The Jerusalem Conference: Part 2

So Roger, a bit of an apology to you up front in that we're stopping at verse 7 today in Galatians 2, and it's the beginning of kind of the Peter-Paul scenario in relationship to circumcision. And looking back, I probably should have stopped at 6 and had you pick up at 7.

When we divide, and Randy understands this, divide the book of Galatians into 2.95 verses a week. It tends not to be perfect in terms of the way these things are ultimately sanctioned and split apart here. Okay, let's go ahead now and read the first 10 verses of chapter 2 in Galatians. Randy, can you do that for us please? Sure.

Then, after an interval of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up, and I submitted to them the gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or I'd run in vain.

But not even Titus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But from those who were of high reputation, what they were makes no difference to me. God shows no partiality. Well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised, For he who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship, to the circumcised effectually worked for me, also did the Gentiles. And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I also was eager to do.

Okay, good. Thanks, Randy. And what Roger's going to do over the next two weeks is kind of finish this issue of circumcision as being this quicksand of partition between the Jewish believer and the Gentile believer. So this is really a four-week series, and simply the way it's been divided was arbitrary. So let's get going here today. Last week we kind of dealt with the issue before us. Here's Titus of Greek. It was fine for him not to be circumcised, but yet this kind of tradition of the Apostles was that circumcision was a necessary event for the believer, whether it be Jew or Gentile.

So that's the stage, and Galatians 2.4 says, and this issue occurred because of false brethren who were brought secretly in. I love this translation, who came in by stealth. Isn't that neat? To spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into body.

So the question of the class is, who are these false brethren? What are the possibilities? And I'm going to encourage the class not to look down at their handout too often, because many of the questions I ask, I'm answering in the handout. So who are these false brethren? I mean, we would think that these are simply those not of the faith. But there are potentially other possibilities. False brethren. What are the options here? Well, these truly are false brethren in terms of the narrowest interpretation of false brethren. Legalizers, meaning people who have a legal system, who are actually not biblically saved.

So, I'd like somebody to turn to 2 Corinthians 11.13, please. Whoever gets it first, please read. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. Okay, so these people, this is false change here. These people are not biblically saved. They have a motive here that is totally inconsistent with the truth of the Word of God.

And you could say these are kind of, if you will, Satan's army out there that are really trying to infiltrate the church. And some people say that, you know, the power of Satan is much greater within the body of believers than it is outside from this type of individual who enters in to the sharing of the truths of the Word of God that we enter into each and every week. Okay? Now, is that who's giving us problems here? Maybe, but maybe not. The second really is around the theme that Cheryl shared here.

Certain Pharisees who were saved but were confused regarding the division about circumcision and they were also confused about Mosaic law and grace. This is likely the kind of false brethren this is. These are truly biblically saved Jews. who are living out the pattern of tradition that existed within Israel or the Jewish nation. So they're having a little bit of trouble understanding exactly what grace really means, and that really is something we're going to return to as we proceed through the lesson today. So thus, they sided with the legalizer. So let's go back and look at Acts 15, 1 through 5. And I'll just turn to there, get it more quickly perhaps, and maybe I won't.

And certain men who came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. Can't be saved unless you're circumcised. This is kind of like Pat Robertson. I think I mentioned this last week. When I got saved, I ultimately felt that I needed to speak in tongues. I really wasn't saved until I could. Randy, I think you could share something in your own past that relates to that. So here are these Judaizers who are saying, if you're not circumcised, you must not be saved.

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, and that's what we're dealing with now here, this going up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church. and the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But then there arose up certain of the sect of Pharisees who believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

So that's the issue before us here in Galatians 2. It sounds like in this that there was a sect of Pharisees that were not within the church. that they were outside of the church. They weren't saved. I mean, I don't get that impression from that verse. There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees, which believe saying, well, it says they had believed. Yeah, they, I think these are believers. You think they are believers? Yes.

The problem is they don't understand what they needed to see. part of the problem when you're talking about access is a transitional time period, and I don't want to steal any of your thoughts. There's a transitional time period here where a lot of the churches were meeting commonly in the synagogue or in the temple and gathering right there. Part of why Peter going and participating in the household of the centurion was a big deal because he was a Gentile. And honey, how in verse 1 it says, these people are declaring to be saved, you must be circumcised, so these people must be saved.

