Justification Misunderstood
Galatians 2:17-19 · Bob Eckel · Apr 4, 2010
Galatians (2010), No. 14
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926159387525

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

We're kind of coming to the end of the section to really very intensively concentrate on Galatians 2.20 and 21 over the next two weeks. Randy will be taking two weeks on two verses, but the verses today really kind of lead up to verses that we really think a lot about and claim for our day-to-day existence as believers. in 220 and 221. And I think we put much of the emphasis on 221, but actually 19 that precedes it and 21 that follows it are equally relevant. Not that every verse of the Bible is not relevant. It's just that we, as identification truth believers, claim 220, but we often do forget 19, which we'll cover today, to set the stage for next week.

And then 21, if You know, if 21 says, I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness came by law, then Christ died in vain. Boy, what an incredible verse. I mean, we claim 220, I'm crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. Wonderful verse. But boy, I mean, if we live by the law, in fact, the cross is worthless.

And so Randy's got the task, and I love the task. I think Roger and I both are covetous of the task of teaching 20 and 21. But the text today will lead into that, and we'll have fun having him instruct us in those incredibly important passages. So I thought, as we look at 2, 17 through 19 today, let's go ahead and begin with verse 15. And Tom, could you read 15 through 19 for us today? Well, let's have someone who has a Bible.

Cheryl, 2.15.2.19 We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles. Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ Jesus. Even we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, since by the works of the law no flesh will be justified. That is, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners. Is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be. For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. for through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. Okay, good.

You know, I listened to Roger's class last week and he did an outstanding job kind of reviewing 15 and 16, but I think to take on 17 without looking back at this a second would be mistaken. So I thought that's why I had Cheryl read beginning at verse 15, and let's go back and look at 15 and 16 in a summarial sense first. The truth of the gospel is incredibly and convincingly expressed in 15 and 16. And I think sets the stage importantly for how we interpret 17 through 19. Let's look at this.

Justified means to be made righteous, correct? law, and despite the lack of an article, Paul's talking to the Jews. And it implies the Mosaic Law, but as we well know, any legal system applied to the believer is not consistent with the gospel and the grace message. And we'll continue to relate to that today. So again, Paul was speaking to the Jews, and even though the article does not precede law, I think you have to assume that the Jews are recognizing this as the Mosaic system, not any other legal system. Christ is the object. Even we, those under law, I think again, Paul's talking to the Jews. Even we.

And no one ever has or can be justified on the basis of their works So I'm summarily looking at 15 and 16 and we can go back, but Roger covered this mostly last week and I don't want to spend any more time here. So what does in verse 17, but if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are found sinners. Is Christ therefore a minister of sin? God forbid. So let's begin with the first question. What does we ourselves are also found sinners in verse 17 indicate?

Tom. Well it skips back to those earlier verses where it says unlike the Gentiles who are sinners. Okay. And so they're the three still speaking context with direct directly with a relationship with his ancestral past, the Jews. Okay, good response, Tom, and that's exactly what this implies.

Like the Gentiles who were not under the law, therefore, how could we, how could they in fact be sinners when we in fact, quote, were not sinners who were living by self-righteousness, right? They missed the point though, didn't they? They really didn't understand A verse like Romans 2.14, of course, hadn't been written yet. But nevertheless, let's look at this. For when Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law unto themselves.

So nobody's, you know, guilt-free, are they? I mean, the legal system was devoted to putting man under conviction by the fact that God's perfect law, which is holy and righteous, could not be ultimately performed by human effort. But yet, we know that all are under sin and all have fallen short of the grace of God, right?

Now, does this statement give you the sense of where the Jewish nation was in their relationship to or their understanding of the principle of grace? I mean, we're now talking about Jewish believers too, right? I mean, Peter and Barnabas are at left field someplace. I mean, they're still under the cloak of the Mosaic system. And do not understand that all men are guilty before God, right?

Whether Gentile or Jew. Yeah, Margaret. I was going to say that, you know, Stan brought up, I think, rightly so, a few weeks ago, that these people have been trained since birth to be under law, a law system. And so all of a sudden the Christ message is grace and this is like so foreign to their thinking. That's why they're having a hard time.

