You and good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are glad you're here on this Thursday night for our Romans Bible study. The 17th time we've come together and said that. That is this time around in Romans because this is the second time we've gone verse by verse through Romans, the third, if you count Romans graphic presented in the fourth, if you count the time before Randy White Ministries when I did this. And someday I'm going to know what Romans says. It's one of these tough books. We get into it. And we're going to look at Romans chapter seven tonight and being dead unto the law, I think you'll enjoy our little journey. I'm so glad you're here tonight and look forward to visiting with you, saying hi to you, not only visiting through Bible study, but let's say hi. And I would love if you would just put in some greetings on YouTube. If you're watching live on worship I if you're watching Live on Randy White Ministries, if you're watching live and those of you who are archived, put something in the comments. Hey, you know, especially on YouTube, you know, one thing that really helps is if you click that like button. More people who click the like button, the more this introduces our ministry. So it's like a little donation. Just click the like button. And I always appreciate that. Thanks again for joining us on a windy night in Taos, New Mexico. And anytime it's windy means the power could flicker or the internet could go out. So if we suddenly disappear, I'm going to call it weather related. My apologies for that. Hopefully we'll make it. I kind of think we're going to make it. The winds dying down a little bit and hopefully things will go good. But we have had weather issues here today, as many of you have. And if you haven't, stay tuned. It'll come your way soon. But let's switch right over here and get to Romans graphically presented. Nope, romans rightly divided is what we're doing. We did Romans graphically presented at Branson. And by the way, that reminds me, branson, September 1 through four, 2023, would love to have you join us. Registration is not yet open, but it will be open soon. Right division issues and Answers. I think it's going to be a very interesting time. Saturday, Sunday, Monday of Labor Day weekend and Friday night, we'll gather for a little bit of fellowship for those who can get into town early in Branson, the same place we have always been, though the name of that place has changed, by the way. And we will gather together and fellowship and learn wall to wall teaching and fellowship. That's what it is. And we look forward to that. Right division issues and Answers. What is right division? How does it make a difference? We're going to go through the major theologies of Christendom and see what difference does it make in not only our salvation. But what difference does it make in our ecclesiology? But what difference does it make in our prophecy? But what difference does it make in our pneumatology? On and on we'll look at these various doctrines of the Church and see the issues that right division brings about. And we will also then at that conference look at those who say this isn't right. Let's listen to what they have to say and see if we are wrongly dividing rather than rightly dividing. I think you know what the answer is, but we will check that out again. September 1 through four, Branson, Missouri. That info will be up soon. I think this will be the 9th year that we have had our Labor Day Bible conference. Looking forward to that. So let's get started into Bible study. Here again, in the book of Romans, you've got your outline available to you anyway. You can use that follow along or use it later on as a guide. And we are in Romans chapter seven, verses one through 25. Today we're only going to get through verse eight. It's going to be, let me just say, an abrupt ending. You're going to say, wait, we're not done with this yet. But I learned a while back, once you fill up two pages, it's pretty much going to take up the time and stop right there and cut it off the next week. So we've gone 17 weeks. You know what's, another one going to matter. And we're looking at this segment right here, which is if you've got the Romans graphically presented supplemental material. It is pages 32 through 35 on this. And in fact, there's an overview on page 28 as well. I'm not showing those here, but this segment from chapter six, all of chapter six and chapter seven is a message to Jews living in overlap times. By overlap times, I of course am referring to this little poster that we've got here and the fact that you've got the kingdom message, you've got the individual Grace gospel message or the mystery message, the prophetic message and the mystery message. But there's a little bit of overlap here in which there is a diminishing of Israel and it's during this overlap time that we're talking about here in chapters six and seven. So I am convinced he's really talking to Jews, those on this side. And yet this message has come about. And in the book of Romans, he's sharing this message like Romans chapter three, verse 21 and whatnot he's sharing this message, but he recognizes they also are dealing with this. That is the kingdom offer. And so he has to write some things both about kingdom and mystery. And so we have to rightly divide the book of Romans, the Epistle to Romans. And so here is this message to those Jews living in overlap times. We looked at that again in two sessions at least. We had in chapter six, verses one through 23. And in last week's session, we even debated this issue a little bit, debated amongst ourselves. What if this is ours and not Jews living in overlap times? And we looked at some of the Tom foolery that comes up if you apply chapter six directly to us. So you can go back to session 16 if you want to look at that. But here is session 17. We move on into chapter seven, verses one through 25. He had told them in 615 through 23 to live unto Christ. Now he tells them to be dead unto the law and what it is to be dead unto the law. And of course, we're not going to finish all the way through verse 25 tonight, but we will begin. And that's what we do now right here on Biblify, the creation of Nathan White. And it's working pretty good. New improvements every day here's. Biblifi King James is what we're