I mean, they wouldn't be... Well, he's calling them brethren, and I don't think he probably would call them brethren if they were not saved. I agree with that. But false brethren can mean, you know, sheep or wolves in sheep's clothing. I mean, these are people that... and by the way, there's plenty of other examples in Scripture. We're going to look at one in 2 Peter. where these people enter in. They seem to be part of the fellowship but they're really not.

The third possibility is that these are the apostles which are mentioned in Galatians 2.9 and ultimately or probably to some extent what this is intended for because James, Peter, and John are all kind of confused about this issue and they're in Jerusalem in part to get this issue dealt with. And it could be the false brethren are in fact referring to the apostles themselves who are confused about this issue and needing guidance.

I mean, you can pick, I don't think the first one's correct here. I don't think these are wolves in sheep's clothing. I don't think these are false brethren, although it's possible, I guess it could be. More likely number two, but the third remains an option here too.

He's speaking specifically about the brethren who he's with there in Jerusalem as being called false brethren and using that term loosely. I would disagree only because I think given my self-stealth. I don't like that either, myself. But stealth really suggests a motive that is really not wholesome and I think within two that could be a wholesome motive.

It's just ignorance. or a lack of understanding grace. Look at the church today. How many people understand grace? Not that we all got it down. I mean, think about that. I mean, we have similar issues today, but not on the topic of circumcision. Thank God, at least for the most part. Other thoughts or comments before we...

Well, I mean, part of the problem that happens in the church, and I think this is reflective of it, is that you have a human fleshly desire to be accommodating to other philosophies and other ideas and other things. Today, it might not be about circumcision in America, but it's going to be about accommodation to, well, the Bible isn't really a scientific book, so we're going to bypass anything that might contradict the science, which is clearly inerrant. And so you have accommodations of various other sorts where they come in and they compromise the gospel, because the gospel is reliant on all of scripture being accurate and reliable. If we have an unreliable scripture, we have an unreliable gospel.

Just to point out, this third option here about James, the half-brother of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the other apostles comes from either Macaulay or Ron Merriman in their commentary on the Book of Galatians. I don't like this one, but I just simply listed it because someone much brighter than me and much more learned has suggested it.

Alright, so why did they enter secretly? Doesn't that imply kind of a motive here? And the term secretly actually means unawares, brought in, and if you could really, really broadly interpret it, smuggled in. Suggests something really suspicious going on here, doesn't it?

No, look at the church today. Look at how many churches still have How many times did you pray? How many people did you evangelize to this week? What's any different about that than this? No, but do people who make that claim, are they simply an error or do they feel passionate about it and feel that they have scriptural support for that position? I would contend that the second group of people really felt strongly about this. And they weren't trying to deceive. or make things difficult. This was just their basis.

Well, they wanted to add on something to the gospel. They wanted to, well, okay, that's great, but we've got to add something additional we have to do. And that's what we see today as well. Well, something that we can do to help God, because God can't handle this by himself. So surely he needs us. And that's what I think that's all about. I mean, whether it was then, Or it's now. It's the same thing.

In terms of today's church, and maybe I shouldn't use that term as we define it biblically, but if you were in a mainline church and you're used to that tradition, to come to a place like Holly Hills where that tradition is kind of broken down and done away with, many people really miss that and feel that it has spiritual value of some sort, right? Yeah, Gail? I was thinking that it seems like there was a desire on their part to make people prove they were sane. And not just that you should do this, or that it would be nice if you did this for the Lord, but more the idea that we don't believe you're saved unless this and this and this shows up in your life. It's the badge. Right? I'm thinking out loud on this here, but I think that it's interesting that this would happen... We don't allow any of that in this class. Well, I've thought it through now.

Paul, when he writes his letter in Romans and he gets to chapter 4 and he talks about Abraham and circumcision and the order of things that took place for salvation, this kind of a thing had to have been thought of and employed for that message. And I hope I didn't steal anything. Nobody steals anything around here. Donna?