If we've heard it and it's foreign to us, think about the Jews who were so steeped in the law. What do you think their perception was of the Gentile nations? I mean, if the Jew is placed uniquely before the law of God as a statement of his righteousness and holiness, where was the Gentile then? It's very similar today where the Muslims think of everyone else as being infidels and unworthy of God's grace and the fact that they're somehow almost sub-human beings because they're out of God's focus and His grace.

They're lost. So the Jew had an arrogance about him or her that ultimately was assuming that they were privileged people with a special relationship to God and therefore the Gentile was some second-class citizen, right? Well, they were born into it because they were children of Abraham. And that's very similar to Muslims today because they are children of Abraham as well, only from Ishmael instead of the other.

It's really funny to look at it because God had engineered the temple to have at least twice the capacity for attending Gentiles as they did to Jews. Gentiles plus the women, but still a lot bigger area, even though further from the Holy of Holies. And you're suggesting that implies that the Gentiles were welcome in the temple? Well, that's the way it would appear, because anybody who went past that into the exclusively Jewish part, well, they'd be getting ready for a rom-com show.

Tom, I've never heard that interpretation before. I'm not, you know, I've never heard of it. that was still considered part of the temple, but not necessarily the Jewish one. Well, having had the privilege, Margaret and I, having the privilege of seeing this, at least exemplified in pseudo-architecture, if you will, we never got the impression that the Gentiles were welcome there anyway. Roger, what were you going to say? Well, you can argue that the poor women got put with the Gentiles. The position of women, Jewish women, the Jewish women were thought of as Gentiles, so it's kind of a mixed message.

I don't know. Like dogs. Other thoughts here. Yes. Question. Yes. Most everybody has some type of religion. It's a good question. I think we have evidences in the Old Testament there are people who are not of the Jewish faith who ultimately had enough information to know that they were guilty before God, and had a conscience, and were also men and women of faith. Right, Stan?

Yeah, but primarily it was polytheism. Because if you look at the Grecian Empire, or the Persians, or the Romans, I mean, they had a god for everything. And the Egyptians as well. And in fact, the Egyptians, the Pharaoh was a god himself. So there was a lot of gods in the mix, and I think a lot of that probably came with Zeus and all these other stories, you know. Polly, theism was rampant in history, correct?

That's what I was getting at, that's why the question. So in a sense then, the Jew is a privileged population. Yes. Because God in fact directed himself as the one and only God to the Jewish people, which had not been a revelation that the world itself had seen, correct? So here we have at this point now, as far as the Gentiles are concerned, some people Something a little different. The Jews are coming, right? And they're looking at these and so forth.

Good point. Good. Tom and then Stan. Sure. It was really quite ironic that Jonah was such an influence to those four Gentiles that were wondering what's causing all this bad weather around us. And he said, well, if you toss me in the ocean, the bad weather will stop for you guys. And once the weather improved, they sacrificed not to their polytheistic gods, even though he was in great disobedience. Tom, your comments are always so pragmatic. That's a compliment, by the way. Stan?

I wanted to add to Doug's comment that that's what the releasing of the Jews from Egypt was all about. God was, through each and every one of the plagues, as I understand, I haven't done a study on it, but I understand that each one of the plagues was one of the gods that the Egyptians worshipped. And so the one true God was releasing his people But in the process of releasing his people, he was showing that he was condemning their polytheism, particularly the ten mean guys, that those plagues showed that they had no power. And I can affirm that comment and that I'm just finishing now the plagues of Egypt on the McGee tapes that I do each morning.

So yes, that's very, very correct. Other thoughts? All right, so as we go ahead now, we kind of have to put ourselves in the setting of apparently Peter and Barnabas were advocating this position before this, if you will, this conference in Jerusalem that ultimately, I think, reconciled the truths of the gospel. And that's really the conclusion of the text we're studying and have been studying for the last month to six weeks now, is that ultimately Paul is setting Peter and Barnabas straight. in terms of justification and what it really means.

