Psalm 139:21).

The Ephesian response was right, but apparently they were having issues hating what was hate-able and loving those whom they were called to love. When hate of evil spills into a suspicious first attitude, when we act as if “you are a heretic until proven otherwise,” love has fallen. Heresy hunters do not do friendly fire.


# Hear for Your Life (verse 7)

The last verse expands the application of the message to the Ephesians. A similar expansion and promise happens in all seven messages.

> **He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.'**

Jesus, the one who holds the seven stars in His hand, is the one speaking, but so is the **Spirit**. Jesus addresses the angel, and the Spirit is addressing the **churches**. Among the Ephesians, perhaps there were some who had **an ear**, meaning that they were attentive, to **hear what the Spirit says.** The concern about loveless living, though, has application beyond Ephesus.

And as in all seven messages, we meet the **one who conquers** (τῷ νικῶντι, a substantive participle in Greek emphasizing the action of the verb as characteristic of the person). Here is the overcomer, the one who endures and who endures in love. Of course Christians are tempted to give up doing good, to grow weary in doing good, to relax their hold on the truth, and to cool off in their affections. But in this spiritual battle, *believers ought to want to win*. Sometimes the winning follows the pattern of Christ's victory, which included faithfulness to death. Conquering doesn't always look like shiny trophies, it often looks like Spirit-enabled suffering. This is not #NextLevelDiscipleship, this is for everyone in the churches.

JustConquer Promise #1 is: **I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.** Later in Revelation the **tree of life** is located in the new Jerusalem, and is watered by the stream that flows from God's throne (Revelation 22:2). Its leaves are for the healing of the nations. The first time the tree is mentioned in the Bible is in Genesis (Genesis 2:9), and God kept Adam and Eve from eating it (Genesis 3:22, 24). It may be a specific contrast for the Ephesians:

> “archeological evidence that the temple was originally a ‘tree shrine,’ and that a symbol of Artemis well into the NT period was a date palm. In other words, this is also a further counter to the idolatry and immorality of Ephesus (as a fertility goddess, Artemis signified “life” (Osborne).

What eating from the **tree of life** means here is eternal life, as every variation of the promise to each church points to. Keep enduring, keep hating evil works, keep loving God, and then you will get to **the paradise of God**.


# Conclusion

There are cowards and there are conquerors. There are lovers and there are fighters, and what we really need are brother-warriors, those who fight because they love. It is very easy to fight as an excuse not to love. It is easy to claim love as an excuse not to fight. It is even easier to just give up.

But as Jesus and the Spirit say to the churches: obedience and orthodoxy are good, but first, love.

--------------------

## Charge

People do crazy things when they are in love. Between people, sometimes so-called love makes them act like fools, even blind to the truth. But when believers are full of Spirit-fruited love, it may look crazy, but crazy in faithfulness. Such love also knows what is true and good and beautiful, less like a math formula and more like opening the window blinds. May you be stirred up to love. May you remember your first love, and may your love not fall, but climb.

## Benediction:

> And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9–11, ESV)

Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

Well, once again, we have the opportunity as a part of the body of Christ to apply our hearts, our souls, our minds, and our strength to the task of worshiping God. And as we do so, we remember that our help is in the name of the Lord. May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us that your way may be known on earth, your saving power among all nations. Let the peoples praise you, O God, let all the peoples praise you. Let the nations be glad and sane for joy, for you judge the peoples with equity and guide the nations upon earth. Let the peoples praise you, O God, let all the peoples praise you.

The earth has yielded its increase. God, our God, shall bless us. God shall bless us. Let all the ends of the earth fear him. And Father, we do praise you this morning, for you are exalted on high. The heavens declare your glory. All of creation speaks of you. There is nowhere above or below the heavens we can escape your presence. The wicked rage in their stupidity and you laugh. The so-called wise use the breath you give them to explain away your existence. They ridicule us for placing our faith in you, but we are not dissuaded. We know whom we have believed in and are persuaded that you are ever present and actively involved in leading us to a greater faith, hope, and love.

May our worship this morning reflect this belief and be a pleasing fragrance as we offer it up to you. And we pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen. Sometimes in our zealousness for righteousness, we can get a little self-righteous. Two of Jesus' disciples, James and John, also known as the Sons of Thunder, got a bit carried away as recorded in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus had sent some of his messengers ahead of him to a Samaritan village to make preparations for a brief stay. Apparently, he was going to travel on from this village to Jerusalem. But the locals there in this village didn't take kindly to this and they refused to offer any help.