Well, I was thinking too, the premise of the entire letter, the conflict between law and grace. And the Jews were so, I mean the whole society was steeped on the law, right? And it was the basis for everything they did. And so then to have grace come in must have created huge conflict. Mentally, physically, in every way. Really, you've heard the rest of the lesson now.

Alright, so let's turn to 2 Peter 2.1.2 and I think this refers to to this kind of, the first definition of false brethren. So whoever gets that, please just read it for us. And someone other than Margaret? I have trouble keeping up with her, I'll tell you. Roger.

False prophets also arose from the people, just as there were The reason I brought that verse up is simply because this is kind of a secret kind of deal going on here, kind of behind your backs. But yet I don't know that that's really, although the first said in Galatians 2, 4, secretly.

So are these potentially unsaved people who are requiring some legal... Are they secret in the sense we've been around this block before? They really say, well, you just aren't putting enough in there. And they don't want to come out and say, oh, by the way, brother, you're saved, but come over here. To really be saved, you've got to follow the law. And so they do that kind of on the side, secretly.

I don't know. In 2 Peter 1 and 2, yeah, those verses do simply define an individual who is not biblically saved. Do you agree with that? These are people who clearly come in from the outside and who are not I said, no, it's New King James Spice Stealth. I just think that's a really cute term. So what was their purpose here, this idea of this doctrinal confusion here?

Well, they were there to spy out our liberty. I mean, does that imply motives? Remember in Galatians 1, 5, 1 it says, stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Paul has sensed that liberty, right? And he really was a man standing in that liberty and so they came in to kind of find out what this is all about and really kind of see whether this guy is for real or not. So I think that maybe reflects their purpose. And isn't this the legal way? Think about that a little bit. How does the legal system operate? Think about government. Think about the church. The IRS or anybody else.

Why, Brandy? You know, the interesting thing is that I kind of, this is hopefully a positive spin on the same concept, but I find myself and they don't know me from Adam. They don't know me differently from the next person. I'm going to be flying to Canada this week, and I'm going to know pretty much nobody that's there at this conference that I get to speak at.

And I'm hoping the Lord will give me an opportunity to stealthily come alongside and preach the gospel. But instead of bringing in legalism, I hope to bring in grace and liberty. But that stealthy nature is something that there's a positive and maybe negative side to that characteristic. Truly the contrary, for sure, that example.

Okay, so the idea of someone secretly looking after our ways is really based on the fact that somebody thinks they've got their act together and can enumerate 1, 2, 3, how you're doing, right? And they could be blunt and open about it, which sometimes they are too. But people are taking notes and looking at their checklist and seeing how you're doing here. And that's kind of what's going on here. I think they're kind of looking at the liberty Paul's expressing and seeing where he's missing the boat. They're kind of there for that purpose. Roy? You haven't mentioned it, but there is this by stealth to find out whether they're circumcised. Let's not take that too far. Never mind. All right. So there is that possibility, of course.

So what does this liberty that Paul is proclaiming and that they're spying in on really mean to us? I mean, what's that liberty all about? Well, number one, it's liberty from the penalty of sin. And I just simply listed one verse, but as we know, there are many verses that We have no longer any price to pay for our sin. It's been taken care of the second liberty is from the power of sin Which is Romans 6 11 reckoning ourselves to be crucified with Christ buried with him in baptism unto death risen in newness of life We sometimes you know don't experience that and I think I reflected that my prayer this morning my comments subsequent to that I mean it sometimes you know that sin nature just seems to be predominating for a while and that but yet God ceases to is set apart, is sanctified in Christ. And ultimately, when the sin nature shows up, it's not injuring anything that's been accomplished on his behalf. It's simply our fellowship that's wounded for a brief time. Fortunately, we confess and we move on by his great grace. And finally, that liberty is to serve God in spirit and truth.

Let's turn to John 4.23. Gail, could you get that for us and read that, please? Love this verse.

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. How profound is that? The hour is coming when those who he's called unto himself, which potentially is all of us, will worship him in spirit and truth.