So how would Christ have been a, in the verse, in verse 17, how would Christ have been a minister or a promoter of sin? Doesn't that sound heretical? I mean, how could in fact Paul write, but if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are also found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? Isn't that wild and crazy?

Yeah, Tom. Except for one thing, that some people might have stepped a little more out of bounds trying to understand Paul in the first place when he was saying Christ became sin for us at the time he was crucified. And they might have kind of taken too much of it at once and decided, well, gee, then that made him a minister of sin too. I mean, this is kind of like one plus one is five kind of stuff, right?

I mean, how can you deduce that kind of an outcome in terms of understanding if in fact the gospel was misappropriated or misunderstood? So the question to the class is, how did the Jews perceive the law? Well, was it not given to Kevick man of their sin? Let's turn to Romans 9, 30 to 33 and take a look at that, because I think those verses help us out here in terms of what the Jewish misunderstanding was all about. And whoever gets that, please just go ahead and read it for us. Bob? Yes.

The one thing to think about in this is the fact that if you're going to make a logical argument here, You begin with the fact that the Jewish people, first of all and foremost, thought that they were God's children and saved and not sinners. So from that premise, you work forward and see that's why works in the law became so important to them, because if you're already saved, then what's next? What's next is that you comply with what God has given you. So you don't think they had a sense of any conditionality on that relationship then? I mean, wasn't the law given to say, if you really are who I say you are, this is what you keep?

I go back to what John the Baptist said when he said to the people, you know, you see yourself as sons of Abraham and saved. And, you know, he was trying to tell them that they needed to repent, which was a new new concept for them. What was the annual sacrifice by the high priest all about that? I know it's there, but what I'm saying is they didn't see that because they're working from the premise that they're Abraham's children and that they're saved.

And so then the next step is to follow the law, which is today we could parallel that with sanctification. So if you believe by faith, then all at once the next thing you do is, well, then I just have to live my life, right? And you're back under a form of the law, which is not good. Well, in a sense, that could be applied today, correct? Exactly. Kingdom age, right? Who's got 9, 30 through 33? Roger, go ahead, please.

What shall we say then, that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith? But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith.

There you go, Stan. Okay. But as through it by works. Just as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion, a stone is stumbling, a rock of offense, and he who believes in him will not be disappointed. Yeah, 33 really isn't necessary in terms of what the point I wanted to get across here, but... Actually, we're not talking about football, Rogers, we're talking about fans. Now I'm going to describe your behavior, Tom, as comic relief. This is Shakespearean, played out in the Galatians Sunday School class.

Alright, if not, if in fact the law, remember, and Stan and Roy and I had a very nice conversation about a month ago, I mean the law was perfect and holy and just, and really reflected God in his perfect righteousness, did it not? And so, but yet we know from the New Testament truth and also reflecting back to the law and what it stood for, ultimately it was to convict man.

It said man could never keep the law, right? Although, honey, remember that Jewish guy that I was on a plane with going to Sydney who claimed he was keeping all 613 parts of the law? Margo was being squeezed by a very big woman next to her, and here I was having this wonderful intellectual conversation with this conservative Jew, orthodox Jew on the plane for hours about him keeping the law. Anyway, he was never convinced of the message I was giving him, but maybe that's because the flesh was leading him, not the spirit. So if they didn't understand that the law was there to convict a man of sin, then all these good works that they're doing to achieve the legal system in which they're living was all plush, wasn't it? I mean, it was all self-righteousness. So this guy on the plane is the ultimate of that self-righteousness, thinking all 613 parts of the Jewish law he was keeping.

He couldn't think of any area that he wasn't keeping. I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have been able to testify. I'm pretty good with the Ten Commandments, but much beyond that, I wasn't so sure. Therefore, if one's justified by simply believing, then there's no moral responsibility.

How about for us? I mean, in a sense, if you think about this, Christ being the minister promoter of sin is ridiculous, and just reflects the ignorance of the Jewish nation, even the Jewish believers. But what about us? You know, if we're under this grace system and there's no legal application to the life we have in Christ, is there no moral responsibility? What are your thoughts about that?