Well, James and John were indignant about this rejection, and they asked Jesus if he would like them to call down fire from heaven on the village. The story is almost humorous to read today, but Jesus wasn't too thrilled with their suggestion and rebuked them pretty sternly. There's a little bit of James and John in most of us when we run up against unrighteousness in others. Thoughts of retribution pop into our heads quicker than thoughts of reconciliation. There's lots to get worked up about during these days of unrest, and it feels like a little bit of fire from heaven is just what the doctor ordered. In moments like that, we need to remember the other James warning that the anger of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God.

Our anger at the evil we see around us is never the righteous kind. We just end up fighting sin with sin. Our anger demonstrates a lack of faith that God is fully in control and is working out His purposes in ways that we don't comprehend. The antidote to our self-righteous anger is to repent of our pride and trust the One who judges all men with pure righteousness. As hard as it is to believe, even the evildoer has a role to play in God's plans. Verse 16, 4 tells us, the Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked, for the day of trouble. Are bad things happening? Yes. But that is the plan. God neither needs nor wants our indignation at the evil.

He simply wants us to preach the good news in season and out and have faith that he'll deal with the evildoers in his good time. If you've been guilty of expressing self-righteous anger at evildoers, or if there's any other sins that might come to mind, now is the time we take for you to confess those sins. And as we do so, you're invited, if you're able and you desire, to go ahead and kneel and confess those sins at this time. Let's take that moment. Father, we must confess that we are easily provoked when we see sin in others and not enough when we see it in ourselves. We readily discern splinters in the eyes of others, not noticing the beam in our own.

May you increase our sensitivity to our own sin and replace our condemnation of others with compassion. May the evil we see around us motivate us to preach the gospel in all earnestness, as if men's lives depend on it, for they do. Forgive us for being too lax with our own sin and too harsh with the sin of others. May your passion for this world be the same passion that beats in our hearts. May your cause be our cause and your ways our ways. We pray this in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. You can stand. The scripture reading that affirms our forgiveness of sin comes out of Romans 5, 8 through 10.

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since therefore we have now been justified by his blood much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his son Much more now that we are reconciled shall we be saved by his life Our scripture reading for this morning comes from 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 verses 11 through 21 and I'll be reading from the English Standard Version 2nd Corinthians 5 11 through 21. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.

We are not commending ourselves to you again, but giving you cause to boast about us so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God. If we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us because we have concluded this, that one has died for all, therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who for their sake died and was raised. From now on therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away, behold the new has come. All this is from God who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ, on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake, He made Him to be sin, who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Let's pray together. Father, passages like this one are absolutely loaded with truth that is good for us to recall regularly, and it orients us, and it confounds us, and it gives us evidence once again that the Bible is not from man's mind, nor is the gospel the construct of man's creativity. We don't think like this, you do. And to think that Christ, the sinless one, has become sin so that we might become. Righteousness is crazy and it is glorious and it evokes our praise and we do gather this morning with a strong desire that you have given us to worship you. It's easy for us to take for granted as well. Many graces to us, even in these times, it's so refreshing to lock arms and worship with people who assemble without fear.

Not because they're foolish, but because their hope is not in doctors or masks or politicians, but in the accomplished work of your son. Because of his work we have, eternal security, reasons to praise you and un-condemable status. It is in his name that we make our prayers. Known to you now, we rejoice with Colin and Alison Davis at the safe arrival of Luke Timothy last night. And from the pictures, it seems as though he is very alert and Alison seems to be doing very well. We pray for little Luke to thrive and for Alison to recover smoothly. We ask that you grant relief to Sean who's dealing with this back pain that is excruciating at times, do help the doctors to know exactly how best to help him and help them to find a doctor who can do so.

May his recovery be speedy and full and without, and may have no further recurrences of his problems. As the Higgins await a date for Morgan's upcoming surgery, we ask that the tissue would be benign and that you'd grant comfort to Morgan and the family as they continue to rest in your sovereign control. We pray that Dave would recover completely as well. We thank you that he seems to be recovering well from his recent knee replacement and his body seems to be responding well to the new knee. And we thank you for that. We continue to give you praise for the recent announcement by Debbie's doctor that she is cautiously cancer-free.

