Revelation 3

Revelation — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Revelation 4 - 5

00:00

Revelation 3

RevelationSteve Gregg

In this talk, Steve Gregg discusses Revelation 3 - a chapter in which Jesus sends letters to the seven churches of Asia. Gregg notes that two of these letters contain no negative feedback, but rather assess the churches as not being truly "alive." He stresses the importance of prioritizing the lordship of Jesus and the kingdom of God over earthly concerns like "bodies, bricks, [and] bucks." Gregg also analyzes perplexing statements in this chapter, such as the notion of having one's name "blotted out" of the book of life. Ultimately, he encourages listeners to persevere in their faith and seek special access to God through Jesus.

Transcript

Last time we took chapter 2, which contains four of the seven churches that received individual letters from Christ. It seems that the entire book of Revelation was written to the seven churches. That is what I gather from chapter 1, verse 10, where he says, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice as of a trumpet, verse 11, saying, I am Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.

What you see, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches, which are in Asia, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea. So, this book is sent to these seven churches, probably as what we call a circular epistle, one that would make the rounds. The geographical position of these cities in the order they're listed would encourage us to think of the letter first going to Ephesus, from Patmos, and then circulating in a rather horseshoe shape around to all the cities until it got to Laodicea.

And so, it was probably a circular epistle, but each one of the churches received a short letter tailored to their situation. Custom written by Christ for where they were at and what they needed to know. And so, in chapters 2 and 3, we have all seven of those short epistles.

Four of them were in chapter 2, and we have the remaining three in chapter 3, and that's where we come to this time. And to the angel of the church of Sardis, write, These things says he who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your works, that you have a name, that you are alive, but you're dead.

Be watchful and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember, therefore, how you have received and heard. Hold fast and repent.

Therefore, if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. You have a few names, even in Sardis, who have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the book of life.

But I will confess his name before my father and before his angels. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. Now, Sardis was a city that had very ancient origins, way back in the 12th century BC, right after the fall of the Hittite Empire.

Now, the Hittites were in Canaan when Abraham went there, and they spread throughout much of the Middle East, the Hittites. They were a Canaanite people. When the Hittite Empire fell, shortly after that, Sardis rose as the capital city of an ancient, ancient empire called Lydia.

And Lydia remained an important empire in the ancient world, though we've probably never heard of it unless we've studied the book of Revelation and had to find out something about where Sardis was and what its history was. Lydia was very important in the time of the Persian Empire, and also in the time of Alexander the Great, and it existed under the Roman Empire. Actually, during the time of the Roman Empire in AD 17, the city was destroyed by an earthquake, but it was rebuilt.

And it remained important up into the Byzantine period, I believe up until about the 13th century. So, from about the 12th century BC to the 13th century AD, this city had importance, though it has been in ruins for centuries now. At least by the beginning of the 19th century, it was in ruins, and there is a, by it, by the ruins, there is a village called Sart, which is, obviously, has its name very similar to the ancient city's name.

It's just a village there now. This church is one about which Jesus does not have anything good to say. Now, he doesn't say as many negative things about it as he says about some of the other churches, but he doesn't have anything good to say about it.

It's typical in these letters for Jesus to say, I know your works, and then to say something good about them, something good about their works. But then, very typically, to say, but I have a few things against you, or I have this against you. That is, he knows their works, and he tells them what he thinks about their works, and usually there's something good to say, and then usually there's also something negative.

There's only two of the letters out of the seven about which Jesus has nothing negative to say. He has nothing negative to say to the Church of Smyrna, the second one, nor to the Church of Philadelphia, the sixth one. All the others he has something negative to say about.

But only two letters he has nothing good to say about, and that's Sardis and Laodicea. It's interesting, some of the churches that he had both good and bad things to say about, the bad things were really bad. I mean, like having Jezebel teaching the people in the church to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols, or having the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which things Jesus hates.

Some of these churches that were actually, had some good things to say about them, had some really, really bad things to say about them. This church doesn't have much, there's not much really exceptionally bad about it. It just doesn't have anything to commend it.

What he says about it is, it has a name that it's alive, but it's dead. I suppose the only thing good about it is its name. It has a name that it's alive, it has a good reputation, but it's a dead church.

Now it's interesting that it would be viewed, probably in the eyes of men, as a church that had life, a living church. But by the assessment that Christ gives it, it's not alive. And I think this often can happen to a church, that it actually starts out, perhaps in a revival, actually starts out in a living way.

And it soon acquires a reputation for itself of being a wow, it's a really hopping church, it's really a live church. The churches around it envy it. The pastors invite it to speak at church growth conventions and so forth, because he's got a successful church.

But eventually, once they have that reputation, sometimes the original motivation for the good things they were doing cease to exist. It may be that they began with real purity, and their works were works of faith and works of love. But eventually, the works can sort of be done to just maintain the reputation that the church has.

Once the church knows that everyone looks at it as a living church, then it's under pressure to keep that reputation going. And sometimes the motivation to keep the reputation replaces the pure motives for doing good works before. And Jesus says, as a criticism of this church, I have not found your works perfect before God.

Again, this is kind of not really a slam. He didn't say your works are terrible. He said they're just not perfect.

But that's bad enough. Your works are not perfect because they're not coming from a living faith. The church is dead.

Now, how is it that a church that is dead might be mistaken for a living church? How could it have a name that it lives? I think because people look at the wrong things to decide whether a church is successful, whether a church is living. Sometimes if it's getting bigger, it's assumed, well, it must be living. Only living things grow.

This is a growing church. But it might not really be living. It might just be spreading.

It might just be getting fat and not growing up. It might not be real growth that shows for a positive direction of life. It could actually be a degeneration.

After all, as people get older, sometimes they spread a little bit. And that's not an improvement. It's not an evidence that they're full of virility and full of life.

Usually it means they've been sitting on the couch too much. And a church can get that way too. It can look like it's getting bigger.

But by the standards that people measure the life of a church, it's improving. But by the standards that Christ measures a church by, it is not improving. It's dead.

A friend of mine who is a pastor in a denomination that I consider to be a relatively faithful denomination, an evangelical group whose forebears, the founder of the group, was a man full of the Holy Spirit. And he actually was a man with a healing ministry, although they were not a Pentecostal or charismatic group. He was just a man that God anointed, and a lot of people were healed through this man when the denomination was started.

Later, the next leader in the denomination was a man respected by all evangelicals and who's written many books that are very edifying. Some people find them to be the most edifying books they've ever read by this particular author. And yet, the denomination today, I had a friend who was a pastor, and he said he had to leave the denomination.

He said, every time he went to pastor's conferences, they were pushing, pushing, pushing the three Bs, which are bodies, bricks, and bucks. These are the measures of church growth. More bodies, more bricks, that is bigger buildings, and more bucks.

And if a pastor could show up at the convention and say, our church has added 25% more attendants, our budget has increased by half a million dollars this year, this past year. We're adding on a new wing. That was the sign that the church was alive and successful.

This was the measure of success for a church in the eyes of that denomination. And I won't name them because it could be any denomination. That's how churches eventually go.

They start out with a living movement, and then they learn how to keep perpetuating it mechanically. And then they begin to look to signs of growth that aren't really signs of spirituality. And then they promote those things that people consider to be growth in life in a church.