God's done this great work, praise him for it. Well, that's what a lot of believers think, that you can't, you know, you have to have the rules, or how are you going to live? I mean, how's it going to happen? You know, it's not going to happen, so you must have to have the rules. Okay, we're going to return to this.

Most Christians believe that. Well, notice this declaration. Could Christ have been a minister or promoter of sin? The scripture says, certainly not. God forbid. It can never be. You can interpret that in a number of different ways. But, you know, no. You cannot in any way say that Christ was a minister or promoter of sin. Jeremy?

I'm just wondering if much of the passage in Galatians is about believers. that have accepted the cross of Christ, but then they're bringing in the law afterwards. And so in verse 17 it says, if while we seek to be justified by Christ, so we understand justification is by faith, but then we're trying to bring in the law afterwards. Well, one of the purposes of the law was to cover sin, to restore that position with Christ. Well, if you are justified by faith, but then you still need the law to cover that sin, then you're still found as sinners. Christ justified us, but we still need the law to cover that sin, then the implication there is God is a, how does it say it there, God promotes sin. Because we're justified by faith, but we still need the law to cover our sin.

Is that in any way a logical sequence? Well, no. I mean this is so ridiculous but yet that's what Paul was dealing with in terms of the position Peter and Barnabas were establishing. I would say that it is the logical sequence of the bolts in nature. Just tell me what to do and I can do it.

But my point Roy is that they're totally misunderstanding the message of the gospel. being a promoter of sin. Do you think this has anything to do with the way that he healed on Sunday, and he worked on Sunday, and he abused the law? He abused the pharisaical, or whatever that word is, the Pharisee, the Pharisee law, right? Yeah, the Pharisee law, but he never broke God's law. So as far as the Pharisees were concerned, He was a sinner because he was breaking those laws that they put out and so he was in direct opposition to them, the religious system of the temple of that day.

So how do you interpret your own question then? I think they saw him, yeah, I think they saw him as a sinner. But these are believers now, right? All right, yes, yeah. I think I'm trailing around in the dust back here somewhere. That's probably where many of us are at.

Because he says, if we be found to be sinners, is this like in Romans 6 and 7, is it a failure to recognize the remaining presence of the sin nature? and they're trying to deal with it by harking back to, well, we still need a law because we're still finding that we can sin. Does that have any place in this whole text? The thing I was trying to say, it didn't come across, I think if we're found to be sinners, I think that's a positional thing. So it's not necessarily the condition, we still find this in nature working to us, but if we need the if we think that we need the law, then the implication of that is that positionally we're still maybe in our sin. And that's what it's saying. It's talking about our positional truth. But that same positional error is made frequently today in the body of Christ, correct? I mean, that's nothing novel to the way we think and live today. Mark?

Well, I was going to say, it's almost as if you know, they think God is not big enough to take care of our sins. And so we still need the law to help us out because the Lord is not, I mean, our faith and all that, that's not enough. It's not big enough. Well, again, back to Stan's point, I think this reflects actually the inadequacy of the Jewish people, even new believers, to understand what the basis of the law was from the very inception of the law, right? And so Gail, what was your question again?

Well, okay, I'm recognizing that I'm justified. Okay. That Christ has done that for me, but I'm finding that within me, I'm not perfect. Right. And I keep on sinning, so what's happening is, did he fail me some way? Did he administer a sin in that he failed me in some fashion? Well, that's back to Jeremy's issue. We're all sinners saved by grace, right? From the very inception of the cross, ultimately going forward. Donna? I was just going to say, I think what Jeremy's talking about is the transition from law to grace. It's the same thing we struggle with today. We don't have a handle on grace. We don't know how it works. We don't know how it operates.

So we fall back to the law. and are judged as being sinners. That's who we are. But Donna, as we fail to reckon though, that sin nature becomes evident, does it not? But yet, because of our position on truth, Jeremy, we're secure. Right. And it's not a let go, let God. That's an act of faith in our life, correct? Yes.

