Morning everybody. Is this, is this good enough? Is that, is that anybody? Thank you, can everybody hear me now? yeah so just to start off with that long list of people that Peter mentioned who are sick you just add me on to that list and that's my disclaimer so if things don't make sense this morning you know I'm just gonna use that as my excuse so please open your Bibles to the epistle of 2nd Peter once again and we will be reading in chapter 1 from verse 16 to 21. But let's open in a word of prayer first. Father God we thank you for your authoritative word. We thank you that it is a light shining in a dark place. and we would do well to pay attention to it. We thank you, Father, that these things have been written down for us on whom the end of the ages has come, both for our instruction and for our comfort. So we ask, Father, that you would instruct us and comfort us here this morning through your Spirit. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Okay, so let's read 2 Peter 1. Verse 16 to 21. Verse 16, for we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was born to him by the majestic glory, this is my beloved son with whom I'm well pleased, We ourselves heard this very voice born from heaven for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed to which you would do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Knowing this first of all that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. So just in this past week, a neighbor from down the street popped in to visit Michelle. And she's from the Ukraine, and she speaks Russian. And her English is not great. and my Russian is worse. So our conversation kind of moved forwards in stops and starts, but at some point, when there was a sort of a little pause in the conversation, she asked in that broad sort of Russian accent, how do you know the Bible is true? And that question took us by surprise, of course, and one doesn't necessarily always have one's ducks in a row. to immediately answer a question like that. So my question to you this morning is, how do we know that the Bible is true? How do we know that we can trust God's word? How do we know that the promises, especially the ones that concern Jesus' return, His second coming, not as a helpless babe in the manger, as we sang this morning, but as the great king who will gather his people to himself, and who will also judge the nations. How do we know that these promises can be relied on? The question I'm asking this morning is, how do we know that the scripture is reliable? And that is, of course, the title of my sermon, the reliability of the scripture. Now you may recall that Jesus, while he was still here on earth, gave Peter a glimpse into his future. In John 21, verse 18 and 19, Jesus tells Peter how he was going to die. Don't turn there, I'll just read it. John 21, verse 18 and 19. He says to him, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go. The next verse says that Jesus told him this, to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God. And we can pick up a few things from this portion of text regarding Peter's death. He knew that he would die as an old man. It says, but when you are old. And he knew that he would be martyred. It says, they will carry you where you do not want to go. And we know that the word martyr is the same word for witness in the Greek. So Peter bore witness for Christ until he was an old man and then was killed for that witness. In 2 Peter 1, verse 14, that's just two verses before our portion of text, before our passage, Peter writes, the putting off of my body will be soon, as the Lord made clear to me. So we know that 2 Peter was written shortly before his death, and that was the problem. Peter was nearing his death, and there was a teaching that was making the rounds by false teachers amongst the same churches that he previously had written to, the churches of First Peter in Asia Minor. So, Like a worthy under-shepherd who cares for his flock, he needed to address this false teaching and warn them. Although Peter doesn't identify some specific cult or false religion, we can discern the main thrust of the false teaching. The central theme, listen carefully, of their teaching was Eschatological skepticism. Now I wanna make sure that I don't lose anyone. So let's just define the terms. What is eschatological skepticism? So eschatological comes from eschatology, which is the study of the end times. The word in the Greek for last is eschatos, So eschatology is the study of lost things. Now skepticism, that's actually a lot easier. It's related to being a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who questions the validity of something, who has a doubting attitude towards something. So eschatological skepticism in this case, refers to someone who doubts or undermines the teaching of the apostles about the second coming of Christ and the final judgment that will come out of that. And one has to ask, why? Why these false teachers had a skepticism about the end times? And the answer is actually quite straightforward. In their own minds, they had a very clear notion about when the second coming should have taken place. They would have insisted that Christ had promised an immediate return. And because this hadn't taken place, they cast off the expectation that it would ever take place. And this is what we need to understand then about the epistle of second Peter. The entire letter revolves around this one theme. Everything that Peter writes relates to this sole purpose, that of coming against the eschatological skepticism of the false teachers. So this is my proposition to you. As we work through our text this morning, we will see Peter's defense against the claims of the false teachers. He attests to the fact that the second coming of Christ and the divine retribution or judgment that is coupled with that coming is certain. He wants his readers to know that the scriptures in affirming the return of the Lord in power and glory can be completely relied on. To show this, Peter calls two sets of witnesses into the dock. and requires them to present direct evidence for the reliability of Scripture. His first set of witnesses is the New Testament Apostles and their eyewitness testimony. This is from verse 16 to 18, so if you're taking notes, that would be point, the first point of point A, verse 16 to 18 of your passage. His second set of witnesses is the Old Testament prophets and the divine origin of their message. And that is verse 19 to the end of the passage, verse 21. So let's look at the first set of witnesses, the New Testament apostles and their eyewitness testimony. Let's read those verses again. 