We pray that her next scan at the end of January would only confirm this is, and that we thank you for the demonstration of your grace and glory. We pray too for my sister, Julie, her healing and her own battle with cancer, grow her dependence on you and her faith, we pray. We ask that you would grant steadfastness and joy to Ralph and Mary Kay, to Marjorie and Dawn, as they are basically shut in at this point. We know that they are prevented from contact with their families. They extended contact indoors anyway by the current restrictions. And we pray that you'd be their delightful companion in this time and allow the restrictions to lift soon as we continue to know more about the virus we're dealing with and we continue to do a better job dealing with it.

We do pray for the president and first lady as they test a positive for COVID-19 this week. We pray that they would recover quickly and that you would use their sickness for a greater good. We do pray that you would raise up political leaders in this upcoming election who would rule us according to biblical principles. We pray that there would be a very quiet majority. It seems as though those who would upset what our ancestors have worked to establish here have the microphone at present. We ask you to grant wisdom to the American people that they may vote with wisdom and not just preserve what we have, but to take it still further for your kingdom's sake.

We pray for the Good Shepherd Children's Home asking that you would give wisdom and joy to Sajja and Yancy as they love and care for the young ladies of the home, we ask that their influence would be broad and lasting, measured not by days or weeks, but by generations there in Southern India.

We ask that you would raise up many families in Western Washington with whom Antioch adoptions may work to place foster children of our area in forever homes. We ask that you would grant us all a love for adoption that you evidently have. Having one begotten son and millions of adopted sons, We pray that that would be as glorious to us as it is to you. We thank you for the work of Ice Square Ministries for putting in the hearts of Josh, Lingal and his team this burning to win the billion Muslims of the world for Christ. We ask you to give them wisdom, creativity and all the resources they need to do so and may their full dependence be on you.

For Matthew Smith and Project 92 and the inroads for the gospel that have been afforded by the recent circumstances, we give you praise. We ask that you would continue to just pave the way there. and use, once again, a calamity and sadness and inconvenience for your own purposes and good. We do pray for the faithful parents of our congregation who are laboring hard to educate their children, to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We ask that you would give them joy, success, grace, and wisdom. The need for Christian enculturation has never been more necessary and difficult than it is now. We pray that you have blessed their efforts.

We think of the other Marysville churches that are gathered and worshiped this morning. Please give us courage, humility, and wisdom, and give that courage, humility, and wisdom to our area pastors as well. Give to a voracious appetite for worship to Christians in our community, and may Marysville develop a gravity of the good sword due to the presence of the faithful and due to your favor.

We do ask that this morning you enable us to offer praise that is fitting for who you are, that we may worship in spirit and in truth as Christ has commanded, and as we consciously behold Him, conform us a bit more into His image. And we pray these things in His name, amen. And Father, indeed, you are holy, holy, holy. This hymn gives us just a glimpse of what it might be like to be in your presence with all the heavenly hosts and all of the saints singing those words. And we thank you, Father, that you sent your son down here to be with us, Emmanuel dwelling with us here on earth, to give us a glimpse in the flesh of what you are like.

And thank you for your word, which instructs us, which tells us how we can be holy like you are holy. And as we look into it now, I pray for myself that I would be able to serve it up without messing it up. And as it goes out into this group, that it'll find good soil and take deep roots. Father, we just thank you and bless you for all of your many, many gifts. In Jesus' name, amen. You may be aware that there was a big fight the other night that made national news. I'm referring to the so-called presidential debate.

As embarrassing as that fiasco was, it was largely par for the course these days when comes to civic discourse. America is increasingly a polarized nation with an ever-shrinking middle ground. According to one national survey, up to 70% of those polled said that America is going in the wrong direction. Of course, that does not mean that there's any kind of consensus on what direction we should be going. Half of those people want us to go left. Half of those people want us to go right. The bottom line is that we are a deeply divided nation at this point in history. I personally am a bit of a news junkie, not as bad as Dave Light, but I'm a news junkie. I also keep my eye on various social media outlets and I've noticed a trend among those who believe in the sovereignty of God sounding more and more alarmist in their posts. The The tone of those posts is often fighty, not unlike what we see amongst the politicians today.

Now, because I'm interested in politics and I have a lot of opinions, Gail periodically asks if I think I should run for office. When I think about it, I always conclude that it's not for me. I would probably end up in jail for poking somebody in the nose. However, I do admire those who enter the fray in an attempt to bring a voice of reason to the debate. Ultimately, the only real hope for the cultural mess we are in is the gospel. It's the gospel that brings hope and lasting change. Now that should be a duh point to anyone listening today. But I want you to consider if too many Bible believers have in some way conflated their politics with the gospel, and that has led to rhetoric that sounds more Trumpian and less like gospel.