And along with that, I go back to that very insightful sermon that Mike gave one day, and he said that faith has to have an object. And if the object, I think this is probably a gerund, not a single word, but if it's in Christ, then this all fits together. Because in faith is, if it has to have an object, and the object is in Christ, well part of in Christ is not only how you believe, but how you act. and how you're forgiven in the process. It includes all that. How many times did Burns say the word in Christ or in scripture? In Christ is like 157 times or something. And for Christ is like 3 times. The issue is in Christ is really grace given gospel truth. In Christ.

Let's see that misperception even further portrayed in terms of the Jewish tradition and being under the legal system in Hebrews 7, 24, 28. Again, whoever gets it first, let's hear from you. And you'll know you get it first because you're the first to speak.

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost, and come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such as high priests became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's, for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests, which have infirmity. But the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forevermore.

Boy, doesn't that kind of wrap up the error of the way the Jewish nation received the legal system? Again, it gives you the idea of an atmosphere of the conviction of the inadequacy. And then in one person we have a high priest forever after God's great purpose and plan.

So then what about this, let's come back to this issue of moral responsibility, if in fact this legal system no longer has any application. and Peter and Barnabas, among others, were being critical of the fact that, gee, if there's no legal system, then what about this nature I've got in me? What kind of responsibility do I have? If, in fact, I have no law to apply to this nature that I still find within me, what's the response to that? As believers today, when you get criticized about identifying yourself with the co-crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, and the newness of life, and you fail the human element around you, what's the deal here? Where's your moral responsibility?

Romans 8, 2-4. Somebody get that one and somebody pick up 1 John 3, 8-10. This is so critically important. from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that that was weak through the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin. He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness and requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. And therefore there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus. Thanks, Tom, for what wonderful verses.

1 John 3, 8-10. The one who practices sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. No one of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because his seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious. Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother."

Okay, now I've made this point in this, not the class in Galatians before, but in the class Hal and I co-taught in 1st and 2nd Corinthians and then what we did in Ephesians. John The position of the epistle of John in the New Testament, I think, is very importantly subsequent to the foundation that Paul has laid.

This passage, you know, if you're a believer, you don't sin. How many people here have no sin nature and don't fall short of the glory of God day in and day out? This really deals with identification because positionally we have no sin. And God sees us as having no sin. This idea of practicing sin. Gee, I'm not practicing sin, so therefore I'm a believer. Give me a break. So where's the metric? And by the way, I would say this practicing sin is a concept of legality applied to the Christian life, is it not?

The moral responsibility is spirit-led. First to believe that positionally we are all we ever need to be in Christ Jesus. And secondly, that that life is lived out by our act of faith and the power of the Spirit to work out the new nature in us. Everybody okay with that? Tom? Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. That's a key verse there. Other thoughts? Moral responsibility is to live by faith that the power of the Spirit will continue to conform us to the image of His Son and that life would be lived out. Stan?

Well, I think when you were talking about the, how do you say that, the ongoing practicing of sin? Well, this idea that anybody, I mean. But if you would change that and say habitual, think about it. Define habitual. what you just said about practicing sin.

But that's supposed to give you this concept that if you're doing certain things and you're habitually addicted to that, then you really need to focus on that and you need to try to change because that's not in Christ. It's something that you need to really work on. Is that your point? No, I can see that from the standpoint that a person needs to work on that. You know what I'm saying? Because you can be addicted to sinful practices and a sinful lifestyle. Even though you're in Christ, your human nature can have you addicted to a certain lifestyle that you shouldn't be in. How does one work on that?

Through the strength and power of Christ. Through all things Christ strengthens me. But you need to work on that condition. life but I now live in the flesh of my faith with the Son of God. And that of the Son of God means I'm objectively looking at Christ as the author and finisher of my faith.

He is the one living his life that fulfills not just the righteousness that we desire but the entire I mean, in a sense, as we all live this life in this human existence and we reflect on our position, as the light becomes brighter, Don and Mike and Martin and I are talking about this here, as the light becomes brighter, the darkness is revealed increasingly for what it really is, is it not? So this sin nature ultimately shows itself up in even sometimes new ways. But we all in that sin nature have repetitive behaviors we wish we could leave behind.

