I don't know if you've been able to figure it out, but the songs in the first half give the foundation for the reconciliation that God has given. These ones dealt with the resistance that comes from the world of flesh and the devil to that unity, and that we are bound and determined to pursue what God has ordained for the church and for this world, the reconciliation by grace all to the glory of God. And we're going to be looking at a passage right now, 2 Samuel chapter 19. that shows a messy reconciliation. It's not as full as you would hope that it could be. And yet the principles that God has ordained for reconciliation are all illustrated here. So 2 Samuel chapter 19 beginning to read at verse 9. Now all the people were in a dispute throughout all the tribes of Israel saying the king saved us from the hand of our enemies, he delivered us from the hand of the Philistines and now he has fled from the land because of Absalom. But Absalom whom we anointed over us has died in battle. Now therefore why do you say nothing about bringing back the king? So King David sent to Zadok and Abiathar the priests saying, speak to the elders of Judah saying, why are you the last to bring the king back to his house since the words of all Israel have come to the king to his very house? You are my brethren. You are my bone and my flesh. Why then are you the last to bring back the king? And say to Amasa, are you not my bone and my flesh? God do so to me and more also if you are not commander of the army before me continually in the place of Joab. So he swayed the hearts of all the men of Judah just as the heart of one man so that they sent this word to the king, return you and all your servants. And the king returned and came to the Jordan. And Judah came to Gilgal to go to meet the king, to escort the king across the Jordan. And Shimei, the son of Gerah of Benjamite, who was from Bahurim, hurried and came down with the men of Judah to meet King David. There were a thousand men of Benjamin with him and Ziba, the servant of the house of Saul and his 15 sons and his 20 servants with him. And they went over the Jordan before the king. Then a ferry boat went across to carry over the king's household and to do what he thought good. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word, and it is our glory to study it and to seek to live it out. And we pray for the power of your Holy Spirit to do so in Jesus name. Amen. But when there is major conflict, as has been happening earlier in this chapter, it can sometimes be a tricky thing to bring about reconciliation. This is true between individuals and families and churches. Certainly true when it comes to civil areas because there's so many more people, so many widely varied opinions, so many more sins to complicate matters. But even though this reconciliation that David was attempting here was messy in some ways, I am so grateful that it's included in the canon of Scripture because life is messy. And the messiness of reconciliations that we attempt here on earth looks much more frequently like what goes on in this chapter than it does like the picture-perfect reconciliations that you see in the books. And the first thing that we see here, that we see in modern life, is that not everyone really wants to be reconciled. Verse 9 begins, Now all the people were in a dispute throughout all the tribes of Israel. They were arguing about whether they really ought to be reconciled to David. Those who were pushing for reconciliation were not necessarily giving the best answers, but at least they were motivated to try to patch things up. But that word dispute, I think, makes it quite clear not everybody was on board. Some assume, some commentators assume, because of the dynamics that occur later on in this chapter, that this was regional differences between North and South. That may have factored into it. I'm not convinced that's the entire answer because if you look at the way it's worded, it's just not in one region or the other. It says, now all the people were in a dispute throughout all the tribes of Israel. So even within a tribe, any given tribe, there was disputing going back and forth, probably for two reasons. Because of the lies and the slander that Absalom had sent out about David, people had mixed feelings about him, whether they even should be reconciled. And there was probably fear of retaliation And so whatever the case, whatever the reasons were, not everybody wanted reconciliation. It would take some pretty major sacrifices on the part of David to convince them that he was sincere. And this is so true to life. Down through the years, I have seen numerous reasons for resistance to reconciliation. even by godly people. Sometimes the resistance is because people are skeptical of the sincerity of the other person. They wonder, is he really repentant? I'm not sure that I want to trust that person again. Sometimes it's because of pride. There can be any number of reasons why people would not want to be reconciled. But I bring this up because we need to be prepared ahead of time to understand potential problems obstacles to reconciliation, what the potential solutions to those obstacles might be. David was certainly prepared