to 5:1 Life of Legalism Portrayed - Part 1

As usual, a little bit of review from last week. Hi, Pete. Good to have you. So, Peter Clark both here. Kim, their sister, was in town with her husband this week for a meeting. We spent a fair amount of time as a family together. We will this afternoon, too, so looking forward to that. All right, last week. As always, Bob, great teaching. I'm going to summarize it very, very succinctly.

So point number one, Paul wonders if he is an or the enemy because he preaches and teaches grace, not law. Point number one. Number two, the Judaizers motive, I think, is to exclude these believers, maybe with a motive to make them more zealous and want them to be included under law with them. So there could be a bit of anticipation that they're excluding these new onset believers in the Lord to try to get them to return to law by making them realize what they're missing by not being works related in terms of their faith. They want some company. What's that? They want more company, right? And probably more money, too. Money's always the driver. And I would say maybe with the Juilliards, maybe not more so with them, but anybody else, right? By a third point, Paul labors. We put that in bold. He labors to see that Christ will be formed in them.

And that really is what's transitioning us into this new section that Roger's titled, Life of Legalism Portrayed. We've got three parts. And I will teach next week, and Miles will teach part three. We've talked a little bit, even this morning, in terms of how it goes by this section. So thank you, Roger, for the challenge you've given us. I try to give you a challenge. I don't want to make it too easy. All right, let's proceed to today's text. In fact, I think let's go turn to your scriptures and we're going to begin where Bob dealt last week and read verse 15. I may read all the way to 5-1 so we can put this all together.

All right, Galatians 4.15, what then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear you witness that if possible you would have plucked out your own eyes and even given them to me.

Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? And they zealously court you, but for no good reason. Yes, they want to exclude you that you may be zealous for them. But it's good to be zealous at a good thing always, and not only when I'm present with you.

My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ be formed in you, I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone. for I have doubts about you. Bob, I think a lot about your comment last, because we have dogs, you know, and you can tell your dog is ugly and not wanting to send a very calm voice and wag their tail, right? So the tone of the voice has a lot to do with the message that's being delivered. I thought that Alright, beginning today's section called Life of Legalism Portrayed. Verse 21. Tell me you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh. and one of the free women through promise, which things are symbolic.

For these are two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem, which now is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all." Then we have the verse from Isaiah quoted here, break forth and shout, ye who do not labor. For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband.

And now we, brethren, as Isaac was, were children of promise. But as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what does the Scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we were not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Chapter 5, verse 1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

All right. Bear with me. Unlike your printed text, I have a computer which needs to be going back and forth. All right. All right, let's see where we're at here, then. I think to introduce this section, I think let's begin with a profound and perhaps a very prophetic statement from Isaiah 54.1, which is to be referenced later here in verse 27. And I just read that to you. So we're going to come back to that later. But in a sense, this is interesting to kind of summarize how the Old Testament prophecies relates to what would ultimately be forthcoming. Okay, first source study. Tell me who you desire to be under the law. Do you not hear the law? What do you make of that?

Is that just a casual comment by Paul here? No, it's not. Paul is insistent. This is imperative. Tell me, you who desire the end of the law. He's really in their face about this. He's really looking at, presumably, mostly new believers. Ultimately, they desire to be under the law. And we'll come back to the law in a second. But likely, these are new believers or people who may be unsaved. It's likely that they're new believers who, in fact, want to be under the law.

And I think here, Nomos probably is best interpreted as a Mosaic law. And the most important part of the law, the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, but not necessarily. And remember, nomos can be interpreted broadly. And, you know, basically any law, whether by government or otherwise, could be a legal system. By the way, we as believers can be under any kind of a law system. I mean, you know, there's nothing wrong with a prayer list, but I mean, if we're dedicated to the prayer list, sometimes that could be a lost system. I mean, the Lord leads us in prayer, so ultimately it doesn't have to be, but it could be. I mean, but there are other ways that we can put ourselves under law. But this term, no Moses, is not only designated for the Mosaic law.