We don't have that freedom to worship him in spirit and truth if these issues are ultimately not resolved in our minds and in our souls and by faith. This issue of law versus grace has to be resolved to serve God in spirit and truth. So our liberty allows us to ultimately implement our act of faith by spirit and truth. Can we read the next verse? Go ahead. God is spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth. Very good. Dan, thanks Roy. I'm sorry we didn't include that. Go ahead.

Okay, this is, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not what the law was initially designed to do. I mean, it was supposed to direct people toward God and the atonement and the sacrifices and all of those things were supposed to release from the penalty of sin, the power of sin, and they were supposed to enable a person to serve God in spirit and truth.

But the problem was, they focused on the law which is what man does. Because the spirit is really hard to see and it's really hard to focus on that. So what you end up doing is focusing on what you can see and what you can touch and what you can handle.

So the ceremonial law turned out to be their focus and not God. So today, and circumcision was similar. This was a sign of the covenant with Abraham. So they forgot to focus on the relationship that that God had with Abraham, but instead they focused on the sign of the covenant, which was circumcision. And so it's the focus that's really the most important thing. And now we have the power of the Spirit to help the church in us, to enable us to do exactly what God wanted from the very beginning.

Right, but we know that the sacrifice of bulls and goats can never take away sin, right? So what was Israel being asked to respond to in terms of the animal sacrifice? What was God asking Israel to do, or the believing non-Israelite in terms of the Old Testament law system? What was God asking? Wasn't he asking them to respond by faith?

That this was just for a time that pointed to something much more spectacular and eternal that was to come? Donna, yeah. Well, and the problem wasn't with the law. The problem was with me. Exactly. The law is perfectly holy, right? So we could focus on the law as much as we wanted to. just exposes sin. Right. And that's the book of Galatians effectively, right? We're only at the beginning, but the law really is there to convict us, because none of us can keep it, not even a small part. Yes, thank you.

And like Paul says in Romans, he says that the law is good, it's holy and good. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. And what really irritates me, and I'll get off my soapbox, but what irritates me today is that everybody says that the law is fulfilled, so it's no longer effective. and that you no longer have to live that way, and you no longer have to do these things, and you no longer have to put yourself, you know, it's just a different method of having a relationship with God. But the laws, not the purpose, but what the law was pointing out on how you're supposed to live, the character of God, the things that God expected of people, the holiness, which is repeated over and over again in the Old and New Testament, It hasn't gone away.

Now we have the power of the Spirit to do it. Before, you had the animal sacrifice, like you said, and they never could totally take away. Like my friend used to say, when the atonement happened, it was only as good as long as you had the first bad thought. Well, many believers kind of feel that way today, don't they? Some good points.

Roy? chapter 8, the law could not do since it is limited by the flesh, God did. He condemns sin in the flesh by sending his own son in the flesh, like ours, under sin's domain and as a sin offering, in order that the law's requirement would be accomplished in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. And so the fulfillment of the law which is spiritual in God's sight. He says in another text that the law is spiritual. It is not meant to be fleshly. And those who are Jews indeed walk by the spirit. They're circumcised in the heart, not just the brain. Using those things to tie together, it fits right in here. Nice. Yeah, the Romans 8 section is very nice. Isn't that interesting how Paul carries the sign of circumcision? which was originally with the covenant of Abraham, how he carried it forward, and now it's the circumcision of the heart.

And Paul being the ultimate Old Testament scholar and Pharisee who studied under Gamaliel, I mean, there wasn't anything that he missed in the Old Testament. I can remember when he was in jail one time and he said, bring my scrolls. And I can't remember where that was. But he wanted to spend his time in that cold, dark prison with all the rats and everything else. reading the scriptures because he wanted to learn even more and he was probably the best scholar at that time. I find it interesting that although Paul's ministry has really been directed to the Gentile nations, ultimately he never really cuts the cord totally with the Jewish nation.

We're going to talk about that near the end today, and then Roger's going to continue that theme over the next couple of weeks. Good points, everybody. It's so critical. The second purpose was that they might bring us under bondage. Oh, Donna? Randy?