And that's according to Romans 6.11, reckoning you know, ourselves to be in dead, crucified unto sin.

I mean, but that's just not an intellectual process. That's an act of faith, Stan, and you're right. I mean, but that's a power of the Spirit in the life to ultimately have the truth of I'm crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live played out in our existence, right? Well, the verse that Connie read, the practice of that word is not in the original. Correct. Yeah, the first John passage is a very strong passage and people kind of modify that in terms of the interpretation. And whenever I hear this, you know, someone who's sinning repeatedly or practicing this sin, I mean, the point is the vanity that exists in me is always there.

Am I, therefore, am I not saved? I mean, the point is, is that, you know, these things continue to work themselves out by the power of the Spirit in our life. Okay, the reason the word practice is there though is because if you look at the Greek tenses in 1 John, you'll see that most of them are active, present, indicative. on, sinning is who we are in Christ. And you know, I think we're getting kind of down a rabbit hole here for a second, we've got a lot to cover yet, but I'm gonna make one comment, we're gonna move on. Is that this, we're not constantly supposed to be in this position of saying, gee, Bob, Roger, Bonnie, was that the old nature or was that the new nature of where that came from? No, I mean, the life lived by an active faith in who we are in Christ, in that position of truth, ultimately doesn't take us into this position of questioning where our behavior comes from.

I mean, increasingly it's Spirit-led by faith, because we accept the power of the cross and everything that it's worth. Let's go on here. So there's our moral responsibility, and I rarely take a commentary and quote it, but I like this one from Geneva.

Therefore, if any man give himself to sin after he has received the gospel, let him not accuse Christ, nor the gospel, but himself. For if he destroys the work of God in himself, he goes from justification to sanctification, which is another benefit we receive from Christ if we lay hold of him by faith. I think the concept that if he destroys the work of God in himself, he goes from justification to sanctification. We could spend some time there, but the overall principles there don't like God. This is the Adam nature, and it's a matter of holding him by faith, and that before God we're perfectly righteous and holy. Now let our behavior by faith reflect that new nature lived out in the believer.

Galatians 2.18, for if I build again those things which I destroyed, which is the legal system, right, I make myself a transgressor. To some extent, Gail, this gets to your question. Notice that Paul now turns to the pronoun I versus what Peter and Barnabas were advocating.

Why does he do that? We can think about that in terms of our own day-to-day existence. Why does Paul turn to himself here? Because he sees that he can do it. It's possible that he can go down that path. All right, but another thing, Roger, isn't Paul to some extent putting him in the position that he thinks they are in and that he's identifying with them and the fallacy of their belief, trying to say, look, I kind of understand where you're coming from. And let me put myself in that position as to how it might reflect on the truth of the Gospel. And I think as we go through our day-to-day existence, when we identify with the people who we're in question with about maybe some aspect of the truth of the Word of God, we in fact say, we understand intellectually where you're coming from. Now let's see how the Spirit leads in trying to explain that position. Okay.

Why would Paul or any other leader become a transgressor? And by the way, Parabatis are violator or sinner or other interpretations of the transgressor only if it returns to a law-based system. Well, because sin is the transgression of the law, correct? Yes. And that transitions him back from Christ to Moses, right? and because the law was given to convict, not justify, and this position, I think, refutes the principle of grace and the true gospel, doesn't it? I mean, I think that, ultimately, being a transgressor ultimately does imply the legal system being applied to the believer, and that, therefore, is not consistent with the gospel message as God has revealed.

Stan? I was going to say, and I think Paul is probably referring to certain you know, and this sounds bad, I don't even know how to put this in the right words, because again, it goes back to the law being holy and good, and then Jeremiah says the law brought us to the position where we would know God, and it's supposed to convict us of sin, and all those other things.