But all the while, they go dead. And I'm not saying every denomination has gone dead. But I'm saying that there is that tendency.

There's that tendency to compromise on the radical zeal that often existed when a movement began. Almost all denominations begin with zealous people. I mean, they come from somewhere.

They're either new converts to a movement, or they come out of another movement, which means they're more excited about the new thing than the old one they were in. There's some enthusiasm. There's some often love for God, often a zeal for the kingdom.

But give it a generation or two, and the movement just runs like a machine. And they just need the pastor there to turn the crank to keep the gears moving. And they're dead.

But the gears are still moving. There's a great deal of flesh, a great deal of human effort expended in turning the crank, and the gears still move. So everyone looks at it and says, this is a living church.

But it's not a living church. It's dead. Now, I'm not the judge of that.

Jesus certainly is. And Jesus is the one who said this particular church was like that. Still, everyone thought it was a living church, but it wasn't.

It was dead. Its works were not perfect before God. They apparently had works that were decent.

But decent and perfect are not the same. And, of course, you might say, well, nobody's perfect. How could Jesus hold such a standard to a church that had perfect works? Well, perfect, in this sense, no doubt, means if you go down and look at the roots, that you have perfect motivations.

Christians can have perfect motivations and yet fall short of their intentions. But many times their intentions shift from what is pleasing to God, what a church ought to be governed by, perfect love, for example, as John calls it in his epistle. Perfect love is the best motivation for any kind of religious or Christian works.

And often that is what happens. You know, the Church of Ephesus we read, they were doing many good works, but they had left their first love. And so I'm assuming that the imperfection of their works had something to do with what was below the surface, not what was above the surface.

The works they were doing were sufficient to impress outsiders looking in. That's why they had a name, that they were alive. People looked on and said, those works, that church has good works.

Jesus looked and saw, this is just pumping up a corpse. This is just something under the surface is not as it should be. And I suspect it was the motivations had shifted from that of pleasing the Lord to probably pleasing men in the sense of, hey, we've got a good reputation.

We don't lose that. Let's keep our reputation good. And when you begin to worry about your reputation before men, well, as Paul said in Galatians 1 10, if I were yet trying to please men, I would not be the servant of Christ.

You can't please man and Christ consistently. So he tells them to remember how they had received and heard, apparently what their original message as they understood it was when they first got saved or began as a church, which was probably much a purer message. Now, we don't know when they were established as a church.

They were a church in Asia. And in Acts, it says that while Paul spent two and a half or three years in Asia, that actually he spent the time in Ephesus. It says all Asia heard the gospel.

Paul might have made forays out of Ephesus to these nearby cities and evangelize, or he might have sent people like a Paphos or Paphroditus out to evangelize the cities nearby and to report back to him as he would later, for example, send Timothy to Ephesus when Paul was no longer there. In any case, this church was probably founded when the other churches of Asia were. While Paul was in Ephesus and probably through some Pauline effort, either Paul himself or one of his associates going and preaching the gospel obviously would have had an uncompromising message.

Paul was not a man to compromise, and he didn't associate with workers who were interested in compromise. And so the message these people had heard was an uncompromising kingdom of God, lordship of Jesus message, the very message Paul preached, that you've been bought with a price, you're not your own, you lay down your rights. And, you know, when people get saved in that message, it's life giving.

It sounds like it's a death message, like death to self. Well, it is. That's the irony.

He that seeks to save his life will lose it, but he that loses his life for my sake will find it, Jesus said, and that's the irony of it. When you died yourself, then you really have the life of God in yourself and in your congregation. But it sounds like they've moved away from what they first heard.

We don't know exactly all the influences that caused them to do that. But he says, remember, don't you remember how you have received and heard? Now you need to get back that. You need to go back to that.

Hold fast to that and repent. Therefore, if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. Now, many times the words that Jesus uses in speaking to these churches has some kind of a connection to their geographical or cultural or historical background.

And it is said that this church more than once actually had succumbed to invaders. Of course, they had a very long history and many kingdoms invaded it over the years. But twice it had fallen to invaders because the watchman was not aware.

The watchman was not paying attention. And that was a great embarrassment. It's an embarrassment when you lose a war you didn't have to lose because your watchman was asleep and just didn't sound the trumpet.

And this had apparently happened on two occasions to this city in its past. And so it is twice warned to watch. Now, it's the church, not the city, that's told to watch.

But because the people were from the city, they would recognize, no doubt, the cultural and historical illusion. Because he said in verse 2, be watchful and strengthen the things which remain. And then he says in verse 3, if you will not watch, well then what? You're going to be invaded again, this time by Jesus.

He says, I will come upon you as a thief and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. Now, this coming of Jesus as a thief reminds us of what Jesus said at the end of Matthew 24 when he said that if the watchman, if the good man of the house had known at what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, he would have stayed awake. And he would not allow his house to be broken into.

And therefore said to his disciples, watch, for you do not know at what hour your Lord may come. And so he used the thief analogy. Peter uses it and Paul uses it too.

Paul uses it in 1 Thessalonians 5, where he says, I don't need to tell you that the Lord's going to come like a thief. And in 2 Peter 3, Peter says the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. So this thief in the night or this thief image is generally used about the second coming of Christ.

And it may be here. However, of course, this church, Sardis, doesn't exist anymore. And Jesus hasn't come back yet.

So either his threat was not realized or his threat was not about the second coming of Christ. Now, what I pointed out earlier is in these letters, quite a few of the churches are told that Jesus would come to them, but not in the same sense. In every case, the church of Ephesus in chapter 2 and verse 5 was told, if you don't repent to the first verse, I will come to you quickly.

Jesus said, I will come quickly to you. That's what he says to this church. I will come to you as a thief.

I will come. But in Ephesus in chapter 2, verse 5, he says, I will come to you and remove the lampstand. That is, I will come and extinguish the light of your church.

This is not the second coming of Christ that Ephesus is threatened with. It's just the end of their world as a church. It's the end of their tenure.

And likewise, other churches are told that he would come to them. The church of Pergamos was said in verse 16. Jesus said, repent or else I'll come to you quickly and we'll fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

And the church of Thyatira was told in chapter 2 and verse 25, hold fast what you have till I come. Now, these churches are gone now. These churches don't exist.

And he hasn't come yet. He told them to hold fast until he comes. If they don't repent, he's going to come and fight against them.

One gets the impression that these churches did not repent, or at least their repentance was not long-lasting enough because he must have fulfilled his threat. They're gone. He came and fought against them.

This is not the second coming, in other words. Likewise, we know very well in Laodicea, chapter 3, verse 20, Jesus said, behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him.

So these references to Christ's coming, though on the surface we might see them as references to his second coming, which is still future, would appear to be some kind of interim coming, some kind of historical coming, some event of chastening or judgment that brought an end to the church's career. And that apparently has happened. Now, one hint that this threat, although he uses the language that we associate with the second coming, I'll come as a thief, one reason to think it may not be referring to the second coming, he says, if you do not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

Apparently he's saying if you do watch, you will know. If you do watch, you will be forewarned. Yet, with reference to the second coming, Jesus says you need to watch because you won't know.

Even if you're watching, you won't know at what hour your Lord will come. He's going to come at an hour that you think not, or at an hour that you don't expect him. So, the second coming, no matter how watchful you are, you'll be surprised, but you better watch anyway.