Don't you think that these new believers, first of all, they don't have a clue that these people who are under the law, and that's probably the majority of people that are in the area that they're associating with, They also want to be part of this group. Well, that's the idea of maybe what the Judaizers are doing, making them feel guilty that they're being left out. And that's this zealous kind of motive that's being utilized by the Judaizers in part. But don't you see that today also in our churches? I mean, these big giant churches that we see, they're all under law. I mean, that's what they're teaching.

But they don't realize it. No, they don't realize it. They just think they're walking a spiritual life. That's right. But don't you think that new believers, a lot of new believers go to these big churches with all the programs and all the stuff because they want to be part of this big thing that's going on. And they don't realize they're under the law. I mean, they don't see it at all. It's the same thing. Same thing here. Other thoughts here?

And there's another law that the Bible talks about, and I think it's the law of Christ. People would think that's a contradiction. So we're talking about grace and law. What's the law of Christ? Well, the law of Christ is nicely stated in the last chapter of Galatians, but basically the law of Christ is the law that demands our faith. And it's really a moral instruction given by him with emphasis on his love. The law of Christ is Christ's love portrayed in each and every one of us.

And that's an act of faith, not law. By the way, I often share this as kind of maybe a poor simile of what this represents. And I was heavily criticized when I said this years ago by our dear friend, dear brother in the room, we think. I said, you don't have to like everybody. but you have to love them.

Now, that sounds like a tremendous oxymoron, but no, the love of Christ is independent of every aspect of the people who cross our path. That love is unending, unconditional, and that's a different nature. When we're born again, we're born into a new creation in Christ Jesus, and that new creation loves independently of any surface value, performance, legal kind of environment or yardstick, etc. So that's the law of Christ. The law of Christ is a moral law based on faith and love. That's a whole different entity than a legal system making you love somebody. In the flesh, we can never show that kind of love.

All right, do you not hear the law? You know, isn't this a rhetorical question? I mean, yes, it is. So the term akuo means simply to hear, but in context, it's interpreted to not only hear, but to understand. Don't you understand the law in terms of what it really represents?

So one can only doubt whether the law has had any lasting impact on their lives. I mean, they claim to be under law, but we know the Jewish law can't be kept. And we'll return to that as an issue in a second. Law, by the way, demands human effort, which always falls short. Even if you can maybe keep part of the law up to a certain level, you're going to fall short.

And remember, the law was there to convict us of sin. The law was perfectly holy and righteous to the Jewish nation. But it was not meant to be a yardstick to measure performance, although under the Jewish legal system, the high priest every year took care of the, atoned for the sins of the people. But that's not what we experience today after the cross. We now have a new life in Christ Jesus.

So, John 5.46 and 7, for if you believed Moses, you would believe me.

For he wrote about me, but if you don't believe his writings, how will you believe my words? So they're saying they're appealing to him, to the Judaizers, these people of the church who presumably were Jewish, who may be believers but may not be believers, who are now putting the other people who are subject to their teaching under law They're saying, look, you know, you're not living by Moses. You may have maybe heard the law, but you don't understand it. You're not applying it to your lives.

And Christ said, if you didn't really believe his writings to their fulfillment, how are you going to believe anything I have to offer? And remember Galatians 3, 24, 25, therefore the law was our, I like schoolmaster, I still do, but tutor is a better term to bring us to Christ that we might be justified by faith, but after faith has come, we can no longer need that tutor any longer. So remember, God gave the law as perfectly holy and righteous, but we're no longer under it. We now live by grace, a whole different principle of faith today. OK, and I think, remember, Paul, and I made this comment just a minute or two ago, Paul is addressing mostly, if not only, believers here. What are your thoughts?

Roger? Dave? Aren't these believers to be influenced by the Judaizers? All believers? I'm saying in the context of Galatians, isn't he writing to them saying, don't be taken in by the Judaizers, don't go back to the law, you're under grace now. These are new believers. Well, the church is new. This is one of Paul's first books, right? But if they're asking not to go back to the law, that tells me he's talking to people who have been saved. Thank you. Have been saved, yes. you think have not been? Have been. Have been, yes. That's my interpretation. I mean, the text is not perfectly clear.