But Paul also said that the dietary laws, you know, there's sections where he talks about that it doesn't make any difference what you eat and drink, and Jesus indicated that as well. and also the festivals and the holidays. Paul was saying that you didn't need to keep those anymore. But as I understand it, all of the Ten Commandments are restated in the New Testament. I don't think it specifically states that you have to celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday or Saturday. I think that may be the only one that's really not repeated in the New Testament.

So when you take the law as a whole, Again, the Mosaic law, I don't think, the ceremonial law, I'm not that good with the law and all the different aspects of it, but Paul's not throwing it out the window. There's certain aspects of it he is, like the dietary laws and the ceremonial laws and this sort of thing. That's why he's saying he could be seen as a sinner as well, because he's preaching against certain aspects of it. So let's look at the first in context. What did he destroy? For if I build again those things which I destroyed, did he destroy them? What things were destroyed? It was the law system. It was all the law. It was the law system. That he continually talked about. It's the whole law system.

It's all the law. Because but I think it's what we talked about before because the Jews were so ingrained in thinking that the law Justified them and made them righteous the justification misunderstood, right? He had to he had to say it's not the law and we're gonna see it in verse 21 because if Christ I mean, if you're justified by the law, then Christ died in vain. And it doesn't say dietary laws, it doesn't say, it says law.

So it's any law, system. The concept of a transgressor is one that is in fact accused by the law and found guilty. But in fact we know the sin nature transcends the legal system, doesn't it? And at the bottom of the page, and we're not going to spend much time discussing that, but we still sin, don't we? Absolutely. That old nature is still there.

But yet, as Galatians 4 and 9 says, but now after you've known God, or rather, known by Him, how is it that you turn again to this weak and beggarly set of elements, Stan, whether it be the Ten Commandments or beyond? And by the way, I'm not claiming they're not holy and righteous and reflecting God and His nature. but all the applications of the culinary-related issues, etc. They're clearly done away with. But what Paul is saying is that even trying to keep the Ten Commandments is an impotent task. And remember, impotence is not a little strength.

It's no ability. To which desire again to be in bondage. There's nothing about the legal system that leads to anything but bondage as an application. Jeremy? Well, I think this is, looking from the positional perspective, and it's like you said at the beginning, if we, as believers, go back to the law, essentially the effect of what we're doing is we're nullifying the cross. We're becoming a confessor again, just as if we weren't justified.

And I think again, one of the, and this, Mike handled this, Roger and Verna, on Friday night so beautifully in terms of the Good Friday service, but, and Mike particularly on this issue, remember the cross forgave sins, but at the cross, the sin nature was not forgiven, but condemned. And each one of us were part of that condemnation. That sin nature in each one of us was condemned in each one of us. And the reason that today is so meaningful to the believer is that we were crucified, co-buried, and co-resurrected.

And positionally, which you've referred to several times today, everything's right with God. And when we reckon that truth to be true, the principle of grace is played out in our lives day in and day out. But when we start falling back on legal systems, the only purpose of those are to return us to the truth of the gospel and what it's all about. Okay. I think we're all on the same page here, at least I hope we are. Okay. Verse 19, for I through law died to the law, that I might live to God.

Notice, in the King James, there's an article before both of the laws, but in the interlinear Greek, there is no article here. And I think, I'm gonna say that ultimately, that applies to the Jewish law, likely, because again, in context, that's who Paul's talking with. However, could it apply to any kind of a legal system?

Paul said that he's judged by no man, because he's judged by Christ. So if you're judged by Christ, then you don't need a legal system, right? It's your conscience and your fellowship and your relationship with God through faith. Jeremy, can you read Romans 7, 7-11, please? What shall we say then? Is the law sin?

Certainly not. Indeed, I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, Do not covet. But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from the law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandments, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death." Okay, so that's set within the more mosaic or Jewish-based principle of what the legal system was all about. But in a sense, as the verse implies without the article, any legal system applied to the believer is equally as problematic.

Yes? Just to help us, the word died there. Okay, good, I did not focus in on live, but we're going to exemplify live in a couple of verses to share, but yes, remember death is separation and that it's aorist, indicative, and I underlined and bolded it, it's active. So what makes this so importantly active, intense? Continuing action.