I just wanted to clarify here. We're not saying that the Spirit's given to us so that we can fulfill the law. No, absolutely not. No, I wasn't interpreting what he said that way. But if you were, it's good that you raised your hand. No, I mean, the law is perfectly holy. Christ himself is our holiness, right? I mean, so the law becomes, you know, no less righteous. It's just not our life. The law is not our life. The only way we fulfill the law is by dying. Well, that's the nature of the liberty we have from the power of sin, right? So the penalty's been paid for, the power is given to us over the sin nature, which sometimes we doubt, but it's there, and biblically there, and finally serving God in spirit and truth is everything about who Christ is and what's been accomplished. So, Randy, point. Oh no, I just wanted to make, I knew you'd have a comment, but I didn't know if you saw it.

Bob? Yeah. When you say the laws is right and holy and good and all that, Isn't that because it's an expression of the character of God? Sure. And what is the requirement of the law? But that we believe him. That he is God and that he's sending his son was their perspective and ours is that he has sent his son. Right. Same requirement.

Yeah. think about the faith that the true believer in the Old Testament had to have without the spirit, at least we don't quite understand how they responded by faith, but when they did they believed God for what he'd revealed, and that's that this animal sacrifice had something to do with the promise to come. So when man responded by faith to that annual event and the Jewish tradition ultimately by faith that counted before God as an atonement. That was all that God asked for at that time. He didn't have any more details than believing Him for what He revealed. Yes, Pat? But we have such an advantage having the entire Bible and having all of His information instead of just this new idea dropped in our lap that is not the tradition that we grew up with.

I mean, how confusing that must have been if they thought that they had to sacrifice these animals for salvation and they said, no, no, no, don't do that anymore. Well, are you sure? I mean, that had to be a mindset that was just incredibly hard to agree with. Yeah, a poor analogy is what I mentioned earlier.

Someone who's been steeped in mainline theology and mainline gatherings on Sunday who then decides he or she needs more truth and seeks out an independent Bible church and now to some extent misses all that tradition. Gee, I'm not sure God's really here or we don't have you know, a choir and we don't have an offering plate being passed. I mean, that's a poor analogy, but I mean, in a sense this grace principle is equally as problematic almost for the believer today as it was back here.

And they have kind of an excuse because, you know, the Jewish nation really was used to the law system, right? Now these new believers, boy, this is entirely new. I can't be too critical of where these people are coming from. Paul is there to bring the truth. by the Spirit to these people, and ultimately it's impacted Christianity going forward.

So, you know, I think that we have such detail about this issue of circumcision for a purpose, because men and their ways are used to tradition, and ultimately that tradition is not what grace is all about. So that might bring us into bondage, ultimately the term is really reducing the body of Christ to slavery, slavery to the principles of the legal system, exemplified by circumcision being necessary. Which is the flesh's interpretation, weak by the flesh.

The law itself is good. The bondage is the flesh. Right. Well, again, as Donna so carefully and appropriately pointed out, the law is to convict. I mean, the law is perfectly holy. Man's incapable. So, you know, biblical truth is grace is the principle, not law. And even though the law is holy, it's not our metric.

Futuractive indicative, this idea of reducing is slightly, what would occur If in fact this tradition of circumcision were to be sustained in the body of believers. This is a system of do's and don'ts. And a system of do's and don'ts is anything but grace. Hard concept, I think, for people who are used to legalism in every aspect within the church or clearly outside the church, because the government all around us, the workplace, the world system is all do's and don'ts. It's all self-righteousness. Remember, God granted government as necessary. And why? Because of the sinful nature of mankind. Yes, Dan.

It's interesting that God used Paul because would be the recognition that Jesus was the Messiah. And first of all, you would have to come to grips with that with yourself, but then you have to understand what the Old Testament Scriptures were teaching about the Messiah, and how that was a picture of the sacrificial system, and how it was leading to Christ. And wow, What a perfect choice, God makes no mistakes, what a perfect choice in bringing Paul into the picture so that he could interpret Isaiah and Jeremiah and Genesis and Exodus and Leviticus and bring it forward to where the Messiah And sometimes I think we try to think that every Jewish believer who came to the Lord after the crucifixion and resurrection was someone who had the knowledge of Paul. I mean, remember, God met Paul on the road, and then he took him and taught him individually for this period of time.