This could be people who are hearing of legal ways of doing things versus those that are saying, but I think this is likely a group of new believers. Well, that's what makes this so valuable today because we have the same picture being played out today as in Galatians today. That's why Galatians is so important for today because we have the same scenario People want to go back they want rules to live by give me rules. I'll live by them well God says no you live by the life of Christ by faith All right Galatians 3 3 are you so foolish?

Heavy having begun in the spirit. Are you now being made perfect by the flesh? By the flesh is the old nature the sin nature that we all unfortunately like it or not we've all inherited And so the flesh is driven only by the sin nature. So Paul is really acknowledging the fact that don't go there. Are you so foolish to go back under law? You're now living in the spirit of God who refreshes you based on the principle of grace, not law.

Galatians 4.9, but now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements to which you desire again to be in bondage?

I mean, remember the whole book, and Bob pointed this out last week, and Miles and Andrew have also, Roger, this whole book is about this law versus grace paradigm. And so Paul's emphasizing this in so many different ways, in so many different verses.

So, Bob? Yes, sir. Where it mentions they're going, turning again to weak and beggarly elements, this tells me they're talking more than just the Mosaic Law, they're talking about any law. Well, that almost relates to a broader interpretation of law, right? Okay. Any other thoughts about the first verse, 421? Let's go ahead then.

For it's written that Abraham had... Now we're opening up a whole new door. We're going back to Abraham again. What do we remember Abraham for? Lots of things. But Bob isn't like he admonished him in 21. Now he's going to say, if you really knew the law, you would know about Abraham. He's going to present two women. It was there in front of your eyes, but don't you see it? It's right there in your law. It's information. It's not new information. It's right there. He's got a whole scenario about the two women.

Well, Abraham was really the father of many faiths, wasn't he? the Muslims looked to him, and the Jews looked to him, and the Christians looked to him, by mistaking two of the three. But Abraham, the principle of Abraham is very simply, here's a man who responded to God by faith. He didn't respond to God by law. He responded by faith. All right, for it's written that Abraham had two sons, one by bondwoman, and the other of a free woman. Four connects us back to verse 21. This is an example of this sustaining nature of verse 21 in terms of its impact. We got a problem, Phil? It's my fault. It's your fault. Oh, you didn't share it? I didn't share the screen. OK, I just saw Andrew pop up there. Should I continue? Yes. All right. Phil said I could continue.

We're going to review the Genesis story just for everyone's information. By the way, bondwoman is a term called paideike or a female slave. This is a maidservant, if you will, a female slave. Hagar fits that criteria. And we'll come back to this in a few more minutes in terms of Hagar versus Sarah in terms of this relationship. So let's read the section in Genesis. This will take a minute or two, but I think it's important for us to go back and look at this.

So the child grew and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned. Okay, Isaac, son number two. And Sarah, the bondwoman, saw the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac. And matter was very displeasing in Abraham's sight because of his son.

But God said to Abraham, do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the land or because of the bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice. seed shall be called. Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed." By the way, that's the entire Muslim faith.

So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water, and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it to the boy, to Hagar, and sent her away. And then she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Bathsheba. So there's the Genesis story in terms of the contrast between these two women who were ultimately parents of Abraham. All right, so let's compare the status of Abraham's two sons, a prophecy of what would follow and illuminate for us here in Galatians.

Ishmael, born naturally and of a slave woman. Isaac, born by promise. Remember, God had made a promise. We'll return to that promise and how supernatural that was. And that promise was a supernatural birth of Isaac, of a free woman, not a slave woman. So, contrasting these two sides. It may not seem fair, does it? But this is scripture and this is historical fact.

Romans 9.6.9 is a good passage to kind of turn to, but it is not the Word of God that's taken no effect, for they are not all of Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children, because they are the seed of Abraham. But, in Isaac your seed shall be called. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, These are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise. At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." So this again is all written in God's prescription for the events to follow, which was the League of the Cross.