The word watch, by the way, doesn't mean what we think. We watch television. And that means you sit and vegetate and keep your eyes glued on a particular object and you're watching it.

Or you watch your neighbor's kids, and that means you try to keep track of where they're running around and what they're doing. You're watching them in that sense. The word watch in the Bible literally means to stay awake, to lose sleep.

That's why the Bible sometimes speaks of watching and fasting together. Watching is sacrificing sleep. Fasting is sacrificing food.

These are things that are sometimes joined with prayer. Prayer, watch unto prayer. Pray with watching.

Jesus said to the disciples, can't you watch with me for one hour? Why that? They fell asleep. They couldn't stay awake for one hour. Watch is a term that means stay awake.

Now, you should stay awake at all times in any case. Whether you know or don't know when Jesus is coming. Some people think, I'm watching for Jesus.

That means I'm supposed to have some visual awareness of his nearness of his coming. And so people talk about watching for the signs of the times and so forth. There are no signs of the times.

At least Jesus didn't name any. Jesus said it would be like the days of Noah. People ate and drank.

They were given in marriage. Did normal things that people do every day until the day... It says they didn't know until the flood came and took them away. And it wasn't just because they were unbelievers.

Because he told the disciples, you watch because at a time you don't expect your Lord will come. No one's going to know when it's going to be. Even the day before.

Maybe even the same day. No one will know. He's going to come when he's unexpected by both the world and his people.

And you ask, well then why watch? Because staying awake is your obligation. You're watching because you're a watchman. And a watchman warns people.

That there is a danger. We don't have to say he's coming on May 18th or anything like that. We can simply say though, God is going to call you to account.

And we're warning the world. We need to be watchful. We need to not give up our watch.

Not fall asleep. Not become spiritually lazy. And he says, if you watch, he implies, then I will not come upon you as a thief.

You will know at what hour I'm coming. And therefore, I think it's probably some kind of historical threat that would come upon the church. And if the church is aware, they'll be able to spot it and not be surprised by it.

Perhaps prepare against it. But if it's the second coming, he'll still come at a time you don't think. Whether you're watching or not.

At least according to Matthew 24. Now he says, you have a few names, even in Sardis, who have not defiled their garments. Think of how he words that.

You have a few names, even in Sardis, there's a few. Not many, but a few. Imagine that, in a city like that.

In a church like that to have, even there, there's a few good people. It makes it sound like the overall picture is very discouraging. Only a few names.

But it does mean that Jesus knows his remnant by name. He knows their names. He didn't say a few people.

A small group. He says, there's a few names there that I know. There's some people there that are my friends.

I know them by name. Even in Sardis, where I don't have many friends. They have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy.

He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments. This too is very possibly an allusion to something culturally relevant to the people of Sardis. The town was known for its manufacture of woolen products.

And also red dye. Now, he didn't say, they'll walk with me in red garments. That would have been a very direct allusion to what the town was known for producing.

On the other hand, red as a color of blood might think to be suited to produce white garments. Based upon Revelation 7, verse 14. Because in Revelation 7, verse 14, John said to the elder that was speaking to him, Sir, you know who these people are.

And he said to me, these are the ones who come out of the great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Now, one would not usually think of blood as a whitening agent. But these have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

There's obviously an anomaly here. And it may be that a town known for its red dye might be reminiscent of the blood of Jesus that would whiten garments. I don't know.

In any case, that they would wear white garments is something that is promised to actually a number of the overcomers in the churches. The church of Laodicea is told that they should buy from him white garments. So they would not be naked and ashamed.

A white garment, what is that? Well, Revelation actually seems to answer that question. Revelation chapter 19 and verse 8 speaks about the bride. And it says of the bride of Christ, the bride of the Lamb.

In Revelation 19, 8, to her was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright. For the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. That doesn't say it's white, but of course that's what a bride wears.

If she's a virgin. If she's pure, and this bride is depicted as a pure woman. She wears a white, probably white, clean and bright linen.

Bride's gown. And her linen that she wears is her righteous deeds. She's clothed with her righteous behavior.

That's no doubt the white that we walk in before God in all these cases that it's mentioned. Now Revelation 3, 5, he who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments. And I will not blot his name from the book of life.

But I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. Now, I will not blot his name from the book of life. It's one of the more perplexing statements in Revelation.

A book with many perplexing statements. This would rank high among them. Now the problem is not so much that a name can be blotted out of a book.

Although it would certainly challenge any doctrine of eternal security or perseverance of the saints. To imagine that God had written somebody's name in the book of life. And then for whatever reason would expunge the name.

That suggests that they were once saved, but now they're not saved anymore. Now I don't have any particular problem with those implications because I think that is a possibility. What's difficult is harmonizing this statement with other things in the book of Revelation about the book of life.

Not least of which is that when it's talking about the beast. And the deception that he gives, that he brings about. In Revelation 13, 8 it says, Now some people would say, well it's the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.

Others say the names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Both seem to be affirmed by Christians from this verse. If indeed one's name has been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.

Then that means that God somehow foreknew that that person would be saved. But did he not also foreknow that they would have their name expunged? Why not just leave it out? Why put it in there and expunge it? The book of life is no doubt a symbolic picture. God doesn't need books to keep track of things actually.

He's got a better memory than we do. And I need to look things up in books. I need to write things down in journals and keep track of my expenses and things like that in writing.

God doesn't need books like that. He is anthropomorphized in this reference to him having books with the records in it and so forth. No doubt the book of life is simply a symbol of being a citizen of heaven.

Remember Jesus said to his disciples in Luke chapter 10, Don't rejoice that the demons are subject to you. Rejoice that your names are written in heaven. He didn't use the word book of life, but that's obviously saying you're saved.

Rejoice in that. You're a citizen of heaven. You're on the register of citizens in that town.

Heaven. And so also the book of life no doubt has the same information. The citizenship of heaven.

Now it says at the end of Revelation chapter 20, that all whose names were not found written in the book of life, anyone whose name was not written in the book of life, it says, was cast into the lake of fire. That's hell. So if your name's not in the book, it's hell.

If your name is in the book, you're apparently saved. You belong to heaven. It's your citizenship.

Now the idea that your name could be removed from the book of life only makes sense in a sense if the names were not written there before the foundation of the world. If the names were written there before the foundation of the world, they were put there because the persons in question were going to be in heaven. Because they were going to persevere.

But these people don't. A person who overcomes in Revelation is one who's faithful unto death. A person who does not overcome, bails.

Maybe under the threat of torture or death, I mean they lapse. A lapse is not an overcomer. And the implication is that if you are an overcomer, you will not have your name blotted out of the book.

What's that imply? That's the statement. What's implied, if you're not an overcomer, it will be blotted out. Not that it'll never be written in there.

You can't blot a name out that isn't already in there. The name's already in there, but it'll be blotted out. It certainly strongly sounds as if one can be saved at one point, but if they do not persevere to the end, they can no longer be saved.

This is certainly not the only passage that gives that impression, but it is one. Now, in all fairness, a Calvinist could say, and sometimes they do say, he doesn't say anyone's names will be blotted out. He just says that overcomers will not have their name blotted out.

