Revelation

Brotherhood (Philadelphia)

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Prerequisite/Law

Lesson: 7-30

Genre: Talk

Track: 175

Dictation Name: RR129D7

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Almighty God our heavenly Father we give thanks unto Thee that day after day Thou dost sustain us, protect us, and guide us. We come to Thee our Father mindful of how great are Thy mercies, and how great our need. Minister to us in Thy wisdom, make the way straight before us, and prosper us. In Jesus name, amen.

Our scripture is from Revelation 3:7-13. Brotherhood. The subject Brotherhood, the text Revelation 3:7-13.

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

Of the seven letters to the seven churches of Asia, the letter to Philadelphia gives us the one city name which has of course a familiar ring to us. The name Philadelphia is known to us, as well as its meaning, brotherly love. And Philadelphia was called, the original Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love.

The reason it gained this name was because the founder of it, Attalus the Second, was called Philadelphos because of his loyalty to his brother. The dates for Attalus the Second are 159 to 138 B.C. About two centuries and a little more prior to this letter.

But Philadelphia gained its name from more than Attalus’s love of his brother. It was established as a missionary city. Now when we speak of a mission or a missionary, our usual connotation is Christian. But we forget very often that perhaps the most missionary minded people in our day and age are Marxists and Humanists. Philadelphia was a city founded with a mission. The Pergamian king who had conquered Lydia established Philadelphia in order to use it as a point for bringing in the Lydian’s into a Union with the Pergamians.

Philadelphia was established on the trade routes in the eastern portion of Lydia, close to the Phrygian border. Phrygia also had been conquered. Their purpose was to make out of this trading center on the trade route, a city that would promote brotherhood, between the various religions of the peoples involved in the empire, so that there would be a cultural and an educational unity between these people.

Philadelphia ably fulfilled its function. By 19 A.D. in a century and a half, the Lydian tongue was gone. It was replaced by Greek, the language of the Pergamian monarch. In the east, Phrygian was no longer spoken in Phrygia except in the backward, rural areas. The religions of these areas had been absorbed, one into the other. Brotherhood prevailed. A brotherhood in which there was no principle, no truth; simply a belief that they would be better off if they worked together.

Philadelphia had done its work for the Pergamian monarch, and later when the empire was absorbed by Rome, it did its work very ably for the Roman empire. It was, thus, first and foremost a missionary city. A missionary city whose gospel was brotherhood, brotherhood without principle; bringing things together not in terms of truth, but in terms of the fact that the political centralism of the empire required it. And so it was best for the religions, for the culture, for the peoples, for the languages to give way, so that there could be unity.

This then was the primary characteristic of Philadelphia.

The second characteristic that made Philadelphia notable was that in 17 A.D. Just in the generation or so prior to the time of this letter, one of history’s more devastating earthquakes had hit Philadelphia. The city was left in ruins, but this was not all. Hour after hour, day after day, week in and week out, month after month, tremors continued. Some of the serious ones, some of them minor ones, but it was a continuous state of earthquake.

As a result, it left its mark on the people. Reconstruction had to be postponed indefinitely; people dared not go back into the ruins of their homes, to reclaim anything from dying. Because they never knew when another tremor would come and the tottering ruins would collapse. And so the people were scattered outside the city, in the nearby villages, camping in the hills round about, waiting for the seemingly endless quaking to cease. This left its mark on the people, so that the people lived always in dread of earthquakes; the slightest tremor brought back fears that perhaps there would be a repetition of the earthquake of 17 A.D.

The city was so badly damaged, economically as well as physically, that it required massive aid from the emperor Tiberius to rebuild it. And for a time it was named (Neo Sisaria?) in his honor. But the old name Philadelphia later reasserted itself.

The congregation, the church in Philadelphia, was as elsewhere a small congregation meeting in homes. In Philadelphia the difficulty was perhaps greater than elsewhere. Imagine if you will, a small handful, perhaps about the size of our group here; meeting in homes in a city that was given over to brotherhood. A brotherhood that has no relationship to the truth. Now the whole empire of course was more or less dedicated to such a concept. The world of the day was given over to it, but here in Philadelphia especially this faith was foremost. This had been the function of Philadelphia, this had made Philadelphia great. And here were a handful of people trying to tell Philadelphia that everything that had made the city was wrong! That instead of this promiscuous brotherhood, in terms of nothing but the states desire to unify its peoples, they had to separate themselves and stand in terms of Jesus Christ and His word.