and it was a good thing that he was. And so I would recommend that you do at least a little bit of study on these potentials for people not wanting to be reconciled with you. There's great books out there. My favorite book is by Ken Sandy. It's called The Peacemaker. But we do need to understand occasionally there is a resistance to even the desire for reconciliation. Then point two, verses nine through 10 give the reasoning of at least some of the advocates for reconciliation. Now all the people were in a dispute throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us from the hand of our enemies. He delivered us from the hand of the Philistines. Now he has fled from the land because of Absalom. But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, has died in battle. Now therefore, why do you say nothing about bringing back the king?" Now, I see five arguments being used by the proponents for reconciliation. And the first argument is they say, technically, he's still the king. They call him the king, which implies that the, again, as we saw before, the anointing that they gave of Absalom was unconstitutional. David had never been properly deposed. There was a process you could go through where you could impeach a king and he's no longer your king, but they're still recognizing he's the king. Second, they acknowledge that David had done them good, had done a wonderful job in protecting them from their enemies, which is the biggest reason for even having a king. A king was not supposed to be administrating everything in your lives like happens here in America. His primary purpose was protection, and he did a great job at that. Third, at least some seem to be blaming Absalom for the reconciliation. And that makes sense because in chapter 15 we saw that Absalom had spent quite three years spreading all kinds of slander and lies about David. One of the lies that was spread was that, okay, he's a bad king. Those are some of the lies that he's spread. But the other one that we saw very clearly was that Absalom and Ahithophel were claiming that David was dying anyway, dying of a disease. and that Absalom was the heir apparent. And they're saying, wow, David sure doesn't seem like he's dying. And so this is another reason. They do take some of the blame themselves in verse 10. They say, Absalom whom we anointed over us. So, I mean, it was us who did this. And then the fourth reason is that they don't have much choice because Absalom is dead. Even though David didn't seem like he's dying, it's pretty clear Absalom is dead. The fifth reason given is that somebody needs to do something. Nobody's willing to take the first step, but there does seem to be at least some advocates for reconciliation. But commentators point out, despite all of the disputes, it does not look like anything has happened or is likely to happen, and that is why the frustrated question in the last part of verse 10. Now therefore, why do you say nothing about bringing back the king? These are the people in Israel that are asking this. Making no forward movement, the leaders don't seem to be able to act. So David recognizes, okay, we've probably got to have third-party negotiators involved in this, and who would be better for this than pastors? Who would be better for this than Abiathar and Zadok, the priests? They were knowledgeable in the law of God. They were godly. They wanted a godly outcome. They were respected leaders by both sides of this dispute. They were more likely to be able to speak to both sides without them feeling threatened. So verse 11 says, so King David sent to Zadok and Abiathar the priest saying, speak to the elders of Judah. It can take some of the emotion out of a debate when you can have third party advocates who begin and help to process the discussions that are going on. And by the way, I think it is usually preferable to have mediation than to take things to court. Now there is a place for court, but it's usually a last resort type of a situation. Let me give you some of the disadvantages of a court and the advantages of mediation like what was going on here. First, it's rare that a court settlement, whether you're talking about civil court or a church court, it is rare that a court case settlement will end up as a win-win situation where good mediation can often be a discussion of we versus the problem. A court case tends to have one party versus the other party in almost always. It's a win-lose situation. And even though the winner wins, he loses a bunch of stuff as well. Second, energies are primarily directed to minimizing the evidence against you when you're taking things to court and focusing only on proving that the other person is wrong. There's no motivation to look at things from the other person's perspective, whereas in mediation, that's quite different. Third, in a court case, it is conflict-focused rather than relationship-focused. This tends to exacerbate the bad feelings rather than dealing with them. And then fourth, the disputants lack ownership of the results. What happens in a court is they're having a decision imposed upon them by the court, whether they like it or not. Whereas when you've got mediation, you're working together on something