2 Peter chapter one from verse 16 to 18. For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was born to him by the majestic glory, this is my beloved son with whom I'm well pleased, we ourselves heard this very voice born from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. So note how verse 16 starts, for we did not follow cleverly devised myths. The false teachers that Peter warns about have brought this charge against the apostles. They're saying that they are following cleverly devised myths when they taught about the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in power to judge. But what did they mean by this accusation? You see, the old Greek myths, the stories about the gods, were seen as moral or philosophical truths in picture form. They were not literally true. So you could do with them what you wanted to. You could interpret them allegorically, or you could change their meaning, or you could just reject them as fairy tales. The sense behind the words cleverly devised is that of cleverly concocted inventions, but in a bad way. Fundamentally, these false teachers denied the second coming. In 2 Peter 3, verse 4, and don't turn there, just listen. 2 Peter 3, verse 4, it says, And this is what they were saying. Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. So in this denial, they undermined the testimony of the apostles. Their charge was that when the apostles preached the second coming of Christ, that their message was not based on divine revelation, but was instead based on human invention. They may also have charged that the apostles invented this myth as a means of moral control through fear. As a direct result, The false teachers promised moral freedom expressed in fleshly fulfillment. They said the apostles are lying to you. They're trying to control you. There's no coming judgment. Cast off the moral constraints that you put on yourself and live out your desires. And that is an important connection that we must not miss regarding Peter's focus on holiness in this letter as a whole. A denial of the second coming leads directly to licentious behavior. But Peter warns that God will hold people accountable for their actions. And so the eschatological teaching of the apostles is held to be not prophecy inspired by God, but inventions of human cleverness for some shady motive. But Peter says, we did not follow cleverly devised myths, but we were eyewitnesses to his majesty. He rejects the accusation emphatically. They saw with their own eyes his majesty and heard the voice when he received honor and glory from the Father. Notice also what the apostles were teaching about. Again, verse 16. When we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The apostles taught the early Christians about the power and coming of the Lord. In the original language, these two words, power and coming, are closely connected to each other. They should be interpreted together. In English we have sort of a similar construction. It's the expression of a single idea using two different words, but they're separated by and. An example of that would be nice and warm. You could also obviously say nicely warm. In the same way, power and coming could be translated as the power of His coming or His coming in power. And this is the truth that Peter is conveying. When Jesus returns, He will return in power. And so we also need to look at the word coming. This word has such a special meaning that it's familiar to many of us, even in its Greek form. The word in the Greek is parousia. Say that with me, parousia. Parousia can simply mean presence. And there are a number of places in the New Testament where it means exactly that. Philippians chapter two, verse 12. Philippians chapter two, verse 12 is a good example of this. therefore and you can just listen therefore my beloved as you have always obeyed so now not only as in my presence parousia but much more in my absence work out your own salvation with fear and trembling you see but in the new testament parousia also becomes a technical term for the future coming of Jesus Christ in power. In languages, when a term is used in its technical sense, it means that it has taken on a specific meaning with a specific usage. In the Hellenistic world, this word was often used for the arrival of a king or a god. But to Christians, it took on the technical meaning of the future coming of the Lord in glory. There are many references that I could take you to, but I'll just give you two here. You don't have to turn there, just listen. 1 Thessalonians 2, verse 19. For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Parousia. Is it not you? And then also 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 1 and 2. 2 Thessalonians 2, this is just for those who are taking notes. Now, concerning the coming, parousia, of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed either by a spirit or a spoken word or a letter seeming to be from us to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Okay. What the apostles preached then was the powerful future coming of the Lord. And this is the parousia. So read verse 17 with me. 2 Peter 1 17. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was born to him by the majestic glory, this is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased. When you read this verse, the first question that comes up is when did this happen? When did he, Jesus, receive honor and glory from the Father? When was the voice born to him from the majestic glory? Peter was here referring to a very specific event in the life of Jesus, which is so important that it is recorded for us in all three synoptic gospels. For those of you who are wondering what the synoptic gospels are, They are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They're called synoptic because they share quite a high degree of similarity in content and in their order. So that you can sort of do side-by-side comparisons with them. The Gospel of John is different. So it isn't regarded as one of the synoptics. So this very specific event is in all three synoptics. and it's called the transfiguration. This is where Jesus takes three of his closest disciples up on the mountain and he's transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun and his clothes became white, remember as light and then Moses and Elijah was there and then a voice came out of the cloud. And I'll read for you Matthew chapter 17, yeah, chapter 17, verse five, listen to what it says. He was still speaking, that's Peter, when behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them and a voice from the cloud said, this is my beloved son with whom I'm well pleased, listen to him. So we see that Peter, when he says in second Peter, that the voice was born to him by the majestic glory is appealing to the transfiguration in his argument against the false teachers when they deny the coming of the Lord in glory. So look at the first portion of verse 17. for when he received honor and glory from God the Father. Now in much the same way as we discussed earlier with power and coming, the words honor and glory are a natural pair. They're not easily separable. The sense is of placing honor on Jesus by glorifying his appearance. When one looks at the usage of glory in the Synoptic Gospels, that's remember, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it's almost always used of the parousia, the second coming of Christ in power. This is also often the case outside the Gospels. It is appropriate then, or shall I say, it permits us to interpret it that the glory which he received at the transfiguration is the same glory we will see at the parousia. It's important to note that at the transfiguration, Jesus receives honor and glory from the Father. The primary function of the transfiguration is not an Epiphany, an epiphany is an appearance or a manifestation of deity. So the primary function of the transfiguration was not to show that Jesus was God. The primary function was an appointment or a commissioning. Jesus was appointed as the eschatological king and judge who will come in glory. He received that honor from the father. At the transfiguration he is given the status of the one to whom all things will be subdued when he comes as the judge in the last day. There is something that I need to add just to sort of wrap a bow around what I've just said. I have just explained to you that the primary function of the transfiguration is not as an epiphany, an appearance or manifestation of deity, but rather as a commissioning or an appointment to a specific role. Having said this, I do also need to highlight that Peter, earlier in the chapter, fully affirms the deity of Christ. As we read this morning, he refers to him as God. This is how the letter starts, 2 Peter 1 1. Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. And that's why Jesus could say, In John chapter 17 verse 5, and now father glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. So now we've read Matthew 17 verse 5 where the voice spoke out of the cloud and said, this is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased, listen to him. What we find in 2nd Peter is a slight difference in what was said by the voice from the cloud. Peter writes, this is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased. And then he leaves off the ending, listen to him. And there's a reason for that. Peter is focused here on the immediate events at the transfiguration and not on the future teaching ministry of Jesus. He doesn't want to distract his readers from his main argument. So in verse 18, we read, we ourselves heard this very voice born from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. Now this reference by Peter to the holy mountain is asking us to look more closely at a very well-known portion of text in the Old Testament and that is Psalm 2. I think you guys can just briefly turn there keep your hand by second Peter and just turn over to Psalm 2. You guys all there? So verse six of Psalm 2 reads, but as for me, I have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain. In verse seven, we read, I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord. He said to me, you are my son. Today I have begotten you. So we see echoes of Psalm two in all the transfiguration accounts, when the voice declares, this is my beloved son. And then immediately after that, in verse eight and nine, We see the dominion of the king over the nations. Ask of me and I will surely give the nations as your inheritance and the very ends of the earth as your possession. Now from very early on, Psalm 2 has been categorized as a messianic psalm, in other words, a psalm that speaks of the Messiah. This is not only in Christian understanding, but before that with the Jews already. The Bible itself applies this psalm to Jesus in Revelation chapter 2, verse 26 to 28. You're not going to read it, but I'm just... Mentioning it slowly so that people can write it down and go and read it later. Revelation chapter two, verse 26 to 28. And that is Peter's point. Jesus, as God's son, has been designated as the one who will exercise eschatological judgment in the Parousia. Okay, so turn back to 2 Peter. So we've seen with Peter's first set of witnesses, the New Testament apostles, that they didn't follow cunningly concocted fairy tales when they taught about the second coming of Christ, but they were eyewitnesses to his majesty at the transfiguration. They witnessed him receiving honor and glory from the Father. and Peter argues that if the primary function of the transfiguration on the holy mountain is understood then it confirms the reliability of what scriptures have always prophesied that when Jesus returns he will return in power. But Peter doesn't only call the apostles to testify as he makes his case for the reliability of scripture, he now brings in the second set of witnesses, the Old Testament prophets and the divine origin of their message. This we see in verse 19 to 21. Let's read those verses again. 2 Peter chapter one, verse 19. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Knowing this, first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. I read from the ESV, which says, and we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed. But the literal translation is better rendered as the more sure prophetic word. Let's first deal with prophetic word and we'll look at the words more sure afterwards. Now various definitions have been suggested for what this is referring to, the prophetic word. Some would suggest that the prophetic word refers to the actual transfiguration event. but I don't see how this could be. In verse 20, it speaks of the prophecies of scripture, and that word scripture has writings in view, not an event. Other scholars suggest that the whole of the Old Testament scriptures are in view, which is not sort of all bad as an interpretation because in a sense, all of scripture is a revelation from God. But I think it would be better because of the focus on prophecy in the text to see it as a reference to Old Testament prophecies relating to the Day of Judgment or the Day of the Lord. And that would of course point us back to Psalm 2. But by no means is this the only prophetic reference in the Old Testament to the future reign of Christ. So the prophetic word in my view is best seen as the Old Testament prophecies related to the parousia. But what is Peter referring to when he refers to the more sure prophetic word? What does he mean by more sure? More sure than what? Some commentators would suggest that because Peter had a private experience up there on the mountain, the words more sure show that the written prophecies of the Old Testament are more certain or carry a higher status of reliability than the private experience that Peter had of the transfiguration. And I would actually agree with this. The word of God is always more sure, more certain, more reliable than our own private subjective experiences. We are people of the word. God has chosen to reveal himself through the scriptures. The written word is our only rule for faith and practice. And whenever our private experiences come into conflict with the teaching of infallible scripture, the scripture always takes the place of authority. Okay, but some have suggested that the more sure prophetic word is somehow more certain or more reliable than the transfiguration. Now, I'm not now talking about Peter's private experience, but about the actual event, the external objective event of the transfiguration. But if this were true, Peter wouldn't in effect be undermining his previous witnesses that he just had in the dock, the apostles from verse 16 to 18. Their eyewitness testimony would be undermining that. On the contrary, we've seen how Peter views the transfiguration as convincing and irrefutable proof of the second coming, and that it stands as that proof by itself. A better understanding, in my view, is that the transfiguration provides confirmation of the Old Testament prophetic word. As one commentator, Paul Gardner says, Peter is not comparing, but piling up. Both witnesses are reliable, but together they persuade still further. So the transfiguration is not being seen as more or less reliable than the scriptures, but rather as a confirmation that the parousia The second coming of Christ in glory as king and judge should be taken literally. It shouldn't be spiritualized. He will come as a literal king to reign over his kingdom and as a literal judge to judge the wicked. And that's why Peter then tells his readers that they would do well to pay attention to the prophetic scriptures as to a lamp shining in a dark place. The world or the mind of man is darkened or murky or uncertain regarding the judgment that is to come if the truth of the scriptures has not brought light. So they would do well to pay attention to it until the day dawns. Until when? Until the day dawns. The dawning of the day refers to, or it refers symbolically to the beginning of the eschatological age, to the beginning of the day of the Lord. If you're driving down the N1, and you're heading to Cape Town, you will see signs pointing you to Cape Town. And those signs will remain until when? Until you get to Cape Town. Then you don't need the signs anymore because you're in Cape Town. The prophecy of the coming will no longer be required once the one about whom the prophecy speaks has come. But look now at the last part of verse 19. Until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. The verse ends with a reference to the morning star. The morning star back then and today refers to that star that we see just before dawn. This is actually the planet Venus. But importantly, it was thought of through the ages as introducing daylight into the world. The commentators are virtually unanimous in their agreement that the morning star here in 2 Peter is an allusion to Numbers 24 verse 17. Numbers 24 verse 17. A star shall come out of Jacob. And this was interpreted as referring to the Messiah by the Jews. We also see in Revelation chapter 22 verse 16 that Jesus says of himself, I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. So it's clear then that the rising of the morning star is a symbol for the start or inauguration of the eschatological age, the parousia, the coming of the Lord in power. I'm repeating these terms so that you start seeing what we're talking about when we talk about these different terms. But what do we make of the fact that the morning star will rise in your hearts? This is a sort of a surprising statement because Peter has been arguing that the parousia is an external literal event. He now seems to say that it's something that happens privately in your heart. As a result, some commentators have denied that it refers to the parousia. Others have spiritualized this very central Christian hope. But neither of these two views are justified. Peter isn't speaking about some private spiritual experience, but the internal realization of an externally fulfilled hope when Christ returns. So you do well to pay attention to the prophecies of the coming of the Lord in power until he actually comes in that power. It is then that believers will receive both externally and in their hearts the fullness of what they've been hoping for. So even though it doesn't seem so at first, verse 20 again presents us with some language that we need to wrestle with. Peter doesn't let up. Let's read verse 20. 