The Foundation, Motive & Pattern for Human Forgivenes

In this part of the sermon: He reviews the previous sermon's content, including the linguistic family of forgiveness words, vivid biblical pictures of forgiveness, and the working definitions for both divine…

Martin uses the analogy of constructing a house to explain the need for a solid foundation in understanding forgiveness. He argues that without a proper foundation, all subsequent understanding will be skewed, emphasizing the importance of starting with foundational issues like definition and the divine pattern.

Human forgiveness is a gracious God-like act of one forgiven sinner to another forgiven sinner by which the offended party makes a commitment of his will not to remember the sin of the offending party, thereby clearing the way for a restored relationship between both parties. Now today we continue to construct the house of a biblical understanding of forgiveness. And I know some of you are so antsy, what you want, you want the floor joist of the first floor, and you want the studs of the second floor, and you want the roof rafters, and you want the gables, and you want the shutters, and you wa...

10:00 - 11:24 Read in full sermon

Driving home: Most cases, not always, but in most cases, a text without its context is a pretext.

He uses the common saying 'a text without its context is a pretext' to stress the importance of understanding the broader flow of thought in Ephesians. This serves to justify his detailed explanation of the preceding chapters before diving into the specific verses on forgiveness.

this passage is to spend a few minutes seeking to remind ourselves of the general setting of this passage. You have heard it said many times. Most cases, not always, but in most cases, a text without its context is a pretext. And we have so much of this dipping in and wrenching text out in topical preaching in our day without any sensitivity to the flow of thought, to the connectedness of thought.

14:05 - 14:37 Read in full sermon

The point: Put away all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, railing, and malice from interpersonal relationships, recognizing there is never an excuse for these vices.

He illustrates 'clamor' as verbal brawling, specifically using the example of a husband and wife arguing, saying 'Yes, but you said. Yes, but you said.' This clarifies the meaning of the Greek word and makes it relatable to everyday marital conflict.

And if there's any difference, one is more the internal disposition and the other is the disposition breaking out in visible ways. Clamor. We would use the word verbal brawling. That's what happens when a husband and a wife start going at one another.

23:15 - 23:32 Read in full sermon

The point: Put away all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, railing, and malice from interpersonal relationships, recognizing there is never an excuse for these vices.

He contrasts a 'verbal brawl' with a 'barroom brawl' (throwing bar stools and bottles) to further clarify that 'clamor' refers to destructive verbal exchanges, not physical violence, emphasizing the power of words.

Yes, but you said. Yes, but you said. Verbal brawling. It's not speaking of a barroom brawl where you're throwing bar stools and bottles.

23:32 - 23:41 Read in full sermon

The point: Be kind and tenderhearted to one another, even when provoked.

Martin humorously illustrates the difficulty of kindness by imagining someone struggling to be kind to a sinless angel. This highlights that the command to be kind is given in the realistic context of dealing with imperfect, provoking fellow sinners, making the command more challenging and significant.

He says, be kind one to another. In the realism of things that will make us want to be something other than kind. Not hard to be kind to a sinless angel. Imagine anyone saying, God, I've had a rough week.

26:43 - 27:04 Read in full sermon

The point: Never deal with offenses against one another divorced from the cross of Christ, as all sin is primarily against God and pardon is found only in Christ's sacrifice.

He uses the analogy of a 'sweet smell' from a burning roast to explain the Old Testament concept of a sacrifice being a 'sweet smell' to God. He contrasts the actual acrid smell of burnt flesh with the spiritual 'sweet smell' of God's justice being satisfied by Christ's sacrifice, making the theological point more vivid.

When you read a passage such as Exodus and verse chapter 29 you find in verse 18 and in verse 25 two different kinds of sacrifices. One was an animal sacrifice and the other was the sacrifice of a loaf that was brought and when they were consumed to God. Did you ever smell a burning roast and say what a sweet smell. It stinks it's acrid.

43:06 - 43:46 Read in full sermon