that hopefully will be mutually satisfying. And that's exactly what happens in these verses. Now, I bring that up not because there was even a court case possible. There wasn't. Even the war has similar, you know, dynamics to it. But I bring it up just to show that when you bring negotiators, third-party people into a question, sometimes it can help to resolve the problems. And too frequently, especially in micro-Presbyterian denominations, but you see it in the PCA, you see it in the OPC, in Reformed circles, too frequently, people just take everything to court, and they're missing out on these other possibilities that the Peacemakers book talks about. Now, in most churches, you don't have ever any discipline, and that's a bad thing, but there are extremes that we need to avoid on this. Now, obviously, we're missing a lot of details on what exactly Zadok and Abiathar were able to talk through. But even what we have recorded here, I think, gives hints of a normal process for reconciliation. We've already hinted at the first point. Somebody needs to make the first move. Right? Would have been easy for David to say, they wronged me. They're going to have to make the first move. I'm not going to do it. But for the sake of God's glory in the kingdom, he made the first move by asking Zadok and Abiathar to get involved and even he gave hints to them as to what could be said and what he was willing to do. And too many times, reconciliation stops at this point. One or both parties to a conflict are utterly unwilling to be the first ones to reach out to the other party. You know, they feel done in and they're thinking, you know, hey, that other person's totally in the wrong. It's their move. It's not on me to do this. I'm not going to budge an inch until they do such and such. And we might ask, did David have some wrong? Well, obviously, yes, he did. Way back, he had that sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. And God says that this was part of his discipline of David. But from a human perspective, in terms of legalities or anything like that, there wasn't anything that David had done that was wrong. But with all of the slander that Absalom had spread out there, there was plenty for both sides to be offended over. And it would have been easy for both sides to be waiting for an eternity for the other party to admit their wrongs. Maturity will take the first step whether I'm in the wrong or whether I'm in the right. It really doesn't matter. My focus should be on God's glory, the testimony of Christ and the good of the brethren. Next, there often needs to be some effort put into getting the reluctant party or parties on board. I want you to notice again the question at the end of verse 11, why are you the last to bring the king back to his house since the words of all Israel have come to the king to his very house." Now that reference to all Israel indicates commentators say that the ten northern tribes have already quite easily reconciled to David, but it was the southern leaders that David was more closely identified with who were saying no. They were dragging their feet perhaps because they had been more closely identified with the rebellion with Absalom. So efforts were being made to try to draw the reluctant parties into the talks. The third process issue that we see is the realization that unconditional acceptance of each other does not mean unconditional agreement. And failure to understand this has sometimes been a huge, huge impediment to reconciliation. People think that they can't be reconciled until they can totally agree. So let me repeat that principle. Unconditional acceptance of a person does not mean total agreement with that person. Instead, it means forgiveness and walking in grace. There may be things that they still would not see eye to eye on, but you can still be unconditionally committed to each other. And if this key process is not embraced, attempts at reconciliation will keep getting scuttled. You see, the problem in the first place was not their differences. They'd always had that. The problem was that they were alienated. They were treating each other as enemies. They had broken fellowship. David was willing to live with the differences and he was hoping that these people were willing to live with the differences as well and still be committed to each other. And this principle applies to marriage and to many different areas of life. If we will only be reconciled when the other party has fully, completely repented or perfectly changed their mind on every last area of disagreement that we've had over the last 30 years, the likelihood of reconciliation is pretty slim. Now let me just illustrate this. If I were to point with my finger, which I'm not going to do, at various people in this congregation, I'm sure that there are a number of people that I could point to whom we would have pretty significant disagreements with. And I think you would probably recognize what those disagreements are because, even if I'm not, because I've got the big mouth, right? Everybody knows what I believe. and maybe you keep it to yourself. So here's the question. Why can we love each other and respect each other and embrace each other in the