For all we know, people who aren't overcomers will also not have their name blotted out. But that would seem to make the promise rather hollow. If you overcome, I'll do the same thing for you that if you don't overcome, I'll do it for you.

Keep your name in the book. The strong implication is it can be removed, and if so, it seems like those who are saved could someday not be saved if they defect, if they apostatize from Christ, if they deny him. And Paul certainly, I mean, I don't want to go into all the scriptures that might suggest such a thing.

There are very many, but I think immediately of 2 Timothy 2, where Paul seems to be quoting some kind of a statement of faith or a hymn. At least most translators treat this material as if it's like a song or a hymn that the early church sang, which Paul quotes. They set it off as a rather like a poem than a normal paragraph.

And in 2 Timothy 2.11, it says, this is a faithful saying, and then he quotes it. For if we died with him, we shall also live with him. If we endure, we shall also reign with him.

If we deny him, he also will deny us. Now, who's us? It's Paul, Timothy, and perhaps everyone else like Paul and Timothy who are believers. If we endure, that is if we stay faithful, we'll reign with him.

However, if we deny him, he will deny us. What would the ramifications of that be on the Day of Judgment, if Jesus denies us? I don't know what hope we'd have. If Jesus denies knowing me, I don't know of anything that could get me in.

Remember Jesus' words, I never knew you, depart from me, you cursed. In Matthew 7, he said many will hear him say, if we deny him, he'll deny us. He'll deny that he knows us apparently.

Now, of course, the next verse is sometimes grabbed on by people who want to support eternal security. They say, if we are faithless, he remains faithful. He cannot deny himself.

This is sometimes understood to mean that if I don't have any faith, at least he's going to stay faithful to me. If I defect, if I become an unbeliever, that doesn't change anything because God's faithful. He's going to still keep his promises, even if I'm an unbeliever.

What promises? He's just promised if we deny him, he'll deny us. He's faithful. He'll do what he said he would do.

That's what a faithful person does. He says if you endure, you'll reign with me. If you deny me, I'll deny you.

You don't believe it? Well, it's still true. My words are faithful. That's how Paul introduces it in verse 11.

This is a faithful saying. You don't believe it? It's still a faithful saying. He remains faithful.

His words remain reliable. Even if you have trouble believing it. Maybe you think you're going to get away with it, denying Christ and him not denying you.

Don't count on it. His words are still faithful. He's still faithful.

He'll keep his threats as well as his promises. Because he cannot deny himself. He can deny us, but he can't deny himself.

He will deny us if we deny him. This is one of many, many passages in Paul and Peter and James and Revelation. That do sound like a person can pass from being a believer to being an unbeliever.

And with that passing, pass from being saved to being unsaved. Now the next church is the Church of Philadelphia. This is one of the two that Jesus has nothing negative to say about.

So it's refreshing. He only has positive things to say and promises to make to them. This city of Philadelphia was actually a fairly small city in population by this time.

It was in an area that received more than its share of earthquakes. In fact, I mentioned that Sardis had been destroyed in an earthquake in 17 AD. So was Philadelphia.

Both churches, both cities were destroyed in those earthquakes. But Philadelphia had more earthquakes than most. So much so that people were often afraid to live in the city.

The earthquakes would drive people out of the city and they'd wait until they thought it was safe. And once the rubble had been cleared and built up, they'd go back in. But then another earthquake would drive them out.

They'd go out and in and out and in over a period of decades. The population would vacillate from having more or less people. But in general, people were afraid to live in the city.

So not an awful lot of people lived there anyway. It's interesting that Jesus promises them in verse 12. He that overcomes, I'll make a pillar in the temple of God and he shall go out no more.

You don't have to worry about earthquakes here in the temple of God. You've got a stable place. You're a pillar.

And you won't have to run for the hills even when there's shaking going on. But this promise is part of a whole fabric of his message to the church of Philadelphia. And he says to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write, These things says he who is holy, he who is true, he who has the key of David, he who opens and no one shuts and shuts and no one opens.

I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door and no one can shut it. For you have a little strength, have kept my word and have not denied my name.

Indeed, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie. Indeed, I will make them come and worship before your feet and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept my command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial, which shall come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth.

Behold, I come quickly. Hold fast what you have that no one may take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God and he shall go out no more.

And I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God. And I will write on him my new name. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Now, Jesus introduces himself differently in this epistle than any of the previous ones, both in this one. Well, this one primarily he departs from the pattern in most of the openings of the epistles. He takes the description of himself, which he gives, from elements in chapter 1, where John saw the vision and he had eyes like a flame of fire and robed down to his feet and a sharp sword coming out of his mouth and had seven stars in his hands and so forth.

These descriptive elements are selected from each letter as Jesus describes himself. I'm the one who has the eyes like a flame of fire and the feet like bronze. I'm the one who has the sword and so forth out of my mouth.

This is an exception. This is the first letter he actually doesn't borrow from that vision. And I don't know why this is different, but he apparently has something else to emphasize to this particular church.

Certainly his word to them in verse 8 is I have set before you an open door and no one can shut it. And so perhaps he introduces himself as he does in order to emphasize that point, because he says, I am he that is true. He who has the key of David, he who opens and no one shuts.

So I have an open door in front of you. No one's going to shut it. And I also shut and no one opens.

Now, those words are in italics, because although they're not a direct quote, they're almost a direct quote from Isaiah 22. Now, in Isaiah, it's an interesting context because there's a man named Eliakim there who is replacing another man in the administration of Hezekiah, the king of Judah. The man he's replacing is named Shebna, the scribe.

We read that Shebna is being ejected from office. We don't read this as a decision that's made by Hezekiah. We read as apparently a decision made by God.

God is displeased with Shebna. We don't know why. Some think he's arrogant.

Some think he's come from another country. He's not a Jew and he's insinuated into the Jewish government in a way that he should not. There's no real knowledge of what he has done wrong, but God's not pleased with him.

He says, you're gonna be thrown out like a ball out in the woods. And he says, I'm going to give your belt and your position and your badge, as it were, to another man named Eliakim, my servant, Eliakim, the son of Hezekiah. So reads verse 20.

And he talks about in the later verses how Eliakim is going to have all the privileges of office that Shebna once had. It says in verse 21, I will commit your responsibility into his hand. That is Shebna's into Eliakim's hands.

He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. The key, verse 22, the key of the house of David. I will lay on his shoulder so that he shall open and no one shall shut and he shall shut and no one will open.

Now, this obviously is the verse from which Jesus is drawing the description of himself. And yet in its original setting, it's not a statement about the Messiah. It's a statement about a man named Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, who's actually been elevated to a political office in Jerusalem in the reign of Hezekiah.

However, it's a responsible position. Actually, it is a position that is said to be over the house. This was the position that Shebna had, verse 15.

The steward to Shebna, who is over the house. This is the same expression that was used of Joseph in Potiphar's house. When he was elevated to a position of being manager of all that Potiphar had.

It says that he was put over the house. And he was a steward like Shebna was. So, Eliakim is being made a steward, a high-ranking steward in the house of King Hezekiah.

The house of David, as it's called. The key to the house of David is on his shoulder. Probably on some kind of a long key ring that he wears over his shoulder.

But the key of the house of David is an authority to open and shut things. That's what keys are for. And the man who has the key is entrusted with access.