They were as far out of the main stream as they could get. They had made themselves about as impotent in terms of the culture of their day as a church could make itself; and so, theirs was a discouraging prospect and they felt very weak. And they felt that they had little strength, how could they cope with the world around about them? What affect could they have upon it? And Christ as He addressed them, recognized their situation, and spoke of them as having “A little strength.”

We can understand the plight of the Philadelphian church, because after all, in the face of a world today that has its U.N. embodying the principle of the nation’s today, that has its churches given over to this religion of brotherhood, to humanism; that has its schools proclaiming this faith, where we see the Civil Rights revolution, the legal revolution enthroning Democracy and Brotherhood and Equality. Where we see wherever we turn, virtually, in the communications media and elsewhere, this same concept of brotherhood proclaimed, it seems as though that which we represent here today has little strength against the massive forces of brotherhood.

The church was discouraged. It was a difficult situation. And our Lord as He addressed Himself to the Philadelphian church gave a triune identification of Himself: “; These things saith he that is holy.” The word holy has basic to it the concept holiness, implies definitely and requires, the idea of separation. Of something that is set apart to a limited, specific function. Thus we can speak of the communion vessels as holy, because they are set apart to a particular and specific purpose. We can speak of the pulpit in a church as holy, in this physical sense, in that it is set apart to a specific and reserved purpose, the proclamation of God’s word.

In a similar way, Christians are holy in that they are set apart for a specific and limited, prescribed purpose. “The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”

This then is the function of the believer. Christ is supremely the holy one, and His people are called to be holy. “Holy even as I am holy.” This is a requirement of radical cultural separation. Of a withdrawal from all that defiles, and a stand in terms of Jesus Christ.

The second declaration Christ makes of Himself as He identifies Himself is that: “he that is true.” Jesus is, by His own declaration and that of all scripture, the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is both the absolute truth of life, and a person. And we cannot make any sense of this with relativism, or with an abstract concept of truth. Jesus Christ, in His person, is the truth. And in His word He lays down the law of truth for us.

And His third self-identification: “he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;” the reference here is to Isaiah 22:22.

“And I came, the faithful servant of Hezekiah, who was given the key to the royal palace. And there was no admission into the presence of Hezekiah except through Eliakim.”

Jesus identified Himself to be alone the key and the door, in John 10:9 “I am the door.” There is no other way to God, save through Him. Any other door, however seeming prosperous is only death.

Now the concept at Philadelphia was, that the way to life was not through truth nor through Christ, they did not even consider Him, but through brotherhood. “Let’s have peace by forgetting everything that separates us, as long as it will enable us to get along together and to have a more prosperous society, isn’t that good enough? And so let us set aside everything that creates any kind of obstacle between man and man.”

This then was the situation in Philadelphia. The church also had the problem of the Jews who were in Philadelphia.

“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

The Jews there regarded themselves as the chosen people of God, as the true church of God. Even as today the modernists who represent the synagogue of Satan today, control virtually all the churches and tell us that they are the true church of God, and we are heretics, schismatic, outsiders who don’t know the meaning of the true church. The Jews of Philadelphia were given to the same concept that reigned in Philadelphia, and had made extensive concessions to the spirit of the age. Even as the church today has ceased to preach Christ, and preaches this humanistic brotherhood.

Looking at the church page last Sunday and this, I was interested to see how the weekly church page emphasized as various churches had official statements, or pastors in the course of an interview or priests explained their position, how they stressed their usefulness to the world. How much they had done for the Civil Rights movement, for democracy, for world peace, and how much they were doing for these things, for brotherhood, in the service of man rather than of God. And Jesus Christ says to the church of Philadelphia: “Behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

Philadelphia, the city of old, had a long history. And the Christians did triumph, and everyone else in the city did worship at their feet, as it were; bow down and acknowledge their rule. And even after their faith had drifted, their strength lasted for some time. And when the Turkish empire swept over that area, and left Constantinople a lone island, and was pounding at the gate of Constantinople, one city remained for a time, free and independent. Philadelphia. Its stand continued for some years.

And our Lord says in this to these churches, the Philadelphian churches of this age; to those faithful ones who are in a sea of this false brotherhood, brotherhood in terms of a lie; that if we stand fast in terms of Him, if we keep His word and do not deny His name: “I will make them to come and worship before Thy feet, and to know that I have loved Thee.”

“Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation,” (From the hour of trial, of shaking) “which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.”