Right, and plus our faith revealing That process of reckoning this as true, it's an indicative, it's a factual statement. We need to continue to reckon on the fact that that sin nature before God is totally been done away with. And he sees us in Christ. We fall short because that sinful nature still is there and reveals itself only too frequently. that before God were righteous in that.

By the way, doesn't that lift you up in terms of your day-to-day existence? The fact that he seizes as crucified and holy and righteous because of what's been done at Calvary. Tom. Cause we're more than conquerors through Him who first loved us. In Him we will triumph through the end. Overwhelming He's super, conquer, greater is He Who is in us, who's Jesus Do you have any CDs available?

Message well transpired. We're not going to look at Romans 7, 4 through 6, but it deals with this issue of this death and separation and ultimately the active nature of that principle. So then, what's the purpose of the law? Well, we're not going to look at the verses, but we just need to understand where the law finds itself scripturally and where the believer should be. First, it's perfect.

Psalm 19.7, among many, many, many verses, shows the perfection of the law.

It declares the holiness and righteousness of God, Romans 7.12, which is in fact one verse short of where Jeremy just stopped. It defines sin and that all have fallen short, that's the Romans 3 passage.

And it's a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ. That's going to be part of our study in probably a month and a half or so. Therefore, the law was our tutor or schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. And it's so important because the legal principle whether we want it or not, still seems like it's applicable.

And when we think of those Ten Commandments span and fall back underneath them, we're reminded immediately we can't live in the power of the flesh to ultimately fulfill the Ten Commandments, but it takes us back to the grace message, to the true gospel that's reflected at Calvary. So let's end with this, that I might live unto God. Boy, and that's what Galatians 2, 20, and 21 are all about. Notice the entirely different focus and source of living unto God.

Romans 10.4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Boy, Peter and Barnabas had trouble with this, didn't they? But hopefully Paul, through the power of the Spirit, and by the way, Peter's epistles reflect that something happened to him in terms of his understanding of this grace message. Even though the epistles of Peter are written to the Jew, This grace message comes through in Peter's epistles.

Hebrews 9.14, How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews, written to the Jews.

Romans 6.14, For sin shall not have a dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. That's an act of faith on our part.

Colossians 2.20, therefore if you die with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why is it that through living in the world you subject yourself to regulations? Good question.

Romans 6.11 kind of answers that. Likewise, you also reckon yourselves to be indeed dead unto sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. And the last verse, appropriately from 1 Peter, For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit. Amen? Any final thoughts before we close? Stan?

One of the things that Paul talked about in Romans, I can't find it right now, it's either in chapter 2 or 3, but he was saying that the Gentiles and didn't bring glory to God. And that was the thing he was talking about. And I think when you were talking about the law and the fact of, you know, when you put yourself under that again and you see who God really is, you become thankful for the grace that you have and you live a life that's reflective of that so that you bring glory to God and not away from God. Because that was one of the things that that God was so concerned about with his people, you know, Israel, because they were living a life that was not bringing glory to him, and they were not thankful to him. You know, and he was not the focus. So, again, God's the focus, and that's what the law tries to teach people, so that they can live true faith, being thankful to God for what he's done. When that legal principle shows up, it draws us right back to the truth of the cross and what it really has told us then. Doug, would you close us in? Gail, final comment, and then Doug?

I'm sitting here thinking that Romans 7, 6, where it says that we'll serve God in newness of spirit. That's His power. And in the oldness of the letter, there is no power. And so when we put ourselves back under the law, we're trying to serve God without any power. Why would we do that? And we had 7, 4, or 6 lists that we just didn't have time to read it.

But thank you for sharing that. That's so important. Yes, why do we? We do. But we are declared not to. Doug, close us in prayer, please. Our gracious Heavenly Father, we thank you for who you are. Creator of the universe, but yet interested in each one of us individually. We thank you that you've given us your Word and the Bible. He is alive, not dead. He is our survivor. We follow him. We thank you for that. We pray now that you may guide and direct our thinking as we point it to the Lord Jesus Christ. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.