mostly going to work with right here. We do have some interlinear here and we've got some Young's Literal translation. We might glance at those along the way, but let's start out and see. Well, I'll tell you what, let me go back to where do I want to go? Here we go back here. This message to believing Jews. Again, this is on page 35 of Romans graphically presented. The overall message is to be dead unto the law. Verses one through three, he gives the premise and the illustration. I want you to chew on that a moment that's what you're going to hear is the premise and an illustration that will help you to understand. When we read verses one through three that he's got, anyone want to guess a premise and an illustration, that's what we're going to see. And then he's going to go on to talk about Israel being dead to the law and the past purpose of the law. But I really want you to recognize that we've got a premise and an illustration in verses one, two and three of Romans, chapter seven. And we begin here where he says, know ye not, brethren, for I speak to them that know the law, how that the law hath dominion over man as long as he liveth. Now, I should even give one more word of introduction before I should have before I read into that. If you have been with us and you know our color coding, that I am color coding blue if I think it's directly to us, we can take that to the bank, green if it's not to us. But, yeah, there's so many similarities, we could go ahead and apply that to ourselves without creating some sort of theological train wreck. And black when I say that's not for us, all of chapter seven, I have put in black, by the way. I don't have a copy here on my desk, but when you order Romans graphically presented, you also get a little copy of the Romans text. And you can look through there and it's color coded or it's on the outline as well. And every verse we have tonight is going to be black. Even if I hover over the verse and it becomes blue, our interpretation is black all the way. So with that, we are not going to directly make application to our own lives. This is something to Jews living in the overlap period. This message to Jews living in that overlap period in Romans, chapter seven, had to do with their experience with the law. Let me remind you, you and I haven't had any experience with the law. And that's what we're going to see right here in verse one. We're going to see that, hey, this couldn't ever apply to me because of the way he is bringing it up. So he says, Know ye not, brethren? Now, again, I think ye in the book of Romans, unless there's some contextual issue, otherwise, ye in the book of Romans is the Roman Jews. So he's speaking to his Jewish brethren. Hey, Jewish brethren, I speak to them that know the law. Well, that ought to tell us right there that this message is I don't know, who could it be to? Maybe it's to them that know the law well, I know the law because I read it, right? I read it in Exodus. I know the law. I've read Leviticus even once. I know the law. But you remember that in Greek, there's more than one word for knowledge to know. And the two most common words there's the one for the head knowledge, the book knowledge, and then there's the one for the experiential knowledge. Here the word he uses for no. Right here, it's ganosco. And that is the word for the experiential knowledge. Most Latin languages have this through to today. I know in Spanish anyway, saber is to have knowledge of. But CONOS, which is right here, gunosco CONOS carries over in Spanish and I'm sure Italian, French and other Latin languages. It's the experiential knowledge. It's a completely different word, just like it would be if you were speaking Latin, which pulls so much from Greek. So I speak to them that have an experiential knowledge with the law. You are my Jewish brethren. Now, let me say, I have never been under the law. And sometimes we as Christians, we talk so much about being free from the law with the terminology that we basically use, the terminology that we were once under the law, now we are free from the law. Boy, what a nice thing it is to be outside of the burden of the law. Sunday after Easter, by the way, april 9, I'm going to april 16. April 9. April 16. I think it's April 16. April 9 is Easter. April 16. I'm going to begin a series called unlearn. It getting debriefed from evangelicalism unlearn. It one of the things we need to unlearn is that we were under the law. We're not under the law anymore. It's such a habit for us to slip into that. But if somebody asked me, hey, you remember what it was like to be under the law? No, I don't, actually. I never kept the Sabbath, I never kept kosher. I haven't kept kosher. I started to say a single day in my life. But I have gone to Israel quite a bit, and they feed me kosher. So accidentally, I kept kosher a few of those days, but that's about it. I have never known the law. So the brethren here are to them that know the law. He's writing to Jews. Thus I have put it in black letters, know ye not, brethren? I speak to them that know the law. He goes on then to say how that the law half dominion over a man as long as he liveth. Now, here is his premise. The premise is right here, the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. It's a simple premise. It's going to have a part two. And that is to say, well, what if you're dead? If you're dead, I guess the law doesn't have dominion over you, right? So his premise right here, the law hath dominion over man as long as he liveth. There are very few laws for dead people. Congress is not interested in them. Perhaps you know how they vote and whatnot, but that's about it. Very few laws for dead people. So the law has no dominion once you die. But for those who know the law, they would say, yeah, I'm under the law now, but once I'm dead, I'm not going to be under the law. That's the frame of thinking he wants them to be in, because he's trying to tell them, guess what? In Christ now, there is a freedom from the law. This works. This is not illegal. And it's a principle even of law. Now, there are some who would say, if they were listening to me tonight out of, say, evangelicalism, they might say, Wait, I think you've gone too fast here, bald headed preacher. Because they would say, this chapter, it has to apply to us, because all