I ask these questions because it seems that for all of the right values and ideas our team is digitally blasting, it only provokes more angry volleys from the other side. Now of course, much of this is because light and dark will never have fellowship, but is some of it because we are unintentionally presenting another gospel, one that is offensive, not because of what God has said, but because of what we are saying or how we're saying it.

As we seek to speak the gospel into our culture, it is critical that we remember what the ministry of the gospel is all about. Bring you back to the passage Jonathan read this morning, 2 Corinthians 5, just a few verses there, verses 17 through 20. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. That is in Christ God, was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting us the message of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ. God making his appeal through us, we implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. If you were to exegete that passage, you could not ignore the fact that the word reconcile shows up five times. It's certainly a key word in that section. Clearly, reconciliation is at the heart of the gospel. Man's reconciliation to God, and by extension, man's reconciliation with other men. Notice from the passage that we have been given the ministry of reconciliation and we are entrusted with it. It's a sacred duty to pursue reconciliation. Other verses help affirm this call to reconciliation.

Romans 12-8, if possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Matthew 5-9, blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Now, as I've already stated, I'm not suggesting that we try and find a way to be at total peace with a non-elect. That is not possible. What I am arguing for is that we reflect on what it practically means to be entrusted with the Ministry of Reconciliation and then let that understanding begin to permeate how we interact with those we engage with. So with the time remaining, I want to take a look at the topic of reconciliation and see how we can do a better job at being peacemakers inside and outside the family of God.

This is not a call to compromise the hard truth of the gospel. It's a call to make sure that if someone is going to be offended, it is the gospel that offends and not our insufferableness. The Puritan Richard Baxter said, he that is not a son of peace is not a son of God. other sins destroy the church consequentially, but division and separation demolish it directly. Baxter's right. Allowing a conflict to fester without seeking reconciliation can quickly grow into a cancer that strangles the life out of relationships and dishonors the God in whose image we've been created. Not only that, it totally messes up our witness to the world. Jesus said, the world will know that we are as disciples by the kind of love that we show each other.

That kind of love necessitates true reconciliation. So let's start with some definitions. Reconciliation at its root means exchange. In accounting terms, we talk about reconciling our checkbook with the bank statement until the two are in agreement, or we hopefully make them reconciled. Some of you cheat and just go ahead and write the number in. We match debits and credits until the two documents are balanced with each other. We use statements like, I'm trying to reconcile what I believe to be true with what I am hearing or seeing. This idea of trying to get the two things to come together. In relationships, reconciliation refers to the exchange of hostility, anger, or war for love, friendship, or peace.

that reconciliation is not simply the cessation of hostility. Just because someone has stopped shooting at you does not mean they are reconciled to you. Some have suggested that person to person reconciliation is not always possible or even required by God. I have had believers tell me that, well, we don't really have to be brought totally back together. But is that really true? Reconciliation occurs when there's been, and this is the process that typically goes on for reconciliation. It starts off, reconciliation occurs when there has been a disrupted or broken relationship which is followed by the assigning of responsibility and or guilt for the breach leading to overt actions taken to remove the source of hostility resulting in the complete restoration of original friendly relations.

Any process that stops short of this is not true reconciliation. A lot of broken relationships come back to a point of cessation of hostilities. There's an uneasy truce, but they don't go the full distance for a restoration of normal friendly relations, and that's what reconciliation brings about. There isn't such a thing as partial reconciliation. That is, reconciliation does not bring about half restoration. It brings about complete restoration of a relationship to where it was before the offense occurred. Now, you've got to be careful here. I'm not saying that there might not be some lasting consequences resulting from an offense.

For example, if a Christian employee steals from a Christian employer, The result may very well be the loss of employment, and they won't get their job back. Relationally, however, the employee and employer can and should be fully reconciled once forgiveness and restitution have occurred. If the two remain relationally estranged after forgiveness has occurred, they are not biblically reconciled. One of the powerful aspects of the gospel is that it turns enemies into friends. Consider Romans 5, 8 through 11. But God demonstrates his own love towards us and that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Consider that.

While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more than having been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only this, we who also exulting God God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we've been received, who we have now received at reconciliation. The whole reconciliation process takes us from enemies to friends. And again, I just wanna emphasize in that passage the idea that while we were yet sinners is when God stepped in.