So we can conclude about Abraham. What can we conclude about Abraham and Sarah following Sarah's advice to Abraham about Hagar? What are your thoughts, Sarah? What can we conclude about Abraham and Sarah as it relates to Sarah's advice to Abraham about Hagar? Basically, Sarah told Abraham, sorry, but get rid of her. Well, in a way, if they had been obedient to God in the first place, they wouldn't need Hagar. Hagar would have been in the picture. But because they were disobedient to God, Hagar entered the picture. So where's the greater sin?

So Bob, don't you think that when this thing happened back with Abraham, with the bond woman and the free woman, he knew what was going to happen in the church. And he knew that the same thing was going to happen to believers that happened to Abraham. God told Abraham, I'm going to give you a son. And Abraham said, no, I'm going to do it by way of my flesh. And that's what Christians are doing today. Right. Exactly. That's good, Bob. Yep. Flesh versus spirit. Bond versus free. Right? So again, law versus grace. So Bob, what's great is we have a picture of human interaction that portrays a spiritual truth, like Bob said.

Do we believe God for what he says? Do we act upon what he's told us? Or do we go our own way? But you know, it also shows that even today, We all have a sin nature that is still present. And even though we have all this promise, we can act out, the sin nature can take over, and we can do all these things that have to do with the sin nature and not the promise. Even today.

And you know, Abraham really had to rely on his faith, because when God promised him a son, how many years was it before it actually happened? We're going to come to that. Yes, it was quite a while. They said it can't happen. We're past childbearing age. We can't have children. Impossible.

Well, and remember too, I mean, Paul has dealt with this in previous chapters, but what was God's promise to Abraham? I mean, why is Abraham the father of so many different faiths? But we trust God had one purpose for Abraham, and that's the church, right? There may be many, many of those who come, like the number of pieces of sand on the sea. That's us today. We're all part of God's plan through Abraham. Genesis 16.

Then Sarah, Abram's wife, took Hagar, her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband, Abram to be his wife. And after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, so he went into Hagar and she conceded. And when she saw that she had conceded, her mistress her eyes.

So this whole hatred, if you will, this fleshly hatred for this free woman, for Hagar, occurred immediately after conception, after she became pregnant. So this wasn't just as Ishmael was being raised, because presumably the departure of Hagar with Ishmael, he was a young, like a teenage child at that point in time. So this, think about what's brewing inside her for all these years.

That's why, what can we conclude about this married couple, Abraham and Sarah, in terms of this whole scenario? And Sarah was part of the problem. She said, OK, we've got to have a child here. God, we've got to have a child. It was her job. I don't care what you say, God, we're going to have a child. It's her job to have a child, and that wasn't possible.

So anyway, all that said, let's not spend too much time there. So here's the whole departure scenario, what ultimately ensued. And you know, you kind of feel sorry for Ishmael, don't you? What he had to do with all this. But Ishmael then becomes the father of an unforgiven series of people. But unfortunately everyone, you know, God would have all to come to Christ, whether you're the son of Ishmael, 90 generations subsequent to him, or whatever. OK. I'm going to combine verse 24a, the first part of 24 to this, because it's more appropriate to be included. And Miles and I kind of discussed how he was OK with that.

But he who is of the bond woman was born according to the flesh, and he of the free woman through or by promise, which things are symbolic. Do you interpret through promise or by promise differently? Some of the commentators put a lot of thoughts about this. What are your thoughts? Free woman was through promise or by promise? Well, it's still God's choice, right? God's choice was through Sarah, through Isaac. Do you think by is a stronger term? I'm not sure what the original word is. I'll have to look. I'm sorry. It can be interpreted either way. Anyway, let's not spend time there. Restating what we summarized before, flesh versus promise.

What made Isaac's birth so miraculous? Sarah's age. Well, there you go. Not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body already dead since he was about a hundred years old and all the kind of, what is that, deadness of Sarah's womb. So, you know, being a hundred, we don't think about having a child, do we?

So anyway, that's the miraculous nature of it. Was born. Perfect passive is kind of interesting. Was born. Is the tense and voice significant here? Perfect passive. Well, God was the driving force here. Okay. Completed action. Okay, what do you make of perfect? Completed action and pastime.