the Bible applies to us. So this chapter applies to us. And so they would say, this is not talking about the Jewish law. You may not have been under the Jewish law, but this is just talking about law in general. Lowercase l the law, like the city ordinances and all those kind of things. It's just a general statement. Well, even if I give that to you, and I might we'll talk about it some more as we go on, whether his illustration is the civil law or whether it's the Torah law. But even if we say really here he's talking about the civil law, he's not talking about the Torah law at all, I still wouldn't apply it to us, because under no circumstances is he trying to make some point about the civil law he's talking about his point is about the Torah law, the religious law. So even if his illustration is civil law, that doesn't mean it's applied to me. Again, the line of thinking for those who want to claim chapter seven, the line of thinking is, I know he's talking to people under the law, but he's talking to people under any law. So if you live in any government, he's talking to you. And he's just giving this example, like speeding. There's no speed limits for those who are dead, there's only speed limits for those who are alive. They would use that to apply the chapter to us or to get us out of that pesky law issue. I don't think it's fair, because clearly the point that Paul is trying to make has nothing to do with the civil law. Even if he's using the civil law as his illustration, which is an arguable point. Now, here again, here's his point. It's going to come down more. Here how the law hath dominion over man as long as he lives. And then in verse two, he begins to give the illustration when he says that a woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth. But if the husband be dead, she's loosed from the law of her husband. Again, it's a fairly simple thing here and I think probably thought long and hard about what illustration can I give? His desire is to teach that you could be under the law and then not under the law. And then he says, even maybe in the civil world, what example can I give of being under the law and then not being under the law? Ah, what about marriage? A woman is married and she is under the marriage laws, but not when her husband's dead. Then she's not under those marriage laws anymore. And so she's free from the law. She was under the law and she's free from the law. And this is what Paul is trying to illustrate. And so he gives this marriage illustration right here. And he goes on then in verse three to say so then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband be dead, she's free from that law so that she is no adulterous, though she be married to another man. So again, a woman, once her husband's die, she can remarry. And this would go true for a man also, and he uses that illustration. Now, again, this may or may not be an illustration from the civil law, because Rome did have laws about marriage and even about adultery. You can look it up and do some research on it. And consensus anyway, is certainly that Rome, throughout its empire, really the thousand years of its empire, prohibited polygamy, its marriage laws were that you could only be married to one person and it actually made adultery illegal depending on when you're going. This is where it becomes hard to prove this thing because we don't have all the marriage ordinances of Israel excuse me, of Rome preserved for us today. So it's going by a few bits and pieces and putting a lot of stuff together. And Rome lasted for about 1000 years. And so which part of the Empire are you talking? But let's just give the fact here, okay? He's using an illustration from Roman law. If under the Roman law, you're married, then you can't go and get married to someone else. That's against Ordinance 22, paragraph three, section six. And yet, once your husband is dead yeah, feel free to be married. You would not be considered an adulteress under the Roman law. But he's not talking to us. And he's not even talking to just Roman citizens in general. He's talking to the Roman Jewish believers to lay the groundwork for it really is okay to say that. Now, there's a scenario in which we Jews are free from the law. So that's the premise that you're bound to the law as long as you're alive. And the illustration of marriage that is given there. And then he goes into verse four, and he kind of, I don't know, comes down to a point here and he says wherefore? And the wherefore, by the way, could be let's see how young it says. So that okay. And the Greek right here is hote, which is often translated. So that it's. Now, having laid this case, let's move on here wherefore back over here to verse four. Wherefore, my brethren, ye are also ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ so that you should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Okay, here's what I want you to recognize. You are become dead to the law. Let's start out with again, he's talking to his brethren. Let's start out with the verb right here. Are become. Are become. That wouldn't you agree with me that is a little bit awkward English. Ye also are become dead. I don't know that I've ever said that in any kind of situation. Our loved ones are become dead. I think we just say they died, right? They died. Why is it this unusual kind of construct that is given here? The verb is in the arist, passive indicative. Arist. You may remember we've talked about it many times. Just means it happened at a point in time. The default on it, I guess you would say, in translating into English, which doesn't have the arist tense. The default is to put it in the past tense. Something happened at the point in point in time. It's usually yesterday whenever it's in the past tense. But it doesn't have to be in the past tense, could be a point right now, it could even be a point in the future. And so here it is, the heiress passive. It's someone else did this for you. And indicative is just a statement of fact. So you are become dead. Let's see, young's literal says you were made dead. Now they've got the passive, they've got the indicative and they've got the heiress too. They just went with the default and made it into the past tense. You were become dead instead of you are become dead. King James took it and put it here into