With the authority to open and shut things. And he apparently is the only person who has that authority. If he opens it, it's open.

No one can shut it. If he shuts it, that decision is final. No one is going to open it.

This is a high-ranking position. And no doubt, the access that was either granted or denied by this official was access to the king himself. It was the key to the house of David.

The house of David was the palace. It was the king's family. And so, if anyone wished to approach the king in Hezekiah's reign, they had to find the man who had the key who could open the doors.

That could open the way. If they could persuade him to open the doors, then they could go in and see the king. If they couldn't, that door is going to stay shut.

And you couldn't go to anyone. There's no one who could go over his head. If he shut it, it's going to stay shut.

No one opens it if he shuts it. This man has the final say in terms of access to the king. And so, Jesus now appropriates those privileges to the description of himself.

He has the key to the house of David. He is the one who opens and no one shuts and shuts and no one opens. In other words, he's the one in the house of God, the real king, that will grant access or not to people.

If Jesus says, come in, they're in. No one can shut that door to them. If he says, no, you're out, no one can open it.

Only Jesus is the way. No one comes to the father but through him. Something John, who wrote the book of Revelation, also recorded in John 14 in verse 6. So, the key is the authority to grant access or not.

And therefore, when he says to them, I set before you an open door and no one can shut it, he's saying, I have granted you access to the king. I've granted you access to my father, to my father's throne room. You can go and stand before God and appeal your case as one who had special privileged access granted by none other than Jesus.

And once Jesus has granted it, there's no one can cancel his decision. Now, on the other hand, if he shut the door, if he said, you're not going to go see my father, then no one can get you in there. Mohammed can't do it, Confucius can't do it, Buddha can't do it, Krishna.

No one can open that door for you if Jesus has it shut. You got to talk to him about it. You got to get his permission.

You got to get access through him. That's what the key of David and these privileges that he describes of himself mean. Now, why would he say that to this church? We don't know for sure, but the very next thing he says to them in verse 9 is, Indeed, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but in lie.

Indeed, I'll make them come and worship before your feet and know that I have loved you. Now, there's another church that had problems with the same kind of people. People that Jesus said they said they're Jews, but they're not.

They're really a synagogue of Satan. Only he said, I know the blasphemy of those who say they're Jews and are not. The church of Smyrna in chapter 2 apparently was having conflicts in chapter 2 verse 9 with the Jewish community in Smyrna.

Smyrna, as I said, had the largest Jewish community of any of the cities in the book of Revelation. And apparently an influential group, the Jewish community, and they, like in many other places, opposed the Christians. Apparently, the church of Smyrna was experiencing persecution because of this, partly.

And Jesus gave them encouragement. I know what those people are doing to you. But now in Philadelphia, apparently the Jewish community in that church is also needing to be addressed by Christ.

And what he says is probably significant. He says, I will make those who claim to be Jews, but as far as Jesus says, they're not real Jews. They're a synagogue of Satan.

But I'll make those people come and worship before your feet. Now, that doesn't mean they'll worship you. Might sound like it.

But the Bible says, Jesus says, Revelation teaches, that we're going to sit on the throne with him. Every knee is going to bow and every tongue is going to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. They're going to bow to him.

If we're sitting there on the throne, they'll be doing so at our feet. We will not be the objects of their worship, though, of course. Jesus will be, but they will be at our feet because we'll be standing or sitting with Christ as they are bowing before him.

But the point here is not that they will worship him so much or that they'll worship at our feet, but that they will know and acknowledge that I have loved you. Now, this seems to be saying, I will vindicate you in their eyes. They apparently don't think that you are loved by God.

You're Gentiles, after all. You're Christians. Many times the Jews felt that they were the only ones who were the chosen people.

And they, I mean, not all Jews had an equally bad attitude about this. And there have been Jews who have been friendly with Christians, of course. And there have been Jews who become Christians.

But there have been times and places where the Jewish community was particularly unfriendly to the Christians. And no doubt in this case, the Jews in this particular town were suggesting to the Christians that the Christians, being Gentiles, were not especially loved by God. And suggesting, you're Jesus can't let you into heaven.

God won't acknowledge you because you're not one of us. You're not of the seat of circumcision. You're not circumcised.

You're not one of the seat of Abraham. And Jesus apparently is saying, regardless what they say, I've opened the door for you. And they can't shut it.

No one can shut it. They can't say that you can't come before God. That's not their decision.

That's mine. And the day will come when they'll acknowledge that. The day will come when they will acknowledge that I have loved you.

Now this promise in verse 10 will detain us a little bit because of its, the way it is commonly understood differently than I think it should be. Verse 10 says, because you have kept my command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial, which shall come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth. Now here there is a reference to an hour of trial.

And it says it will come on the whole world. Now you know that Revelation is generally understood in popular evangelical circles these days as being about a future tribulation time. And not just future, but global.

In fact, some would say there is no trial that has ever come on the whole world before. So this must be a future tribulation such as we read of later in the book of Revelation. The plagues and the beast and the harlot and all those things.

Those are part of a global disastrous period of time called the tribulation. This is the futurist view on this. And they say that is the hour of trial that Jesus talks about that will come on all the world to test those who dwell on the earth.

Now he says to this church, I will keep you from that hour of trial. Remember dispensations often believe that the churches, the seven churches that are listed here represent seven segments of the whole church age period. And that as you go from Ephesus to Laodicea, you are moving from John's time to the end of the world and the church in the end times.

And they believe that the church of Philadelphia corresponds to the faithful church in the last days. Whereas the church of Laodicea, the apostate church in the last days. And it is their belief, at least the belief of many dispensations, certainly it is the only view I have ever heard them express about this.

And I have heard many of them do so because I was a dispensational teacher myself and I said it too. Was that the church of Philadelphia represents the faithful church in the end times. And because it is faithful, he will keep that church from the tribulation, the hour of trial that is coming on the world.

And therefore this speaks of a pre-tribulational rapture. Now the church of Laodicea then would be the church that is left behind, that is apostate and is lukewarm. So both churches, Philadelphia and Laodicea belong to the end times and they would say both exist today because they believe we are in the end times.

Therefore we get to choose, will I be part of the Laodicean church or part of the Philadelphia church? Will I be faithful and be raptured before the tribulation or will I be in the Laodicean church and keep doing religion through the tribulation period? And this verse is counted as a direct promise of a pre-tribulational rapture of the church. When I was a dispensationalist, there were a score of passages in the Bible that I thought taught a pre-tribulational rapture. Some of them were not very explicit.

But there were two passages that I thought were unanswerable. I thought there were two passages that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt a pre-tribulational rapture. One was 2 Thessalonians 2 about that thing, that unnamed thing that has to be removed before the man of sin could rise.

I was quite sure that was the church or the Holy Spirit of the church because that is what I was told. It never occurred to me that it could be something else, which I now consider it is something else. And therefore I don't see 2 Thessalonians 2 as being any kind of a promise of a pre-tribulational rapture.

But one of the strongest, besides 2 Thessalonians 2, was this passage. Because I thought there is no way around it. The church has promised that they will be delivered from the hour of trial.

Not just any hour of trial, but the hour of trial that will come on the whole world. There has never been such an hour of trial in the whole world, so that must be the tribulation. And I knew no other view of revelation than the futurist.