Jesus says to the church of Philadelphia: ‘I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it.’ From the human perspective there was only a closed door in the face of this church of Philadelphia, just as for us now from the human perspective there is only a closed door in the world of our time. But Jesus Christ says that: ‘No man can shut the door of opportunity that I have set before you, because since you stand uncompromisingly in terms of me the future is yours.’ And this faith is the door of fulfillment and opportunity to victory.

And because of their faithfulness and patience they would be kept safe during the universal earthquake, the shaking that would come age after age, and they would receive the crown of victory for having run the race. And they as citizens of distinction in the true city of God, the new Jerusalem, would be as pillars in the temple, in a new kingdom in the new creation. They would have a new name, a new citizenship, a new homeland.

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

Let us pray. Our mighty God our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto Thee that Thou hast called us to be Thy people in the midst of a modern Philadelphia. And we thank Thee our Father that we have the assurance of victory, that Thou wilt bring the enemies to our feet, to bow down before us; and will establish us and our cause, unto the end that the ends of the earth may magnify Thee and glorify Thy name. Bless us in Thy service, and in faithfulness to Thee, in Jesus name, amen.

Are there any questions now? Yes.

[Audience Member] ...?... rely on when they say Jesus …?...

[Rushdoony] They have no valid scriptural basis, it is only by taking texts or fractions of texts out of context that they are able to do this, and again and again by similar use of the Old Testament prophets; and they never deal with the fact that statism is again and again railed against by the prophets; the worship of the state, so that they are actually making the state as the hope rather than Christ. They do not have an honest basis at all.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] That of course is Marxism. Because if you say that you cannot preach to the (coolie and the right savvy?) until you first give him food and clothing and what not, you are following dialectical materialism. And of course that has been tried, in China in the last century, and all it produced was rice Christians, who were there only when they got a hand out, and not a day longer. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes. That is why the letter to Philadelphia is valid to such believers today as it was then, because they know that it is a sovereign God who speaks, who ordains all things.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] The Arminian movement, of course that is a modern term, it is an ancient impulse; the Judaizers of the ancient church were of such a persuasion; and of course the various heresies, supremely Arianism which was a doctrine of self salvation, and it was at least Unitarian in orientation.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] A good question, when do we first have the Billy Graham type of approach. Very early. You had in the early centuries a number of cults arrive and for a time carry quite a sizeable number with them, because they emphasized experience, enthusiasm, at the price of any real doctrine or real thinking, and at the same time felt they, the spiritual side, represented the best in the faith.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, it was the emotional appeal. And it is significant that some of the earliest who followed this type of emotional appeal were those who came out of the background of some of these fertility cults, where there was a great deal of whipping up of oneself into an emotional frenzy. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] There is a very tangled background that sprang up in the early church, some very ugly ones. Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] We don’t know enough about the church in Philadelphia to know what the members themselves thought, but they did know that the issue was between Chris and Caesar, and they did see the power that was there in Caesar. Now, we will deal next week with those who did compromise in Laodicea. But the issue was clear cut, you either went with Christ or with Caesar; and those who went with Christ in the later centuries when persecution ended for the church as a whole, (they?) found persecution facing them again because now there was a church that the empire favored. And this was of course the church that compromised, that undercut if you remember in the creedal study that we went into, that undercut the doctrine of Christ with humanism, and made the state again strong.

Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] It means the hour of trial, of temptation, when judgement had come. In other words, when judgement comes it strikes an entire culture, so that if judgement comes upon us, it is going to strike our entire culture, so we are going to be affected by it; even as when judgement struck Philadelphia or any other place, everyone who had anything to do with Philadelphia felt the repercussion. So that, such a judgement by God on a culture or on a nation or a civilization, shook many believers, because they don’t want to see anything that will disturb them. “So we will stay in a corner, we will be good, but God, let the world go on as it is, because if you judge them our business will be hurt! After all, how cam something all around us go down the drain and we be not affected?”

And of course this attitude is very prevalent today. During this past week I talked with some very fine people who have remained in a church that has rapidly gone modernists and have compromised totally with it, ten years ago they were making a strong stand, and now you can talk with them so far about the Christian faith and no further, you can go so far with them on what is happening from a conservative perspective and they can even provide you with a lot of very interesting data, but no further. Because when you get to the point: “Where is this all going to lead to? What is going to happen? Isn’t judgement inescapable in some form?” Then of course they immediately go to the other side. They swing all the way over. Why? Because: “It must not happen, we will not accept the idea that anything that could rock the boat for us would be Godly.”

Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Strictly speaking no. This language is commonly used by many, many people who are well meaning, but the Holy Spirit alone can lead anyone to Christ. We can be the human instrumentality whereby the word is spoken, that triggers it, but basically no one is led to Christ except by the Holy Spirit Himself. So that, if the language must be used, always qualify it and make clear that the Holy Spirit leads people to Christ and we are simply the human instrumentality, and we need to be in prayer that we can be used, but we are never more than that.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] There are two basic approaches here, one is the covenantal approach. Covenantal of course is that God regards the children of believers as totally unto Himself, separated outwardly, unto Himself. And they are under the protection of the Holy Spirit and are led by Him. But we then have an obligation, since these children are given to us by the Lord, to rear them in the covenant of God and in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But when they come to years of discretion, then they either confirm the faith of their baptismal vows, accept or reject it. If they reject it they depart form the covenant, if they accept it then that which was theirs by birth becomes theirs by the Spirit.

The other approach which does not have regard for the doctrine of the covenant is that there is no difference between children of believers and unbelievers, they are all on the same level and all have to be evangelized the same way.

Now, I hold to the first. 1 Corinthians 7 makes clear that children of believers are born holy, that even an unbelieving husband or wife if they are not hostile to their partners faith, are still regarded by God in a special light,0 and are Holy unto Him. Now, this is an outward holiness, but it still means that God separates them in His dealings with the world, He doesn’t deal with them as He would with someone who is outside the covenant.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] 1 Corinthians 7, and I can give you the exact verse, I believe it is the 14th verse.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, 1 Corinthians 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

Yes?

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, that is Sadducee and Pharisee were the two main divisions, (Esteen?) earlier a third one, but mainly Sadducee and Pharisee.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] No, neither were. All who hoped in Judaism then were apostate.

Our time is virtually over, but there are a few things I would like to pass on to you, one from today’s Herald Examiner “Hippie’s unhappy, publicity kills cult.” In other words, the hippies are abandoning hippie-dom, because they feel that there are too many imitators, the plastic hippy. However they will only go into something worse, even as the beatniks gave way to the hippie’s. They are certainly not abandoning drugs, and I was reliably told that in the past few weeks in San Francisco as I learned when I was up there, there were at least 19 murders in the hippy area.

Now this, which is the Berkeley Barb which is a leftist periodical, the issue of September 22-28 1967. The back page has a list of phone calls and phone numbers, and it is interesting, these are for hippies; and they include things like: Hip job co-ops, Hip medical center, and the Planned Parenthood number, the American Civil Liberties Union, and so on, Association to repeal (?). Two suicide prevention numbers, as well as LSD rescue numbers. So that these people who believe in love and flowers (?) quite a bit of murder, but they have to have in their papers emergency numbers to call for suicide prevention and LSD rescue.

Then I thought it was very interesting to read also in today’s paper, this article: “Exodus from Dixie.” And of course we do know that there has been a mass movement of Negro’s out of the deep South, but this is now accelerated because some Southern states as well as rural counties in small towns, follow policies that expel Negro’s. What are these? There are for example, 21 states, this is more than the deep south, that are forfeiting 106 million dollars the government is offering for aid to families with dependent children, because they will not put up sufficient state funds to qualify as these states, 13 are, in the south. So of course they are leaving for the big northern and western cities where they can get a good subsidy from Federal, State, and County sources. As a result, of the 18-20 million Negro’s in the country only 1 and half million Negro’s are still living on farms. This is a major revolution, culturally, in that 30 years ago most Negro’s were in the rural south. And this has vast implications for the future in a number of ways, both in that they form a revolutionary nucleus in these communities, in these cities, and also in our greater vulnerability to disease and epidemic.

This from the Wednesday September 27, 1967 Oakland Tribune on the front page, “High school at Berkeley Bars Singers. A Berkeley high school faculty/student committee has rejected a request to have a patriotic singing group perform at a school assembly. The group of course was the Up with the People show group, which is moral re-armament. But this was not the reason. J. Manly, a dramatic teacher and chairman (?) of the offending committee said that the Up with the People show was rejected because: “It deals with images rather than realities, and set standards of morality, of right and wrong, good and bad.” In other words, anything which set standards of morality, right and wrong, good and bad, has no place in our schools. After all we do believe in brotherhood and equality, don’t we, between good and evil? But consider the implications of that. That something that set standards of morality, for that reason alone, is barred from the public school.

Now, pass that along to anyone who believes that something can be done with the public school system.