Lord when we've got all of these differences? And the reason is because of grace. We are connected to each other not because we agree so much as because we embrace all whom Christ embraces and we love each other enough to work on our differences. So our reconciliation, well, let's wait on the reconciliation part on it. We work on our differences when we don't have conflict, we work on our differences out of the security of knowing that we are accepted, that we love each other, okay? We don't work on our differences with each other in order to be accepted. The first option flows from grace. The second option flows from works righteousness. We're patient with each other, knowing that God is not finished with us yet. And the beauty of the body is that we can trust the Lord with those differences. I mean, He's the one who sanctifies anyway, right? We can't change anybody's heart. And so we can still love each other and be committed to each other in the body, even with differences. So that's the principle that I'm talking about. But frequently that attitude completely evaporates after a conflict. Where previously people overlooked these differences, now that's all they can think about. And they think they can't be reconciled until every one of those differences that existed before the conflict is solved. That's completely backwards thinking. David is making huge concessions to Amasa and the other Judahite leaders. They are no doubt making concessions to him as well. And it takes looking at life from the other person's perspective and working through trust issues. And that's what the next point is about, gaining understanding. This is the fourth process issue, and there are four subpoints under that. Everyone has been walking on eggshells and doesn't quite know how to proceed. So the first thing that Zadok and Abiathar do is they start asking questions. There are two why questions in verses 11 and 12. And what they're trying to do is they're trying to draw out why are you guys reluctant? What's going on here? What is behind this? They're trying to understand what is driving their fears. Now, this is an incredibly abbreviated account, so we're not told what stories those leaders told Zadok and Abiathar as to why they're nervous, why they were reluctant. There was probably a whole lot going on behind the scenes, but at least we see here that they were given the opportunity to answer that question. One book on mediation says that this is a real sticking point on conflict resolution. People feel like they're not being heard. It said, and let me quote this at length, one's interest in telling his or her side of the story is usually balanced by the other side's disinterest in listening. Yet successful resolution depends on both occurring. So it is critical to emphasize the value of listening skills. I find an extremely helpful technique in mediation is to ask the listening side to summarize what the talking side has said. Typically, summarization never actually takes place because the listener will admit that he wasn't listening, but then will be more attentive. In situations of conflict, we typically expend great effort to persuade our opponents where we are coming from. but we fail to invest in similar understanding of their side of the argument. In short, we don't understand them, and we don't understand the problem from their perspective. And so this first sub-point in understanding is having and promoting a learning spirit and a listening heart. The second sub-point of understanding is trying to discover what interests and perceptions are driving the other side. Frequently suspicions kick in. How come he's so different all of a sudden? I don't trust him. I'm not sure what's going on there, but I don't trust him. Why is he so suddenly cooperative? What's up his sleeve? Since the Judahites had gone along with the Absalom rebellion, They are legitimately concerned about whether David will treat them like enemies. Perhaps after they are so-called reconciled, he's going to whack off their heads. You know, what's going on? So David's invitation and his welcome reassures them. David, on his part, is worried that if they've rebelled against him before, maybe they're going to rebel after he gets into Jerusalem. Maybe they will take his head. So he's sure not going to do go over the Jordan River until he hears from them either. Now, there's another interest that's mutual, and that is that neither side was really thrilled with the idea of Israel being split into two countries, which looked like it could potentially happen. And so there are shared interests that could be useful to understand. Now, let's take this out of the area of theory and into the area of common everyday life. Your son asks you if he can borrow the car for the afternoon. You say, no. And he leaves the room and that's the end of the conversation. You might think, we're not an arguing family, but there may be hidden conflict going on within his heart because he is so frustrated that he's going to completely miss out on the sale of Macintosh computers. Now, you know this is a fictitious story, because Macs are never on sale. But if both parties were trying to look at the interests of the other party, it could