And here we are 14 years later. And now this council or conference at Jerusalem is to try to reconcile this issue. But we all look back at the Old Testament with Paul's mindset, wherein Paul needed special instruction to really be ready for this and to deal with it, with the gospel going forward.

Pretty incredible to think about. How much the Lord loves us in King Paul. who was killing and actually kicking the Lord Jesus, throwing spears at him, stoning him, and coming to him and says, how hard it is, and you're persecuting me. How personal that is that enters into our lives. It blows me away. So as we respond to this desire of the legal beagle to give us a do's and don'ts list and put us under legal systems, the message to us is portrayed in just a couple of verses and many more.

2 Peter 2.19, while they promised them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption, for by whom a person is overcome, by him also is he brought into bondage. So the concept is people who put a legal system over you ultimately are themselves slaves. And for us, we don't want to fall into that trap.

1 John 4, Beloved, do not believe every spirit but test the spirits whether they are God because many false prophets have gone into the world. So we have to be aware of these messages, sometimes hidden. and sometimes very evident in the teachings that are before us.

I used to listen to Christian radio day in and day out after I first got saved. When I first moved here for a decade, 15 years, I listened to Christian radio. I can't take it anymore. because there's such a legal message in most of what's portrayed on the radio. I have McGee tapes now, so I listen to him.

He's not perfect either, but at least it's through the Bible, and it's biblically focused, and he's pretty good on the most part. There are a few times, but not that I have the perfect answers, but this mixing of law and grace is just not the gospel.

Once you start to understand grace, you can identify the legalism much more readily. The funny thing is, I would listen to lessons, like you're talking about, on the radio, and I would hear stuff, and I didn't have a way to gauge the quality of the lesson or the message. Because they would use theological words, they would cite some passage, and I didn't understand all of Scripture, and I still have much more to learn. Yeah, boy, and the more you learn, the more you feel like you don't know enough. I have, this is the grace I'm under, and this is what you're talking about is not that, not you, but I mean, whomever's teaching, you can identify the law and the grace. Your heart rate goes up and you work for the exit.

You know, I can't even put this in adequate scientific principles because a lipid or an oil is distinguished from water because it's not miscible. And ultimately to get a lipid molecule with a polar molecule, a water-soluble molecule, is to use an emulsifier. And that's typically like a phospholipid or something. But anyway, cut to the point. There's no phospholipid, there's no emulsifier that makes this oil and water remissible in terms of biblical faith. Just not possible. Law and grace are entirely separate entities. There's no emulsifier here, like salad dressing. Go to the tape.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this too. of grace, is not Christ grace in himself? And did he not come to fulfill all of the requirements of the law? So when we talk about grace, we're not excluding the law, we're not separating it here, we're including it in Christ. He is the fulfillment of the law. And we in him fulfill all of the law and more. But we don't relate to the law. The law has no relevance to us whatsoever.

But the intent of the law was to focus us on the Lord, was it not? And so, when we talk of grace, it is the embodiment of the law to focus us on the Lord Jesus. Lindy, it's like a trump card. I'm not sure that the law was to focus us on Christ. I have a problem with that. I'm just going to throw that out. I have to think about that. That's what he said. You want to try to defend that, Roy? The first commandment is simply to love the Lord your God with all your heart.

Who fulfilled that? Jesus did. When they did not fulfill it, what were they told to do? bring a sacrifice. And what was that a picture of? Lord Jesus. Everything regarding the law brought us to focus on the need for a savior. But that really wasn't the message they were understanding by the animal sacrifice, do you think?

According to the New Testament, the law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Okay, that's right. I don't have any other way to say it than that. And I'm not saying that we should walk We are obedient to the law in Christ. It's because we're associated with him, identified with him, fully identified with him, that we fulfill all the details of the law. We can't do it in our flesh. Well, no, but when I think of the cross and its tremendous value for me personally or for each one of you, I never return to the law ever. I mean, Christ himself is sufficient.