In this well-known passage, we see the results of true reconciliation from enemy to friend. God could have chosen to forgive us our sins and remain relationally aloof from us. He could have decided that all he wanted was our worship while revealing as little as possible about himself. Instead, he forgave us our sins and invites us into relationship with him. He takes us from enemy combatants to children who exult in him. Now God would have been completely righteous to destroy his enemies. Instead, he converted those enemies into friends by bestowing grace and mercy upon them. Abraham Lincoln was once criticized for his kindly attitude towards his enemies.

They said, why do you try to make friends with your enemies? Somebody asked, you should try to destroy them instead. Lincoln responded and said, am I not destroying my enemies when I make them my friends? In conflict resolution, Christians should not settle for a pseudo-peace. I've seen that occur too many times within the context of churches, where they call it peace, but it's not really peace. It's really just a truce. It's a pseudo-peace that only calls for hostility to cease, but rather not a real peace where friendly relations are restored. That is the Father's expectation. We can't always guarantee that outcome, but it should be what we pray and strive for as much as possible.

We've already seen that reconciliation is a core element of the gospel. Without it, you don't have the gospel. So consider now that not only have we been the recipients of God's reconciliation ministry through Christ, but we are now called to join that ministry of reconciliation. And again, just direct you back to 2 Corinthians 5, particularly verses 18 and 19. Now all things are from God who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. Sounds like a job description. Namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them.

And he has committed to us, or some translations, he has entrusted to us the word of reconciliation. I mean, we can gloss past some of those emphases there. I mean, God has entrusted to us. He has given us the ministry, the job of reconciliation. And think through the relationships you've had in the past that have gone south. And did true reconciliation occur, or as so is often common, did we just allow those relationships to drift apart and just say, maybe in heaven we'll get it straight? It's a pretty amazing few verses. We who once were the enemies of God have now just been made friends to God. and we have been made his ambassadors to the world.

That is real reconciliation. If we are called to join his ministry of reconciling men to God, how important do you think it is that we practice the reconciliation in all of our relationships? Obviously, the context of the passage we were just looking at is reconciling a man to God, the unbelievers, but it get by extension, it makes sense that reconciliation is something we ought to be practicing. It'd make no sense for God to say, Go out there and reconcile them, but you guys can keep fighting inside your house. You can see how hypocritical it would be for us to run around calling enemies of God to be reconciled to him, and at the same time we are refusing to be reconciled with others.

Where is the power in that message? Who would view our message as good news? One of the most powerful ways we can lend credence to the gospel is for others to see how it has revolutionized our relationships with others. If it's possible for man to be reconciled to God, how much more should it be possible for man to be reconciled to man? The chasm between us as God is infinite. The chasms between us and people we have issues with doesn't even become close to approaching that. The failure of Christians to be reconciled one to another makes all public proclamations of God's love putrid, pathetic, and powerless to those whom we preach.

among the brethren, rooted in reconciliation, proves the veracity of our message to the world. And conversely, when we refuse to be reconciled, it shows that we are deceived and the truth is not in us. Very well-known passage, 1 John 2, 9 through 11. The one who says he's in the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. Now some will argue, they say, I don't hate my brother, but I just don't see a need to try to pursue that relationship and bring it back to a state of friendliness.

They don't wish evil upon the other person, but they just don't care to restore the relationship. Is it possible that that's just a nice Christianese way of whitewashing the real truth in the matter? Do we somehow think that it doesn't matter to God? Do we really think that it doesn't bother God to send his son to die so that we might be reconciled to him if his children then choose to live in a state of on-reconciliation with each other? What do you think's gonna happen someday when we all get to heaven? Is God going to allow us to continue in that on-reconciled state? Is he going to wall off parts of his kingdom so we don't have to bump into each other?

Okay, you stay in that end of the house and you go to your room over there and don't come out till dinner. What's going to happen in heaven? It seems like it would behoove us to make every effort to be reconciled here and now rather than wait until then. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to have that kind of a median in heaven where God says, OK, before you start to get to enjoy the pearly gates or the streets of gold, you guys never got your act together on earth. So come here. We're going to have a little powwow. I'm not sure that's actually what happens, but if it does, I don't want to have that kind of a meeting be the first thing in heaven that has to occur.

A reconciliation that does not restore relationships, like a car that has an engine and a transmission, but no clutch. You can rev the engine and you can shift the gears, but you're not going anywhere. So now let's talk a little bit about attitudes and actions that promote or prevent reconciliation. By now it should be evident that the gospel is intended to bring about reconciliation, vertically with God and horizontally with man. The one exception in horizontal relationships is when it is the gospel itself that separates. Jesus told us that the gospel will at times separate intimate relationships. Luke 12, 51 through 53.

Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you no, but rather division. For from now on, five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. But other than the opposition to the gospel, there should be nothing that prevents reconciliation from occurring. When it comes to trying to resolve a conflict, a conflict resolution expert by the name of Ron Crable, by way of tongue and cheek, listed eight ways that you can turn a disagreement into a feud.

So number one, be sure to develop and maintain a healthy fear of conflict, letting your own feelings build up so you are in an explosive frame of mind. Two, if you must state your concerns, be as vague and general as possible, Then the other person cannot do anything practical to change the situation. Three, assume you know all the facts and you are totally right.

The use of a clenching Bible verse is helpful. Speak prophetically for truth and justice. Do most of the talking. Four, with a touch of defiance, announce your willingness to talk with anyone who wishes to discuss the problem with you, but do not take steps to initiate the conversation. Five, latch tenaciously onto whatever evidence you can find that shows the other person is merely jealous of you. Six, judge the motivation of the other party on any previous experience that showed failure or unkindness. Keep track of any angry words. Two more. Seven, if the discussion should, alas, become serious, View the issue as a win-lose struggle.

Avoid possible solutions and go for total victory in unconditional surrender. Don't get too many options on the table. And then eight, pass the buck. If you are about to get cornered into a solution, indicate you are without power to settle. You need your partner, your spouse, your bank, you know, whatever, make an excuse. Now, Crayville's list would be humorous if it wasn't so spot on with how conflict resolution meetings usually go. And I've been in plenty of those. With this list as examples of how not to resolve conflict, let's then consider now some biblical principles to keep in mind that will help us either not get into an unreconciled state or will help us become reconciled if a breach has already occurred.

And so I think I have six things here that you can list. ways to, again, not get into trouble, or if you are in trouble relationally, how to get out of it. Number one, the priority of God's glory. First and foremost is in anything we do should be the glory of God, 1 Corinthians 10.31. If we make the conflict about us and our rights, we're already off to our wrong start. Typically, an offense leaves us hurt or angry. We begin to replay the offense over and over in our mind, and it keeps our emotions stirred up. Realize the primary offense is first and foremost against God and secondly against us. See the offender first and foremost as a sinner in need of God's forgiveness and reconciliation.

See yourself as the agent God is trying to use to demonstrate his love for that sinner. Remember, you are his ambassadors, And as such, it's not your job to unload your wad on the offending party. Before you respond to the offenders, spend time in prayer asking God for clear thinking and a calm heart. Approach the offender graciously and think the best. Perhaps they do not even know they've offended you. If they do respond poorly, look to Christ as your example. Remember how when he was personally attacked, he did not defend himself. It was only when he was defending the Father's glory that he became more aggressive.

If you are the one being confronted, do not become defensive. Whether you intended to offend or not is not the issue. It's possible that the offended party may even have unrealistic or unfair expectations that have led them to be offended, but don't make that the issue. Do not minimize the fact that the other person is offended. Show concern for their offense and take steps to either clear up any misunderstandings or seek forgiveness if in fact you were wrong. Do not be hasty to excuse yourself. Carefully consider if you in fact have sinned in any way by an act of omission or commission. The flesh does not like being exposed and it's easy for us to initially deny or minimize our failures.

So keep the glory of God in mind. Second, a proper perspective on our own sin. A huge point to keep in mind when we are responding to an offense is our own sin. If we see an offense as too great to get over, if somebody else has offended me and I'm saying, I'm sorry, I just can't, I can't be reconciled, that was too big of a deal, we then have a poor understanding of our own sin in the eyes of a holy God. John Piper wrote in his book, The Momentary Marriage, a profound understanding and fear of God's wrath is exactly what many people need, because without it, the gospel is diluted down to mere human relations and loses its biblical glory.

Without a biblical view of God's wrath, you will be tempted to think that your wrath, your anger against your enemy, is simply too big to overcome because you have never really tasted what it is like to see an infinitely greater wrath overcome by grace, namely God's wrath against you. You think that person offended you? Ponder for a little while how offensive our sin was to God and the price Christ had to pay. No matter how great an offense seems towards us, it can never begin to compare to our offense before God. Holding onto the runs others have committed towards us shows wanton disregard for how much the Father has forgiven us.