That was a bit limiting. At that time I didn't know that anyone held any other view than that the tribulation was future and all that. So this seemed to me an obvious reference to that tribulation and to the pre-tribulational rapture.

To my mind, given the presuppositions that we held as dispensations, that was a fairly reasonable conclusion about this verse. But I only say fairly. Because even before I gave up my futurism, even when I still thought the book of Revelation was about the future, I came to the conclusion, grudgingly, that this does not teach a pre-tribulational rapture.

I mean, if there is one, it could be seen to support it. But the question of whether there is one or not could not be determined from this passage, or even very strongly defended from it. And the reason is, because I was taking the promise, I will keep you from the hour of temptation, to mean I will take you away from physically.

I'll take you out of the world. This hour of temptation is coming on the whole world, and I'll get you out of it by taking you out of the world. To keep us from temptation, I thought, required taking us away from the place where the troubles were happening.

And I believed that for a long time, although it took me a while to realize there wasn't any specific reason to believe that that was the only way this promise could be fulfilled. And when I discovered that in John 17, 15, when Jesus was praying for the disciples, in John 17, 15, he prayed this way, I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil one. Now, the evil one is the prince of this world, and he prays that we be kept from.

And by the way, the term keep from is the same Greek phrase as is found in Revelation 3.10. Ektereo, two Greek words. Ekt means out of, tereo means to guard or protect. To guard out of, to take out of, to keep from.

Ektereo, the very same verb and preposition that are found in Revelation 3.10 is found in this verse. And by the way, those two words are not found together anywhere else in scripture. So, John wrote both books.

In both cases, he's quoting Jesus. And in both cases, he uses a phrase that is found nowhere else except in those two passages. Now, that doesn't mean the same thing is being talked about, but it might be.

But it certainly means this, that in John 17, 15, to be kept from trouble, from the enemy, does not require being taken out of the world, because Jesus specifically says, I do not pray that you take them out of the world. Just keep them from the wicked one. And therefore, it's obvious that to keep people from something doesn't require that you remove them from the planet.

And if there is an hour of temptation coming on the whole world, could Jesus keep us safe from those harms without taking us out of the world? Of course. I mean, the typical analogy is given of Israel and Egypt. When God sends the 10 plagues upon Egypt, many of the plagues in Revelation are direct echoes of the plagues in Egypt.

And yet, when God sent the 10 plagues on Egypt, Israel was still in Egypt. He took them out afterward, but he left them in there for the duration of the 10 plagues. He protected them, and the Bible says in Exodus that God made a difference between Israel and the Egyptians, and so that the plagues would afflict the Egyptians, but not the Israelites who were in their land.

That is to say, God can send plagues on a region and still protect individual people in that region. Look over at Psalm 91. By the way, Psalm 91 is a song that may have been written by Moses.

We don't know that it was. It's anonymous. It's not one of the Psalms of David that we know of, but the previous Psalm is the Psalm of Moses.

And Psalm 90 is a prayer of Moses, the man of God. Psalm 91, the author is not given, but there's many allusions to the Exodus. And it could have been written by Moses.

There's allusions to God sending plagues and protecting his people from plagues. And it says in verse 5, let's say, You shall not be afraid of the terror by night, nor of the arrow that flies by day, nor of the pestilence that walks in darkness, nor of the destruction that lays waste at noonday. It says in verse 7, A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand, but it shall not come near you.

Well, at my right hand is pretty near me. Well, still far enough away, apparently. It doesn't come near enough to hurt you.

People right next to you may fall. A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. Only with your eyes you shall look and see the reward of the wicked.

And verse 10 says, No evil shall befall you, nor shall any plague come near your dwelling. Plague? No plague come near your dwelling. The plagues were poured out in Revelation.

They were also poured out in Egypt. Those are the only two seasons of plagues the Bible talks about. There's a promise that no plague will come near your dwelling, but a thousand will fall right next to you, or ten thousand right next to you, but they're not going to touch you.

God knows how to hit His marks and miss who He doesn't want to hit. He's a good marksman. He's not just dropping a bomb.

He's a sniper. And He knows how to take out the people He wants to take out, and leave standing the ones He wants to leave standing. Israel, He preserved in Egypt while the plagues were coming on Egypt.

Now, look over at Matthew 24, if you would. Matthew 24, I believe in verse 36, Jesus is talking about His second coming. That is disputed.

Obviously, there are people who are preterists who believe He is talking about 70 AD. I take it that He is talking about the end of the world. In verse 35, He says, But of that day and hour, I take it He means that day and hour when the world passes away, which is at the second coming of Christ.

Until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and took them all away. So also will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field.

One will be taken, and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill. One will be taken, and the other left.

Now, of course, in some circles we've been inclined to see this as referring to the rapture. That, you know, when Jesus comes back, he's going to take the Christian out of the bed and leave the non-Christian spouse there behind. He's going to take the Christian out of the workplace or out of the airplane or out of the car.

And the one left behind is going to be the unbeliever left behind to go through the tribulation. That's the pre-trib rapture understanding of this. However, it's not what Jesus said.

Jesus said it's like the days of Noah. The wicked were just behaving like nothing was coming upon them. And they were oblivious until the flood came and did what to them? Took them all away.

And that's what it'll be when he comes. One will be taken. The other left.

One will be taken. The other left. People in close proximity, one will be taken.

The other will be left. Taken where? Now, in this case, the ones who were taken are likened to those who were taken in the flood. That's in the immediate context.

And in the flood, those who were taken were killed. Now, if you look at the parallel to this in Luke 17, I believe it becomes more unmistakable, more explicit. Luke 17, he says in verse 26 and 27, as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man.

They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. In Matthew, it says the flood came and took them all away. Took them all away means destroyed them all.

But look further down. Verse 34, I tell you in that night, there will be two men in one bed. The one will be taken and the other left.

Two women will be grinding together. One will be taken and the other left. Two men will be in the field.

The one will be taken and the other left. The disciples said, where? Now, we don't have that question in Matthew 24. We don't have the disciples saying, what? Where? They're taken.

Where are they going? Where are they taken to? See, they hadn't read the late great planet Earth. They didn't know. They didn't know there was going to be a rapture of the church, so they were taken totally by surprise when Jesus said, one will be taken and the other left.

But, his answer is a strange one, because he doesn't say, silly, they're taken into the clouds to be with Jesus. No, he says, oh, where'd they go? Let me answer that question for you. Wherever the corpse is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

Where are they? Well, you can find them. Look for the vultures. Look for the eagles.

Wherever the corpse is, the eagles will be there. So you want to know where they were taken to, they'll be easy to spot. Wherever the corpse is, the eagles will be.

And therefore, when he says, one will be taken, they say, where? He says, well, it's not really going to be that hard to find them. They'll be taken, they'll be destroyed, they'll be killed. One will be taken.

The other, a thousand will fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand. Only with your eyes will you behold and see the reward of the wicked. It will not touch you.

So if God wants to keep us from plagues or any other disasters that he wishes to, even if he wants our next door neighbor or our spouse to suffer that plague, you can be in the same bed and he can take them. Now this doesn't mean he'll rapture them, it means he judges them and kills them, like the people killed in the flood. They didn't go into heaven, but they were taken out of the land of the living.