[Audience Member] ...?...

[Rushdoony] Last Wednesday. At the same time last Tuesday, September 19, 1967; a front page article in the Wallstreet Journal, entitled: “The Facts of life, more Schools introduce sex education, often aiming at very young, right down to the Kindergarten.” “But one of the things used now, a more conventional teaching aid for youngsters, one that is gaining popularity is a series of 35 slides dealing with the reproduction of flowers, chickens, dogs, and human beings. The anatomy and physiology of reproductive organs are shown in brightly colored representation designed to capture children’s attention. A simple written text labels everything with its proper name, as chickens and dogs are shown copulating. An optional slide shows a man and woman in bed, covered, to illustrate human intercourse. Educators said that they had been pleasantly surprised by the smooth and sometimes even enthusiastic acceptation afforded sex education by large numbers of parents.”

In line with that it is well to note that some of the left wing periodicals have stated that “Plans are afoot within a few years to have movies showing human intercourse between live models naked, illustrating every kind of possible variation, introduced into the schools. And they believe that in the name of civil liberties and academic freedom they will introduce them. So that, this I think is a good indication of what is in store.

At the same time, this from the San Hosea Mercury page 25 Wednesday September 27, 1967. By Francis L. (Ill?) M.D. and Louis (?) P.H.D. writing on what kind of goal should the public schools have. “Education itself is not a lower class goal.” And so the point is made, “How can we force learning on the lower class children when it isn’t a goal for them?”

Now they say that this presents a paradox. Either you have got to accept the notion that middle class educational goals are suitable for everybody, or you have got to admit that possibly there should be different kinds of education for people from different levels of our social structure. “Either solution seems fair, but it doesn’t seem to us that you can have both at once. If fully integrated schools are here to stay, than even more careful behavior and ability tests must be given than have been given in the past. Then children who do not fit into our customary and conventional kind of classroom situation, and are (?) kinds of children who do not will be provided with the kind of educational situation which does suit them.”

In other words, if they have no disposition to learn to read or write, why should they? That is not an educational goal for them.

“The grouping which will result will hopefully provide for every child, regardless of his educational background, the kind of educational situation and opportunity which will enable him to learn comfortably and effectively, as much as his personal abilities and his family goals and interpretation of life makes plausible. There is nothing wrong ..?... learn as a middle class goal, but there is no reason that they should be the goal of everyone.”

Then to a somewhat different subject by way of conclusion, this statement by Dr. (?) Davidheiser on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The Jesuit scholar whose influence today in every (?) and who has been the decisive influence in Bishop (Sheens?) life of late and is responsible for the change in his position. The statement reads:

“Within ten years of his death, Catholic spokesmen were praising him and making statements as: “Teilhard will become the churches new philosophical system.” As a boy Teilhard collected nails and other pieces of metal to worship as idols. Despair overwhelmed him when he discovered his idols rusted, and he searched for more durable idols. As an adult he confessed that his entire spiritual life seems to him to be a development of his childhood beliefs. The essence of his mature theology is that everything started as inanimate matter at a point which he calls ‘Alpha’ and all things, animals and inanimate objects are converging towards a point which he calls ‘Omega’ and which is equivalent to God. Evolution is the heart of Teilhards philosophy.

He says: “Evolution is the central condition to which all theories, all systems must bow, and which they must satisfy if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is alike illuminating all facts, a curve which all lines must follow.” In an essay he describes Christ as the present radiating evolution. He concluded: “It gives me strength (?) the whole effort of evolution is reducable to the justification and development of the love of God.” Teilhard was fond of saying that “A synthesis of the Christian (?) God up above,” (That is, as the goal of evolution, we are all going to become God as we merge to this omega point) “and the Marxist God up ahead is the only God whom we can worship today in spirit and in truth.”

In other words, there is no difference he is saying between the two systems. The Communists have been preparing a translation of Teilhards philosophy, which is to have a preface by the author of a book called: God is Dead professor O’Connell told the A.S.A. members that "in Europe both Christians and Marxists find his thought the most hopeful thought this century offers between what once seemed their irreducibly opposing views." To the convened members of the A.S.A. Professor O'Connell hailed Teilhard as "the prophet of the 20th century."

He continues in this vein to point out that: “oO course Teilhard is of no use to any Christian, his perspective is anti-Christian, and Christians ought not to let themselves be caught in the pseudo-intellectual rush aboard the Teilhard bandwagon. The eternal welfare of souls is at stake.”

Well, with that we stand adjourned.