To the offender, again, I say, do not be too quick to slough off responsibility for your actions. If you honestly can't see your sin in the situation, thank the other person for bringing the concern to you, and then ask them for time to perfectly consider what they've brought to you. Once you've taken the time to consider, then follow up with the other person and make sure the issue is resolved. Thirdly, lead with love. Sometimes we can avoid conflict in the first place by letting love cover a sin. At first Peter 4.8 tells us, above all, keep fervent in your love for one another because love covers a multitude of sins.

Many quarrels among Christians would never start in the first place if they would just apply this verse. Now clearly there are times when something must be said when serious offenses occur. Nevertheless, sloshing a little grace on others when their clay pot bumps into yours, will go a long way towards minimizing offenses. We need to develop thicker skins and much more tolerance and grace extended to one another for those minor offenses that inevitably occur. When we must confront someone, approach it as an act of love and not as an opportunity to vent your frustration with them. The goal is to bring them back to a point where their testimony glorifies God.

Recall that God loved us while we were yet sinners. How much more should we love a brother or sister who has offended us? Keep going back to that comparison. We have no excuse not to seek reconciliation. If you are the offender, do not react with hurt, anger, or annoyance when confronted. Love is not arrogant. It does not act on becomingly. It does not seek its own. It is not provoked. You recognize those all from 1 Corinthians 13. Remind yourself that no one is perfect. If you find yourself never agreeing that you have offended anyone, then there's a good chance that you don't have an accurate view of yourself.

We all have a little bit of that tendency like, well, I never offend anybody. But the reality is as we do more often than we know. I lost track. Fourth, are we on four? Four or five, some are on there. Have a heart of humility. Sometimes we are offended because we expect to be treated better. Our own self-importance can cause us to feel slighted or unappreciated by others and leads to feelings of resentment. Again, consider Christ's example and how He humbled Himself in order to reconcile us to God. In light of His example, I think we can afford to be not too hung up on the issues of fairness or being justified.

Jesus never made the issue about Himself personally. The battle was always over issues of truth and righteousness and the glory of God. There may be times when you are pursuing reconciliation that you won't get the other person to agree or come to terms with every aspect of the offense. Without glossing over real issues, don't nitpick every little detail in order to show how justified you were to be offended. There's something in us that just wants to, you know, what's the saying, you know, show everybody how dark your teabag is. You just want to keep going over every little minor point just until they really understand just how much they hurt you.

There's really no need to do that. Allow room for God to work on the other person's heart. We are not called to be the Holy Spirit in anyone's life. It may take time for the offender to fully recognize their sin. If you are the offender, humility goes a long way to taking the heat and emotion out of a conflict. Seek to understand why what you did offended the other person. invalidating their feelings or making excuses will only serve to provoke them more. In cases where you honestly believe you did nothing wrong, simply acknowledge the other person's issue and ask that you can, what you could do differently to avoid the offense the next time.

And in the next principle of five, I think, answer with gentleness, Proverbs 51, 15, one, a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. We must get control of our tongue and our emotions when we are working out conflict. Gentleness and self-control are two aspects of the fruit of the spirit. It is hard to argue if only one person is actually fighting. If a discussion starts to get heated, there's nothing wrong with halting the discussion for a time for the purpose of prayer and calming down. A lot of couples need to learn that when it's getting hot, Just somebody be smart enough to say, you know what, we do need to stop.

We will talk some more, but let's take a time out. Calm down. Remember, in these conflicts, you're looking for, you're not looking for a winner and a loser. You are looking for a God honoring resolution to the conflict. James 1, 19 through 20, tells us to be quick to hear and slow to speak, and it also tells us that the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. Take that as a warning. When anger enters the conversation, hope of a righteous outcome goes out the window. So you must learn to recognize when that's beginning to happen and take that time out. And then sixth, forgive and forget. Once a person acknowledges their offense and asks forgiveness, we must be quick to grant it.

At all times, we must have the willingness to forgive. Holding onto a grudge is sin on our part and reflects again on our lack of understanding of God's forgiveness of us. Part of forgiveness is forgetting, but I do not mean the act of erasing the occurrence from your memory. We can't do that. You know, some people say, well, if you really forgive me, you forget it. We can't do that. We're human. But this forgetting is the process that every time it does come back to your mind, and it probably will, you don't sit there and camp on it. You don't relive it. don't just let all the emotions come back. You recognize that you're thinking about it, and then you say, OK, that's been dealt with.