When you say the law, what do you mean? Well, we can mean the mosaic law or any kind of legal system. It could be the law or a law system. 613 laws of the Old Testament is what I'm working on. Well, I have a whole different definition of a law according to my understanding then.

My definition of the law was that God gave us his character as a contrast to our character. And his character is so perfect that it leads us to know our character is imperfect. That's my concept of, broadly speaking, what God did by giving us the law. Until the law came, man lived by conscience. And his judgment was used as to whether he was good or evil. God gave us his character in the law.

This is who I am. This is my character. Now, he's much more than that, but he gave us that much at that time. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we are under the law in any way. I'm saying that Christ is a fulfillment of that law. And what he did enables the law to be fulfilled in us through him. Not through us, but through him. He lives his life in us. Stan. One step.

I was reading in Exodus and got to Exodus 20 and I was reading in the Briar Bible. I read different ones. And a lot of times I don't read the commentary particularly. But I thought it was interesting that Reier said that every one of the commandments except for the one on the Sabbath have been repeated in the New Testament.

And that's true. I don't know. Sabbath is probably indirectly indicated as well, but not specifically stated. But the other ones are. So there's the Ten Commandments, and they're repeated. in the New Testament. So it's certainly something that we should focus on, not necessarily be bound by because Christ has released us from the law or fulfilled the law, but still it's a guideline, you know, and it's something that God expects from his people. He expects him to be holy.

And I realize that Christ's sacrifice is what makes us that way, but still we have a responsibility to live a certain way after that. or John 1.9 and John 1.7 would make a lot of sense.

Well, in terms of the pre-legal system, I mean, if you think about man's failure from the garden on through Noah to Babel to everything else, I mean, ultimately the legal system came on board for a purpose. I mean, God revealed himself, hadn't he, to many Old Testament saints before the legal system came on board? I mean, look at the whole book of Genesis, right? I mean, look at Isaac, and Abraham, and Jacob, and Joseph, and others, ultimately. But the law came after all of that, so the law of revealing God for who He really is was ultimately necessary to give a man a view of God, and ultimately a system that ultimately he never expected them to respond to, right?

So tying this together is, is not grace the encompassing, the fulfillment of the law? And much, much more than the law ever expressed about God's character. Well, law was there to convict. And to lead us to Christ. Well, but who came to Christ by the law?

Gail. I think the law was, going back to the Jews, the way I think of it is that It led them to the fact, helped them understand by their own failure, that they were unrighteous and that God had promised He would deal with our unrighteousness and He would take care of the sin.

And the sacrifice was, I think, supposed to be, even in their minds, temporary looking toward the fact that ultimately God is going to take care of this once and for all on my behalf. and that the individual Jew was to recognize that and he didn't necessarily think of Jesus on the cross. No, I'm sure he didn't. But he thought of Christ, the one anointed by God who would do this thing for him in the future at some point. Do you think the high priests understood this principle? Probably didn't. But I think that the person that the Holy Spirit dealt with individually, the person that really wanted not just form, but whose heart truly hungered after God, I think the Holy Spirit could lead that person to understand that truth.

And there were two people in the temple at the time of the Lord's birth that did not see, and they came and witnessed that they had seen the Promised One. Isn't that interesting? These were Jewish? Mm-hmm. That were there and acknowledged, this is the Promised One. for that man, that he is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. There were some. Yeah, there had to be.

I mean, Genesis 3.15 was manifested in some way throughout history, right? I mean, and ultimately through this annual sacrifice, presumably the people were putting their faith in what the high priest was actually carrying out.

I'm going to say something that will be controversial, but I'm going to say our church as being not just the Ten Commandments, but all the other commandments, as being not applicable to us. And I'm going to say, and I hope I don't get misunderstood, please, it is God's grace that encompasses the law and gives us much more of a picture of Christ than the law ever could. Because it is Christ himself. And so when we study grace and we put a statement like this, law and grace, don't get together, we sort of pigeonhole that we are not obligated to respond in faith that God's life is living in us in purity and holiness and in righteousness. And so we go out and live any way we want. and say, well, God's taking care of all of that. I disagree with that. But let me just say that don't we play down the holiness of God? Oh, I don't think so. I think in grace you see it more completely than you ever would otherwise.