help to resolve the questions. The dad's interest is, yeah, it's my day off, but I'm on call, and I don't want to miss out on a call from a client. The son's interest is, If I don't get to that store, I'm going to miss the $500 discount. Yeah, right. But anyway, if either one, the son or the dad, had asked just a couple of questions, they would have realized, oh, there's some significant interest here. Maybe we can work out some strategy. The dad, you know, if he said, why do you need the car? Well, I need it because I will save $500 if I get it today. He says, well, I could drop you off at the mall And then I may not be able to pick you up right away, but at my convenience I'll pick you up." And both sides could have their interests settled. Now, I know it's a silly illustration, but It's kind of the same thing that really happens in many areas of life. Many times the conflicts come in the first place because we're not listening. We don't have listening hearts to what's going on. What are the pains? What are the fears? What are the things that are going on in the other person's heart? David was trying to avoid that. Okay, the third sub-point in understanding is reminding each other of shared values. The Judahites were suspicious of David and he tells them in verse 12, you are my brethren. You are my bone and my flesh. Why then are you the last to bring back the king? Now in that statement, he's appealing to both shared values and relationship. OK. When conflict occurs those things can be completely forgotten because where is our focus? All we can think about is the bitterness of that problem. OK. Frequently in divorces people don't consider shared values such as loss of finances. loss of house, children, lifestyle, reputation, emotional damage, the synergy of their efforts together as opposed to being apart, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, okay? When mediators focus on what both sides value jointly, many times it can help to give perspective and help both parties to realize, hey, maybe divorce is not such a great idea after all. The fifth process item in conflict resolution is a willingness to take risks in reaching out to the other person. So, in avoiding a divorce, It could be the risk of getting hurt all over again. In coming back to a church after there has been discipline, it could be the risk of people thinking poorly of us. Now, we think, well, who would think poorly of a person who's coming back after discipline? But those are the kinds of things that go through people's minds. And there is always some risk of blowback when you are the first to reach out in reconciliation. Well, David took a huge risk in verse 13 in order to show his goodwill. David instructed Zadok and Abiathar, and say to Amasa, are you not my bone and my flesh? God do so to me and more also if you are not commander of the army before me continually in the place of Joab. He's giving an ironclad promise and in doing so he is killing several birds with one stone. He's convincing these leaders. He has no intention of going back on his word. He is committed all the way. Let me go through the things that he is doing. First of all, he was burning his bridges. Very, very helpful. He's burning his bridges. Second, with one of their own leading David's army, it ensured against David becoming vindictive against them. Okay, one of their own is leading the army. How could he be indicative? Third, it put David in a valuable place in two ways. It put him in a vulnerable place by taking a stand against Joab, who was an incredibly powerful man, and it put him in a vulnerable place by saying, look, I welcome your leading general to work hand in hand with him. That's a huge risk. Fourth, it showed that David held no grudges. In fact, it would give credence to the claim that Absalom's propaganda was just filled with lies. Fifth, David was showing what he had in common with Amazah. They were relatives, after all. Sixth, it built a bridge to the leaders by valuing their top leader. Seventh, it showed unconditional acceptance. Now David didn't have to agree with Amasa or what they had done to him in order to accept them. In fact, it would be rather hypocritical for him to say that's what the whole war was about, right? There was disagreement over this. So he didn't have to agree with him to say, look, I will accept you. And then lastly, it was a powerful statement that David did not approve of Joab's killing of Absalom. But taking this step is very risky. Reconciliation always involves some risks. And if you're only willing to be reconciled if there is no risk in it for you, you're barking up a wrong tree. It's not biblical reconciliation that you're talking about. You're talking about fairy tale reconciliation. There's always risk that is involved. Then, verse 14 shows that reconciliation is not simply an administrative issue, it is a heart issue. Until David won the heart of these leaders, there would not be lasting reconciliation. So verse 14 says, So he swayed the hearts of all the men of Judah, just as the heart of one man, so that they sent this word to the king, return you and all your servants. Now David could have fought his way back into kingship, but he wouldn't