Well, I think the perfect tense, I think, really relates to the fact that look at the outcome of this. The continuation of the outcome of the bondwoman versus the free woman in terms of the generations that would follow. We're part of the free woman in terms of inheritance. The world system is still, if you will, part of the bondwoman until they come to Christ. Wiest, I think, says it better than I. The words, was born, is in the perfect tense, in preference to the usual aorist, because Paul was not thinking simply of the historic fact of the two births, but of the existing results.

Ishmael's descendants do not belong to the covenant people, Israel. Isaac's descendants are those that have the promises. In verse 22, Ishmael together as the sons of one father. Here they are contrasted in that they each had a different mother. I mean that, in a sense, kind of summarizes the picture. It doesn't seem fair that this was God's plan. We see promise, I think, referenced elsewhere. Here, the interpretation is specifically related to the reference of God. So let's look at a couple other examples of promises that are from God specifically, not from man to man.

Acts 7.17, but then when the time of the promise drew nigh or near, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt. So ultimately, that was a promise from God. By the way, there are numerous examples. I'm just giving you some here just to remind us that certain epangelia are from God directly to man and not human promises.

Romans 4.14, For those who are of the law are heirs, face its made broid, and the promise made it no effect. So that relates to kind of this heritage of Ishmael and Isaac in terms of the promises God's made through the two women and their offspring.

All right, 2 Peter 3.9, the Lord's not slack concerning His promise, and this is kind of something we all realize in our walk day in and day out, is some count sick slackness, but it's long-suffering towards us, not willing that any should perish. but that all should come to repentance or eternal life. So, I mean, again, I could have listed 15 or 20, but I just wanted to say this use of this term here relates to specifically promises from God to man that ultimately may have been fulfilled, but still some are being fulfilled each and every day.

I think F.B. Meyers' commentary, I think, outlines the allegory. And what's an allegory? It's a story or a poem or a picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning that is before us and will be covered before us here. And it's going to be covered more next week.

But I'm going to share this with you now because I thought it was really an appropriate summary of where we're at now and where we're going here in this chapter. Myers says he says that the poor slave girl, Hagar, whom Abraham bought as a personal attendance for his wife, stands for Mount Sinai, the mountain of the law in the district of Arabia. from which she may have originally come. Hagar also stands for the Judaizers, whose headquarters were at Jerusalem, and while their emissaries are everywhere dog the apostles' movements, insisting that his converts must come under the old Levitical ceremonialism. Paul says that the Galatians must choose between their slavish observance of outward ritual and a simple faith in the finished work of Jesus, and exhorts them to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, which savour of the flesh, and to give themselves to the service of the Spirit, which stands for freedom, peace, and joy in God.

In bold, let us also guard against a religious scrupulosity, that's an interesting word, and subservience to the outward and cultivate a quick sensitiveness to the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure where he got these words from. He didn't use AI, I don't think, for that one. He didn't have AI back then. So I think in general, I think that this is a kind of summary of where we're going here, because we're going to come back to this a little bit in terms of the outcome of these two sons and ultimately their being born of the bond woman, not born of the free woman.

All I can say to this is amen. So I just have a kind of a, what year would that have taken place? Just curious. What year, what? With Abraham and Sarah and that? Yeah, with that whole, that story. Because that is like the beginning. You believe in a young earth? No, that's the beginning. Margaret and I have thought about the same thing. Yeah, that's the beginning. And here it's come forward all this time. We're still talking about it. Because this is really before I mean, this is, Abraham was, so what year would that be if we put a year on it? 1400 or before? David was 1000, right? Yeah, so it had to be...

Well, how, I mean, the young earth is what, 6,000 years old, approximately? That's the young earth. And people, of course, are, I mean, we're not here to debate evolution versus creation, but we all believe in creation because that's what God's Word says. I always believed that all the carbon dating and all the other isotopic dating is what God... He created the heavens and the earth with aging built into it.