We've been reconciled. If it's an attack of the devil to try to stir up anger again, rebuke and pray, whatever you got to do, but don't dwell on it. Satan will want us to relive past offenses in order to prevent true reconciliation from occurring. We are responsible to actively bring such thoughts captive and choose to not dwell on them. Remembering, again, how much sin we've been forgiven is a good way of helping to make other sins towards us less grievous and less likely to keep coming to mind. I keep going back to that point over and over again because I found that to be extremely powerful, to meditate on my sin before my God and what Jesus had to do to forgive me of my sin.

Any other issue I've bumped into a long my life can't even come close to comparing that. And so that's the pattern of what we're trying to follow when it comes to reconciliation. If we are the offender and are being confronted, we need to humbly acknowledge that the other party has been offended. Whether we meant to offend is not the issue and offense has occurred. Be sincere in your apology. You know, we all know what those half-hearted apologies sound like. You know, and CK Chesterton says a stiff apology is really just a second insult. When somebody's apologized to you and you know it's not sincere, it just tends to make you even angrier.

Often a minor offense becomes a major one simply because the offender made light of the offense and is insincere in offering an apology. So in summary, for most of us here today, this has been a very remedial review of reconciliation. I bring it to our attention not as something new, but rather something for us to remind ourselves as we relate to one another and to those we are called to be a witness to. As basic and simple as the topic is to understand, it seems to be one of the harder Christian principles to practice. It's a sad reality that many relationships between Christians remain strained or awkward because they can't achieve true reconciliation.

Have we come to a place where we just accept that this is a reality in the fallen world, that we're gonna have strained relationships, and so be it. If we have been entrusted with a ministry of reconciliation, shouldn't we do everything in our power to make sure we are reconciled in those relationships? And then, extending beyond our Christian relationships, how should our understanding that we have been given a ministry of reconciliation affect the way we engage those who do not know Christ? Are we known by our devotion to Christ, or our commitment to other causes? Do our words, digital or otherwise, carry a sweet fragrance of Christ to those who are being saved?

If you find yourself taking a lot of heat from those who are opposed to you, is it because they are hostile to the gospel, or are they hostile to you personally because of the way you're communicating your ideas? It appears the darkness is getting darker by the day. The enemies of God are getting bolder. Our job is to be faithful ambassadors of Christ and to appeal to those enemies to be reconciled to God. That is job one, not winning the political debate, not winning any other argument. Those are fine, done rightly. But job one is bringing men reconciliation. May that be the duty in the forefront of our thinking each time we decide to engage our family, friends, and others.

And Father, we do ask that as we have been forgiven much by you that we would remember that when we find ourselves in conflict with others, that we would not be like the man in the parable who was forgiven much and then went back and strangled his friend for much less debt, but that we would have a heart of humility and all these affairs that we would strive for reconciliation in all of our relationships, that we would not let our embarrassment, our awkwardness, our pride, anything interfere with that. But to understand that this is what you called us to. And Father, I know in this room there are people who are already thinking of those who they are not reconciled with and are wondering what they can do.

I just pray that you might give them wisdom, that perhaps you'll cause them to bump into these individuals and allow a conversation startup, but that all of these unresolved relational matters that are still floating around would begin to get cleaned up, and that that would really speak loudly to the community around who are watching and observing how we Christians function and how we love one another. And so we thank you again for the reconciliation that we've received in Christ. And again, may we be faithful to model that likewise in following your example. We just pray now in your Son, Jesus' name, amen. One of the greatest declarations that we find in the entire Bible is, there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

I mean, them shouting words, right? Thanks a lot, amen. We must never let that truth of the, a truth of that statement failed to overwhelm us with its enormity. All of us at birth were handed a ledger. On the one side was original sin to which we spend a lifetime adding more sins. And remember that just one sin is enough to earn eternal damnation. On the other side of the ledger before Christ is all of our righteous deeds that we've ever done. The problem is that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags according to the prophet Isaiah. Jesus took that ledger that we could never hope to reconcile and gave us one we can never on reconcile. It's in a permanent state reconciliation even though we still sin, where sin increases grace abounds all the more. He did it by becoming sin for us even though he personally knew no sin.

In so doing he reconciled us to God, never again to be alienated because of sins past, present, or future. You don't ever have to balance the checkbook again. Amen. Of course this does not mean that we have license to go on sinning. Our reconciliation comes with a renewed mind and heart that finds sin repulsive. Colossians 1 21 through 22 tells us, And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, He has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, In order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him. Unless you are planning on hiding under a rock this coming week, this may have been the most peaceful few hours you're going to get to experience. The charge for you this week then is to take the peace of Christ and seek to spread it far and wide. Our charge comes out of Romans 14.9. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for the mutual building of each other.