have their hearts, would he? He could have bullied his way back into leadership, but would they ever trust him again? Probably not. You see, without the hearts of these leaders, it would not be full biblical reconciliation. To show how powerfully this principle works, just think of the 10 northern tribes. Commentators say they almost instantly accepted an administratively convenient, very easy reconciliation and they fell out of that reconciliation just as easily at the end of this chapter. For them, it was just an administrative thing that could be broken off. On the other hand, though the Judahites were the slowest and the most reluctant to take back David, because David had gone through a fuller process of winning their hearts, they stuck with David even when civil war broke out once again. I know of a company that Randolph Lowry claims had treated an employee very, very badly. And he was called in, he's an attorney, he was called in to be helping the attorneys to try to settle this. It was a court case, the man had sued the company in court. And one day when Lowry was talking with the president of the company, the president confided in him that he felt terrible at how badly their company had treated this employee. And he said, well, what are you fighting it in court for? He said, have you told the employee that you feel badly about this? He says, oh, no, I've been advised that would be terrible for the lawsuit. That would come back to bite us. And he said, well, you've got to do the right thing. And so he did. He told the guy, look, we want to make this right. I feel terribly about how badly we treated you. And almost immediately, this man was willing to settle out of court for far, far less than he was suing for. When he saw that they were digging in their heels, he wanted to punish that company. That's why he was suing for so much. Now that this apology came, he just wanted fair treatment. The owner had won his heart just as David had won these Judahite hearts. And so it really is an important principle. The seventh process item was that action needed to follow agreement. When a person asks for forgiveness, but he doesn't follow through on the specific actions to change bad behavior, he won't be taken too seriously. And these people were aggressive in showing these actions of reconciliation. And there's five steps that were taken. Verse 14 shows their verbal response to David's words was a very enthusiastic response. so that they sent this word to the king, return you and all your servants. Reconciliation was now something mutually agreed to, but the first action was a verbal action. The kind of words that we speak can either short circuit or they can reinforce reconciliation. Next, there was physical reunion, verse 15. Then the king returned and came to the Jordan, and Judah came to Gilgal to go to meet the king to escort the king across the Jordan. Now if people say that they forgive and that they have been reconciled, but they refuse to be around each other, they're misusing the term forgiveness and they're misusing the term reconciliation. Reconciliation involves physical presence. It involves reunion. You're willing to be around each other. So both sides went to meet each other. Third, they gave repentance where necessary. Verse 16, and Shimei, remember the horrible, horrible treatment that Shimei gave to David. He was cursing David, throwing stones at David earlier. It says, and Shimei, the son of Gerah, Benjamite, who was from Bahurim, hurried and came down with the men of Judah to meet King David. And verses 18 through 23 amplify the story, show him crossing the river and with wet clothes, falling down prostrate before David. He was a humbled man. If you read verses 19 and 20, I mean, you see, this is a humble, thoroughgoing repentance. But he illustrates the importance of repentance and the process of reconciliation. Now, the question could come up, is he the only one who repented or were there a whole bunch of others? And this is just one sample repentance. We aren't told, but at least repentance is a part of the process. And then the repentance needs to be such that it's obvious to all. Verse 17 shows that Shimei was not ashamed to bring everyone he knew to witness this repentance. It says there were a thousand men of Benjamin with him. Shame keeps some people from making their repentance and their reconciliation publicly known matter. And it's really too bad when people are ashamed to make their repentance public because it doesn't model good repentance to others. It doesn't show humility. It gives no accountability to a person if he starts to break the peace once again. It's really much better when people are open about it like Shimei was. So hard as it is, it's a wonderful step. And then in verses 17 through 18, they serve one another. There were a thousand men of Benjamin with him, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, and his fifteen sons, and his twenty servants with him. And they went over the Jordan before the king. So they're not just waiting on the west side of the river. No, they're eagerly crossing the river, which is inconvenient, to bring the king and his family and help his men to cross. Verse 18. Then a ferry