That's good, Malik. And that's my best explanation, but nobody has an answer to that. Well, but you're right though. So David was a thousand BC. So this would have been before that. So 1400 BC something. Yeah, I'm just, in my head, I'm just going, okay. I don't think it was that much longer after the flood had happened. Okay. Yeah, it's up, back to you for reference. Hey, Bob. Yeah, there we go.

A.I. says... Let's hear from A.I. Okay, it says 2166 B.C. Okay, there we go. That's not bad. 2,000 years before... Before Christ, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, well, I have about that same... My Bible here has a footnote. It's about 2,000 to 1,900 or something like that B.C. Oh, and Solomon or David was, Solomon was 1000 BC. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Margaret continues to ask these unanswerable questions. That's her job. You should talk to her later. Talk to her later. She reminds me a little bit of Sarah as we just covered her. So you should listen to her. Yeah, you should listen to her. Yeah, but didn't we just cover this? Notice that most of the women are commenting here. Pardon me. Just speak to that yourself, please. All right, so anyway, next week we'll pursue this section a little bit further.

You know, Paul keeps referring back to Abraham. Why is Paul putting so much emphasis on Abraham? Well, isn't he trying to show the Jews that, hey, Abraham had this information. It's right there. I mean, that's what God is always doing. He's showing us that his word, even in his law, has this information that if you were, if you had read that, you wouldn't know that. You wouldn't be going off this tangent. The information is there. It's not like it's hidden someplace.

And all of Israel started with Abraham. Right. Right. if you will, he was the father of Moses and everything that is legally present in the legal system. Anyway, and he was the first really good example in scripture in the early part of Genesis to a man who lived by faith. What's faith? Faith is believing God what He revealed.

You can go to Hebrews 12.1 all you want, but I think Schofield summarized it beautifully. Faith is believing what God has revealed. That's your Bible. This is what God has revealed. But that's not to say that the earlier beings such as Enoch and Noah did not live by faith. Well, you know, Enid's another story, I mean, being translated. So, anyway, that's interesting. But, you know, keep in mind, the world system will not accept creation or a young earth. There's absolutely no acceptance of that. Can we prove that? No. Do we believe God's word for what he said? Yes.

And I think the only way, you know, My career was much devoted to science. So as a scientist, how do I deal with all the aging of the world in terms of millions and millions of years with all this? The only way I can justify it with scripture is that God must have created either were false in our scientific approach. Some people question isotopic dating. I think you're not going to go anywhere in the scientific community with that, I can assure you. They're deadly set on the validity of isotopic dating. But all that aside, the only way I can conceive is that God, if that's true, God built it with aging built in.

And it wasn't that. Had it was created with age built in. That's a fact. area, the Lafayette Valley, you can see the rain will actually come down, the rocks will fall off there now, and you can see how it was all What happened at Mount St. Helens, they never had expected, and they don't want to talk about what happened then, how they saw all of what they thought had been dating. you know, aging before, happened in basically 48 hours at Mount St. Helens. They have shown pictures to scientists of Mount St. Helens, did not tell them what it was, and they'll say, this took place over thousands of years.

Right. I mean, but they really, it's been interesting in the geology world. Since I was in the oil business, this thing that happened was really You know, people couldn't, I mean, they didn't even want to talk about it. It was like, and I would ask my geologist friends, and they would say, well, you know.

But they, honestly, they can't explain it. So they just, they want to just throw it under the rug. Well, it scares them. Yeah, it absolutely does. They don't have an answer. They don't have an answer. And they don't have any faith. Yeah. But it actually happened in 48 hours. I mean, that's really what happened.

All right, well, I apologize occasionally when I stumble, Marie, because my vision is never good. I'm not sure whether I should use my glasses or not, anyway, so forgive me for that. So, Roger, close this in front of you, please. Heavenly Father, we thank you for our time today, Lord. Thank you for the blessings we have, Father. Just pray for the service ahead. Pray for our brother Miles as he gives the message, and pray for the special singer for Bob's daughter. Things will go well with that, Lord. We thank you for our time today. In Christ's name, amen.