They were taken out of this life. And so when Jesus said, because you've been faithful to me, I will keep you from that hour of temptation, there's no reason in the world to say this means we have to go out of the world. There's no promise of that, no suggestion of it.

Not a hint. But more than that, there's not really a hint here necessarily of a future tribulation worldwide. Because the word world in the Bible is used differently than we usually use it.

To them, it meant their world. We know more about the world than they did and we use the word with more information implied. We talk about the whole world, we know about Australia and South America and the South Pacific Islands, everything's in the world when we talk about the world.

When they talked about the world, it was basically the Mediterranean world. It was actually the Roman world, the Roman Empire. How do I know that? Well, it's unmistakable.

In Luke chapter 2, verse 1, just for example, it says in the days of Caesar Augustus, there went out a decree from Caesar that all the world should be registered for taxation. So Caesar required everyone in the world to be registered so he could charge taxes from them. Did that include the Incas? How about the Aborigines in Australia? How about the Maoris in New Zealand? Did Caesar send some guys over there to register those people for taxation? No, the world that he ruled.

It just says the whole world. But it's commonplace in New Testament times for the Roman Empire to be referred to as the world. In fact, Colossians chapter 1 and verse 6, at the end of verse 5, he mentions the truth of the gospel and he picks up from that line in verse 6, which, that is the gospel, has come to you as it also has in all the world and is bringing forth fruit.

Now the gospel has gone to all the world as bringing forth fruit. Of course, not the whole planet Earth, certainly, but it had been essentially through the vast majority of the Roman Empire. That's the whole world he's talking about.

He's not even talking about India, though he knew it was there. He's not talking about South Africa. He knew there were nations south of North Africa, but they weren't in his world.

They weren't in the Roman Empire. The gospel had not gone there, nor did Paul have any suggestion that it had. The whole world, as far as he and his readers were concerned, was the civilized world, the Roman world.

That's what they meant. We sometimes talk about the Muslim world, or the free world, or the communist world. When we talk about the world, we don't always mean the planet, and they hardly ever meant the planet when they talked about the world.

They were talking about the world they lived in, the Roman world. When Jesus says to the church, there's an hour of trial coming on the whole world, this could easily be satisfied simply by an empire-wide crisis, which is coming to test those who dwell on the land. The land would be probably a reference to Israel.

I know it says earth, but the word earth and land are the same in the Greek. I believe that he's promising this church that though there is a crisis, an empire-wide crisis coming upon their world, and there's going to be one effect of it is to test the people who dwell in the land of Israel. That he's talking about something that this church would actually be there to experience, or not, if he's going to keep them from it.

If he's talking about a future tribulation, what, he's going to raise them from the dead and keep them from it? He's talking to people who are alive at the time of whom he was saying, I'm going to keep you from something that is apparently coming in your lifetime. And what would it be? Well, we don't know exactly when Revelation was written, I champion the view that it was written probably before AD 70. There was, just before AD 70, an empire-wide crisis.

Nero, the emperor, committed suicide in 68. Over the next 18 months, the entire capital city of Rome was embroiled in civil wars, a time in which three rulers put themselves into the position of emperor, and each was assassinated by the next guy. One ruled for three months, one for six.

I think, I don't remember if there was one who ruled for one month, but Galba, Otho, and Vitellus were these three men. And in the space of 18 months, there were five different emperors, if you include Nero, who killed himself, then these three, and then eventually Vespasian, and then things stabilized. But during this same period of time, there was a war going on between Rome and Israel.

From 66 AD to 70 AD, Israel was in crisis. The whole empire was in crisis, but Israel was in a crisis of their own. This was a time when no one was escaping disaster.

Those who dwelt in the land were being severely tested, but there was also a trial coming on the whole Roman world. Actually, many historians have suggested, I think Gibbon, the most important of them, said that it's a miracle, and he wasn't a believer, it was a miracle that Rome didn't fall at that time, because it was unstable, and there seemed no way for it to regain its footing until Vespasian came to power. Anyway, this could easily be something that would affect the readers of this letter, the people of Philadelphia, and for Jesus to say, I'm going to protect you through this.

There's a great crisis coming soon, and I'm going to protect you from it. And when he says in verse 11, behold, I come quickly, this coming may be this coming in judgment for this crisis, and it's quick. So he's saying, hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.

Now, when he promises those who overcome will be a pillar in the temple of his God, it presupposes the knowledge that the church is the temple of God. We, according to 1 Peter 2.5, are living stones being built up in the temple. Each one has a position in the wall or in the structure of the church that the Holy Spirit has given each one.

And these people who are overcomers will be made pillars. Pillars, of course, are that portion of the building that maintains the stability. It supports the weight.

Strong pillars make a building stable. And as Philadelphia was a place subject to earthquakes, the suggestion that the house of God is not going to fall there because there are pillars and that these people who overcome will have that dignity of being important in the church, important in the kingdom of God. And they'll go out no more.

Now, he says he's going to write some things on, several things. I'm going to write on you, if you're an overcomer, the name of God, my God, the name of the city of New Jerusalem, and my new name. I'm not sure what all this means.

The name of the city of New Jerusalem would suggest you'll have, you know, the city's name on you as a badge indicating your citizenship, I suppose. The name of my God written on you is an idea that comes up again in chapter 14 when he says in verse 1, I looked and behold a lamb standing on Mount Zion and with him 144,000 having his father's name written on their foreheads. And this is in contrast to the people in the previous chapter who have the beast's name written on their foreheads.

People either have the name of the beast or the name of God on their foreheads, not literally, of course. But having your owner's name on your forehead was what a slave would be acquainted with. A slave would be branded with his master's name or brand on his forehead or his hand.

And this may be what is suggested. You'll be my slaves. You'll be my servants.

You'll have my father's name, my God, on your forehead. Or he doesn't say on your forehead, but just on you. Anyway, the exact meaning of some of this promise, we'll have to leave undiscussed.

We need to quickly cover one more letter and not give it anywhere near as much time. But that's okay. He's writing to the church of Laodicea last.

And this is a church we know a lot of things about. And there's many allusions to the local things. There's a lot of local color in this letter.

The Laodiceans had a water supply that came from a distant area about six miles out, a place called Denizli. It was a hot spring. Now, you don't drink hot water, of course, but that's okay.

It had time to cool down some. Traveling six miles through aqueducts or rock or whatever it traveled through, it cooled somewhat. Not that much.

It was lukewarm by the time it got to the city. And therefore, it wasn't really potable. It wasn't really water that you'd want to drink.

It's not like you'd dive drink, but it also picked up some undesirable minerals and so forth that made, when people did drink the water, it often made them puke. It made them nauseous. And this city was known for that.

And it's not surprising that Jesus alludes to them being lukewarm and him wanting to vomit them out of his mouth. Also, some other things. The city was a banking center and it was a very rich city.

The church probably was rich also. At least the church was saying so. I am rich.

I have no need of anything. So the church apparently was rich like the general citizenry were. They were also, the town was a producer of black wool clothes and carpets.

As we've seen, many of these cities produce some kind of textiles or wool or something or dye. Black wool clothes and carpets were produced in Laodicea. Ironically, they're naked and need to be clothed, although they are in a town that produces clothing.