boat went across to carry over the king's household and to do what he thought good. Now Shimei, the son of Gerah, fell down before the king when he had crossed the Jordan. We'll deal with Shimei next week. But here I just want you to notice the enthusiasm with which they welcome David back. They make him and his family comfortable. They seek to serve. And the point is that action speaks a lot louder than words. And many times loving actions like these can cement a good reconciliation in place. We have to work much, much harder after a conflict in showing these actions of love, but they are important. Now there's one last process issue hinted at in this passage, and we'll actually not get to the passage itself until next week, but I'll briefly mention that reconciliation can happen even though not all sin issues are satisfactorily acknowledged, repented of, or resolved. This is why I titled this sermon Messy Reconciliation. You know, it's messy. It's just not perfect. The ideal would be to have absolutely every issue cleared up. But the mention of Ziba makes it clear that this reconciliation was not perfect and in real life it rarely is. Ziba most likely had slandered Mephibosheth in chapter 15, and David most likely had cheated Mephibosheth out of his property in that same chapter. Most commentators believe that when David met both parties in this chapter, he simply couldn't figure out who's telling the truth, who's lying. Somebody has to be lying when you look at their stories. And because of that fact, one of the two of them was going to be getting a bad deal, and nobody, at least at that point, could figure it out. And when we get to Mephibosheth's story in verses 24 through 30 on another week, it's really heartbreaking to see how sinners like Ziba can be so brash, so unashamed in their sins against others. Personally, I think Ziba slandered Mephibosheth and that the property should never have gone to him in the first place. But it's an astonishingly bold sin and yet he gets away with it. He gets away with it. Now thankfully, Mephibosheth had a very humble, forgiving, God-centered, gracious attitude and peace is preserved despite ongoing sin. But I mention Ziba here because in real life, you simply cannot expect every issue to be resolved before reconciliation is achieved. Sometimes we just need to do the best thing, you know, the right thing and just say, OK, Lord, I'm just going to trust you with the whole thing of the fact that I've been given a bad deal on this. I have personally had a number of times where I have had to overlook a major injury because the other person wouldn't own up to it. just would not accept it, but being reconciled was more important to me than being right. So those are the kinds of issues that should be thought through when you're attempting a reconciliation. There's a couple of more that aren't listed here, but I was actually amazed at how many of those reconciliation principles you see in this short historical passage. Now the last point in your outline is simply anticipating the future. Just because God's grace is at work today does not mean that it doesn't have to be at work again tomorrow and the next day and the next day after that. The initial stages of reconciliation could be so fragile. They could be easily sabotaged. And even though I'm not going to be preaching on the passage today, let me go ahead and read what happens in chapter 19, verse 40 through chapter 20, verse 2. Now the king went on to Gilgal, and Chimham went on with him, and all the people of Judah escorted the king and also half the people of Israel. Just then all the men of Israel came to the king and said to the king, Why have our brethren, the men of Judah, stolen you away and brought the king, his household, and all David's men with him across the Jordan? So all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, because the king's a close relative of ours. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we ever eaten at the king's expense or has he given us any gift? And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah and said, we have 10 shares in the king. Boy, it seems so juvenile, the argument going on here, but we have 10 shares in the king. Therefore, we also have more right to David than you. Why then do you despise us? Were we not the first to advise bringing back our king? Yet the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel. And there happened to be there a rebel whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite. And he blew a trumpet and said, we have no share in David, nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tent, so Israel. So every man of Israel deserted David and followed Sheba, the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah from the Jordan, as far as Jerusalem, remained loyal to their king." So the reconciliation of 10 tribes to David is completely blown apart by a few angry words. Okay, it's so sad. But emotional words frequently destroy the work of God's grace in His people. As a church, we should pray against that, and we should work against such tendencies. But let me also say, don't be too disheartened when they happen. I mean, it's just part of life, part of life. It's