2 Peter chapter 1 verse 20, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. You see the main thrust of why this verse needs to be wrestled with goes around whether Peter was focused on the origin of prophecy or its interpretation. A survey of a couple of good English translations reveals how difficult it is to be certain of the proper meaning. You must understand that these English translations, the translators have wrestled over these things, and some have landed here and others have landed there. You may just read the same verse in different translations and you'll see what I mean. Reading it in the ESV, which we did just now, shows one meaning coming out. 2 Peter 1.20 in the ESV, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. Here we see it speaking about someone, which is taken to include the one who is interpreting what he is reading. Now, this could include you and I, but it's argued that Peter is here coming against the false teachers who are going about twisting scripture and formulating their own interpretations to support their view that there will be no return of Christ in glory. Now, if I ever, we read verse 20 in the NIV, we see a different meaning coming out, 2 Peter, chapter 1 verse 20 in the NIV above all you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation of things here we see that it is the prophet who is in view and he is providing not only the prophecy but also the interpretation of the prophecy And the various other English translations lead, they either lean to one or to the other option. What makes the task complicated is that the English word interpretation speaks to us about how one understands scripture. But the Greek noun is in the genitive case, which speaks more towards the source of scripture. Now if we accept this meaning, the one where both the prophecy and the interpretation of the prophecy comes from the prophet, then it forms a natural basis for the command in verse 19 that we are to pay attention to the scriptures. And the Greek word for interpretation also leans towards this meaning. It literally means untying. or unraveling, and it's used widely to refer to the explanation of mysteries and visions and things like that. So it's my view that the best way to interpret this text is that the proper interpretation of prophecy comes from God in the same way as what the actual prophecy does. If I'm correct in my view, then the next verse, verse 21, just reinforces Peter's argument regarding the source and origin of Scripture. Read it with me. 2 Peter 1.21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. As Paul said, the only one who knows the mind of God is the spirit of God. So only he could have inspired scripture. So we've seen now with Peter's second set of witnesses, the Old Testament prophets, that Peter is not putting the transfiguration event up against the Old Testament prophecies. so that they might be seen to be competing with each other. Instead, he is presenting both as equally reliable, and he's, in a sense, piling them up. Both are reliable, but together they persuade still further. Peter doesn't replace the prophets with his experience, he reinforces them. And this is why he tells his readers that they would do well to pay attention to them until the full revelation of God is manifested at the parousia, the coming of Christ in power. Because all scripture has its origin in God and is trustworthy. So we worked our way through this portion of text. We saw Peter's defense against the false teachers who denied Christ's return in power. And we saw that he will judge the world. Their denial undermined the trustworthiness and reliability of the scripture. With his first set of witnesses, the New Testament apostles, he asserted to the saints that were reading his letter that the apostles' eyewitness testimony of the honor and glory that Jesus received from the Father at the Transfiguration bore witness to the reliable teaching of the Scriptures, that Christ will return in power as King and Judge. And then with his second set of witnesses, the Old Testament prophets, Peter attests that because of the divine origin of both the prophecies and the interpretation of the prophecies, his readers could rely on them completely. So together, Peter puts the message of the New Testament apostles and the message of the Old Testament prophets on an equally divine and authoritative footing. God spoke to both groups, giving them both his reliable word as a sure foundation for Peter's readers in Asia Minor to stand on. In the same way, we can trust them. We can trust the message of hope which he brought through these two witnesses. So in closing, that means you must all sit up and listen now. I'd like to briefly address two groups of people in the congregation here this morning. It is true and appropriate to say that this entire congregation is divided into two kinds of people. There are those who are in Christ, and then there are those who are not. There is not a third kind. If you are in Christ, know that as Peter has shown us, the scriptures are reliable. As trials come in their many varied forms, whatever it is, could be a death in the family, could be financial strain, could be marriage, could be anxiety, could be wayward children, could be depression, Or just as sin generally crouches at the door seeking to have you, let me ask you, do you see scripture as your light shining in a dark place? Or are you battling the forces of darkness while groping around in the dark? know that Christ's message of hope through his Old Testament prophets and his New Testament apostles is sure and steadfast and true. And we can lean on the more sure promises contained in the word. If, however, you are not in Christ or if you have uncertainty about which one you are, You need to understand, as Paul preached in Athens, in Acts 17, verse 30 and 31, the times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed. And of this, he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. If you are not in Christ, repent of your sin and trust in him for your salvation. And he promises, according to John 6.37, all that the father gives me will come to me. And whoever comes to me, I will never cast out. Let's pray. Father, we thank you once again for your word. We ask that you would establish it in our hearts this morning so that we may lean on it and know that we can rely on it. We pray that through your spirit, you might bring conviction of sin, and of that righteousness that comes from you, and of the judgment that is coming through the one man. We ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.