I wonder if there's a positional aspect and a conditional aspect. I think he's addressing the conditional aspect. In our condition, What's our focus, right? We all would agree it's Christ. Positionally, and I said that wrong, that's a conditional set. Positionally, Christ is the fulfilled Lord. There's a whole list of things that Christ accomplished on the cross. That's a positional truth. Conditionally, our focus is on Christ. Roger, this is in the context of circumcision being the law of the land in terms of the believer, right? That's the basis by which that's right. law by dying? Isn't that the fulfillment of the law? Not that he did every dot and till, although he did. He never sinned. He never sinned. So if we're in him, I think we're We're in agreement for the most part. I know we are.

And I don't want to be misunderstood that way. I'm just saying that our emphasis on grace would lead others looking at us to say... And it's possible because people have said that. Well, it's the let go, let God mindset. We have trumped that biblically time and time again here. It's not let go and let God because grace is so wonderful. I mean, the opportunity that grace provides us is to live a life free of that burden to living out a series of principles and do's and don'ts.

That puts us back into bondage. It does. Because anything of the flesh is subject to bondage, is it not? I mean, that's the principle under which the flesh operates entirely. And I'm not saying all this perfectly, folks. Well, no, but I think it's important for us to make sure we're on the same page as much as we can be here. Stan? I don't want to use scripturally big words because sometimes they can be confusing, but what Donna said is true, because in Romans 8 it says that we are identified with the death of Christ, and that's what Paul's talking about, that we die just like when you're a married person and your spouse dies and you're released and you're free.

That goes along with what Roger was saying, that it's positional after that. Well, what we're also talking about here is the conditional aspect, and that has to do with sanctification. The positional one, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm kind of sorting through this myself, but it's the justification. So, when you identify with Christ, you are justified, and you have the righteousness that Paul's talking about in Romans, and that's positional. But we still have the flesh and the Adam condition that we're dealing with. and that's the sanctification and the conditional situation that we have here. So we do have the dying, but we're still alive, and we have to deal with the flesh.

So this is what's kind of confusing because we have all this stuff mixed together in two different locations, and we do have the identification, we do have the justification, Well, the righteousness. And then we come back to the propitiation, and that's the big one. Because God gets angry at sin. And Christ was the propitiation. And so when he died, the veil was torn.

We have a relationship with God that we can go directly to him. We do not have to go through the priest. We do not have to go through the father. We do not have to go through anybody. The scripture says, I'm a father. So that relationship is direct to God.

Is any of this making any sense? The only penalty for any sin that enters our life now is on ourselves and our fellowship. It has no bearing whatsoever in terms of our positional relationship. Our condition in the flesh always falls short and it breaks fellowship.

So our approach to the Christian life is not by the law. So Christ is the focus of the Christian life, and he's taken care of the law for us, on our behalf. And Roy, I think the law was perfect and holy and revealed God perfectly for who he was. And the Messiah is perfect and holy, so he in his life was a perfect sacrifice.

Let me just take a minute to a couple of other things here. This did not yield submission even for an hour. It doesn't mean for an hour. It can mean for a second. I mean, this is in the Greek. I've explained it down here. This is kind of an hour. Gee, I'm being put under submission. This could be just for a moment. A couple of other things.

The high reputation really is kind of the fact that I think that ultimately, you know, Peter, John and James are going to be part of this conversation. And these were people of high reputation in the new church. And these were people who were disciples and now apostles. And ultimately, these were the people who were kind of Confused about this issue and the purpose of the conference was really to bring them around and so, you know, I thought you know Paul kind of referring to But from from those who seem to be of something whatever they were it makes no difference to me God shows personal favoritism to no man for those who seem to be something added nothing to me I thought that was a little arrogant in a way, but it was it's really so true.

So before God there's no partiality and You should leave that for Roger for next week. Galatians 2.7 you can take. We'll just end it there. Roger, we'll close this in prayer for us. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you so much, Lord. We thank you for the blessings we have in Christ, Lord. We thank you for the marvelous grace we live on. We ask in His name, Amen.