our prayer that such things would not happen frequently in this church, but human nature being what it is, rebellion can easily surface in a way that nobody can deal with. But I thought, wow, that's a pretty sour note to end a sermon on, so I'm not gonna end right there. I wanna focus on the wonderful sacrificial actions of love that the Judahites exhibited toward David. Sometimes we will never know the degree to which some action of love will break down old walls. It would have been very easy for David to hold resentment for things that had happened. But, you know, David seems to be able to cut that out of his life and move on. It didn't mean that he forgot then. But he refused to bring them to remembrance. Now you understand the difference between those two, don't you? Some people mistakenly think God forgets our sins. That is absolutely false. In fact, I would dare say it is heretical to say God forgets anything. God is omniscient. God cannot forget anything. He knows all things. But He refuses to remember our sins. He refuses to bring our sins to remembrance. And you say, what's the difference? There's a huge difference between the two. To forget is a defect of memory. It's passive. It doesn't take anything remarkable to forget something. I've had people apologize to me up and down about some sin that they've committed. I didn't even remember that they had committed that sin against me. Nothing remarkably holy about that. It's just I've got a lousy memory, okay? But refusing to remember somebody's sins against you, that's not passive. That is active. It's refusing to brood on those sins. It's refusing to hold those sins against them. It's refusing to have grudges. There's a vast difference between forgetting, which is a defect of memory, and not remembering, not bringing to remembrance something against another person. Scripture says God refuses to remember or bring to remembrance Isaiah 43, verse 24, Jeremiah 31, verse 34. And in Scripture, remembering our sins against us, 3 John, verse 10, Psalm 25, 7, Psalm 79, 8, there's a number of passages like that. Remembering sins against you means either you're going to be punished or you're going to be held accountable for your sins. And God says, hey, when you've confessed your sins, you've sought reconciliation, I'm not going to hold you accountable. That's a cool thought. That's a very cool thought. And when David refused to hold their bad behavior against them, David was not in any way saying that their bad behavior was okay or that he would not have a painful memory of that from time to time. He was going to refuse to brood on their sins. He was going to refuse to hold their sins against them to take revenge. That's what forgiveness is. It's not a passive defective memory. It's an active discipline of our mind, our emotions and our actions. And it is sacrificial love that helps to get past that and to grow deeper and deeper in our relationship. These men are engaging in sacrificial love for David and David in upcoming chapters is going to be engaging in sacrificial love toward them. Now, let me and by reading the testimony of how Randolph Lowry was conquered by the sacrificial actions of another man. He said, the power of sacrifice in establishing relationships under the most difficult of circumstances was made clear to me several years ago. My wife was enduring a very difficult pregnancy with our first child, one that left her hospitalized on numerous occasions and confined to bed for many weeks. That in itself was one act of loving sacrifice as she took steps to protect the health of the unborn child. Meanwhile, at the church where we worshiped was a man with whom I disagreed about almost everything. We were from different church backgrounds. We were from different parts of the county. We had vastly different life and religious experiences, all of which led us to polite tolerance, but certainly not close friendship. One day, late in the afternoon, there was a knock on our door. It was Larry. With a full dinner, he had spent the afternoon cooking especially for us. The awkwardness of accepting the gift was only exceeded by the generosity of his spirit. His act of love caused me to change forever my view of him and establish what will always be, from my perspective, a Christian bond. Such a bond came not from our agreement on religious issues or common experiences in life, but rather from his sacrifice, that kind of sacrifice that leads to relationship. God so loved the world and God so loved and alienated people that he did what? He gave his only begotten son. He gave sacrificially. May we too give sacrificially by pursuing these steps of reconciliation with those from whom we have been alienated. Amen. Father God, we thank you for your word and that it is a paradigm for life. Help us to live it out. even if it's imperfectly, help us to live it out. Help us to be committed to the things you are committed to and to pursue the kind of reconciliation that your whole redemptive purpose in history has revolved around. And may we be ambassadors, urging people to be reconciled to Christ, reconciled to each other. Help us to be a peacemaking congregation. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.