Also, and this is rather interesting, the city of Laodicea had a medical school that was famous for producing a powdered substance from Phrygia, I believe, which had been developed there to make into an eye salve so that they treated eye ailments with this powdered substance that they produced there in the medical school. There are many references to this because he talks about you need to get eye salve so you can see. But see, Jesus takes all these things that are natural things in the culture and he spiritualizes them as we shall see.

To the angel of the church of the Laodiceans, these things says the amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God. I know your works, that you are neither hot nor cold, or I took that backward, neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot, so then, because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you or vomit you.

The word spew is old English, does not mean spit, it means vomit. I will vomit you out of my mouth. These people aren't just in his mouth, he's going to spit them out, they're in his stomach, he's going to vomit them.

They're going to be expelled from the body of Christ. Because you say I'm rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing. And you do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.

This is ironic because the very opposite thing was said to the church of Smyrna back in chapter 2, verse 9. He says, I know your works, your tribulation, and your poverty, but you are rich. In other words, the church in Smyrna was outwardly in poverty, but he says, spiritually you're in good shape. Smyrna, remember, he had nothing bad to say about.

Laodicea, he had nothing good to say about. And he says, you say you're rich, but I see you as poor. Smyrna saw themselves as poor, but I see them as rich.

God does not judge as man judges. He says, you say I'm rich, but you don't know that you're wretched, miserable. Now, when you go to medical school, you shouldn't have misery and wretchedness.

You're poor. Well, this is a banking center. What are these people doing poor? Blind? What happened to the eyes? And naked? Well, they produce clothing.

How did they get naked? In other words, they're spiritually naked. I'm sure they were dressed well. Their eyes probably worked just fine.

They probably were quite wealthy. And that's why they said they were. I'm rich.

I don't need anything. It's what they thought. A wealthy church.

The more rich you are, of course, the more temptation there is to think you don't need God because the more things you can cover with your own resources. The poorer person, the Bible says, tends to look more to God and trust in God because he knows he has nothing else to lean on. But those who are rich feel like they have need of nothing.

They don't call on God with the same desperate faith that someone might when they are really desperate. So because they are poor, blind and naked, and he says in verse 18, I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire that you may be rich and white garments. They sold black garments in that town.

But he says, you need some white garments that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed and anoint your eyes with eyesalve that you may see. So we have all these references to things that were that the city was well known for. It's money, it's black clothing, it's eyesalve, it's lukewarm water.

Jesus picks up all that local color and says, you guys are lukewarm yourselves. You're kind of nauseating, frankly. Now by the way, he does not explain what lukewarm means as a spiritual metaphor.

Obviously lukewarm is kind of partway between hot and cold. But what does hot and cold mean? What is it about the church that he's asking them to be different about? Well, he doesn't explain it, however, he does tell them at the end of verse 19, be zealous and repent. And therefore perhaps what they lack in is zeal.

Perhaps we're supposed to be a hot person as zealous for God. Now it's interesting, he says, I'd rather have you cold or hot rather than lukewarm. But if hot means zealous for God, cold might mean zealous against God.

Lukewarm would be, eh, I can take him or leave him. You know, one thing hot and cold people have in common is they're not lukewarm. One thing that people who are zealous for God have in common with people who are zealous against God is they take God seriously.

And while God does not desire people to be zealously opposed to him, at least he appreciates the fact that they take him seriously, no doubt, more than the person who believes in him and just, it doesn't change the way they live, they don't give much time in their thoughts. He's not very important to them. They're not against him or for him, they just don't take him seriously.

And while there's no commendation here of those who are zealously opposed to God, it is actually more undesirable to be lukewarm than to be zealously opposed. Because actually if you're zealously opposed to God, you are taking God seriously, and if you happen to change your mind about God, you'll probably take him seriously in the other direction. If you're lukewarm, you're essentially dead, numb.

You're never going to probably take God much more seriously or less so. It's just kind of bland. God means very little to you.

And that is what had happened to this church, apparently. Now he says in verse 19, as many as I love, I rebuke and chase them. Now, by the way, what does he mean to buy gold and buy clothes and buy ISAF? Does Jesus sell stuff? Well, these things do come at a cost.

He's not literally selling things for money, but what is gold? Gold is refined Christian character. That's what Peter suggests in 1 Peter 1.7, that the trial of your faith being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it is tried with fire, might be found in the praise, honor, and glory in the day of Jesus Christ, Peter said in 1 Peter 1.6 and 7. Job said in Job 23.10, when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold. I'll be refined through my trials.

You can purchase gold at the cost of trials. You can have good character, but it's going to cost you, it won't be free. You have to endure hardship.

If you never have hardship, luxury is not a good predictor of good character, usually. It does not at least produce it. And so buy gold by pursuing good character, even at the cost of trials and so forth that produce it.

White garments, we know that the white garment is the righteous deeds of the saints. Eyesalve, not sure how they actually are supposed to respond to this, but they are blind spiritually and they need to have their eyes opened. I suppose they ought to say, open my eyes, Lord, I want to see Jesus.

They need to ask to have their eyes opened, like the blind man. When the blind man came to Jesus from Jericho, Jesus said, what do you want? He said, Lord, I want to see. Well, okay, since you asked.

And so if we're blind, we need to ask him to open our eyes. He says, I rebuke and chasten those who I love and therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock.

If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him and he with me. Now standing at the door, it's not likely that he means here what we often figure that he means, that is that he stands at the door of our heart, knocking. That's a common evangelist appeal we give, Jesus at the door of your heart, knocking.

Please let him in and do him a favor. He's out in the cold there, poor Jesus, don't you feel sorry for Jesus? Please open the door and let him in. And actually, Jesus isn't at your mercy.

You know, we sometimes like to picture gentle Jesus knocking on the door. He's not going to kick the door in. He's a gentleman.

We say, well, true, but he's not there begging either. He gives ultimatums. He commands all men everywhere to repent.

He's not a wimp. And he's not necessarily in this passage portrayed as standing at the door of a person's heart. He's apparently at the door of the church.

He's outside the church. He's supposed to be in the church. The church has put him out and he's pounding on the door trying to get their attention.

Hey, remember me? And this letter is perhaps his knock at that church's door. You've forgotten him. He's knocking.

This letter is his ringing of your doorbell, trying to get your attention. Now, all it takes is one person to hear his voice and open the door. And at least that person will have communion with Christ.

The church might not, but individuals in the church could. There are overcomers. There are remnant people.

If anyone hears my voice, I'll come and sup with him. Typically, the church saw the Eucharistic meal, the communion, as a meal where they ate with Christ at the table. Well, he apparently was not eating at their Eucharistic meetings there.

I'm sure they were having communion in that church. But he was outside. He wasn't in there eating at their feast.

But he says, I'll eat with anyone who will open the door and let me in. Maybe the church will never have communion with Christ. It's too lukewarm.

They may have to be vomited out of the body of Christ. But individuals can still have that kind of communion with Christ. If none go with me, still I will follow.

To him who overcomes, I will grant to sit with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my father on his throne. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. Christ is already seated on the throne next to his father.

He's ruling. And we are promised that we will rule with him if we are overcomers. And having read that verse, I just think it'd be kind of nice to sing that verse.

And so in your books, there's a song, To Him That Overcomes. It's just this verse.