the presence you are become dead. Let me say that King James is the only of the modern translation that put it in the present tense. Let's see the Greek here. Well, this is not the Greek interlinear. This is the English right here. Thanatel is the Greek word. And again it's the Arist passive. Now, I don't think it should be translated into the past tense. I think putting it in the present, maybe even into the future is better right now you become dead to the law by the body of Christ that you should be right now married to another, even him who's raised from the dead that we should right now bring forth fruit unto God. Now is that legit to make it either future or now, or even, let's say in the recent past. Let's talk about what happens if you do like Youngs or you do like all the modern translations and you make this past. I didn't look up. New King James. I suspect it it does puts it in the past as well. So let's see what happens. Wherefore you once died to the law, you back there died to the law by the body of Christ. That makes it sound like this happened at the crucifixion of Christ. Let me say right here, the body of Christ here is not here in this point talking about the spiritual body of Christ. That is the Pauline assembly. It's not talking about that, even though that is sometimes called the body of Christ. Rather body of Christ right here is talking about the physical body of Christ, to use the Latin and the town from Texas, the Corpus Christi, that is the body of Christ that is given there. So take this body of Christ to be the work of Christ, his life, his death, his burial, his resurrection, his ascension. So you became dead to the Law by the ministry of Christ. It almost sounds like once Christ died here, his body was upon the cross, then you became dead to the Law. But that's not true. In fact, let me put it this way, nobody was dead to the Law on the day of Jesus's resurrection or the day after that. In fact, nobody was dead to the Law. And let's translate that free from the law, because if you're he's already given the illustration, you know, if you're dead, you're free. You're not under the law. The Law is only good while a man lives. Nobody was free from the Law on the day of the Ascension, 40 days after the Resurrection. Nobody. Nobody was free from the Law on the day of Pentecost, not at the morning, not at 09:00 a.m. When they thought they were drunk, not in the evening when they laid their head down to bed. Nobody was free from the Law. Nobody. You go all the way, even, say, ten years later, to Peter at the house of Simon the tanner and the vision of the unkosure foods there, he says, I've never, never, and I'm not going to, because nobody was free from the Law. Nobody. Everybody was either outside of the covenants and commonwealth of Israel and thus without hope, or they were under the law. So if we read this past tense, it sounds like, hey, once Christ went to the cross, you became dead to the law. But that's not true. Everything Peter taught, everything from Acts chapter two, when he begins to teach up through Acts, chapter ten is about the last time we see him teaching much. But we'll go to chapter twelve, chapter 13. Everything he taught was law and obedience to the law. But if we take this in the now, then brethren, you are here right now, maybe recently, not so long ago that you wouldn't really put it in the present. You're right now become dead to the law by the body of Christ. It is the physical body of Christ, the corporeal body of Christ, the Corpus Christi, that brings the Jew to be free from the Law. But this just happened, so let me paraphrase it here. Hey, brethren, you recently become dead to the law by the body of Christ, so that you should be married to another. Just kind of a statement of fact. You've come into this knowledge and you've accepted individual salvation that you should be married to another, even another who's even the same one, if you will, to another who even to him who is raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruits unto God. So I would put this completely again in the present tense, and I think the King James got it right here. It's interesting. Again. This is odd english. You also are become dead King James translators. Why did you say r become dead? I didn't really do a search for it through the English King James Bible, but I would suspect this is an unusual construct even for them. Why? Why did they do it? I think they knew. We can't make this past tense. If we do, it's going to imply the wrong thing. If we make it past tense, people are going to think that the freedom from the law came at the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and we're not going to do that. In fact, I think the King James was the only one that was consistent in this. We'll look at some of this down here and tie it together. So you are right now become dead to the law Jewish brethren in Rome by the body of Christ. Now, body of Christ, I mentioned right here that this body of Christ, this is, again, I mentioned it several times, this is the physical body of Christ rather than the spiritual body of Christ that you and I are part of. Let me give you a couple of passages. If you were to look in the cross references and we could go look those up, but you got to be careful on cross references. Always one of the cross references, I'll take the good one first. Colossians 122 says, in the body of his flesh through death to present you wholly and unblamable and unprovable in his sight. Okay, yeah. In the body of his flesh. That's a good cross reference. Then you could also look at Ephesians 216, and it says that he might reconcile both Jews and Gentiles unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. So reconcile both into one body. This body. It's not a good cross reference because this body in Ephesians what have we got here? 216 is the body that you and I are a part of. Both of them are called the body of Christ, just to make things confusing for you. So let's get back to Romans seven, verse four. So you are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. It's interesting here that Paul changes. Let me back up here, see what we can fit on here. There we go. He goes from the ye to the we. Ye to we. Now, I believe that we should be persnickety. Be ye persnickety. Herb in Lafayette got me. I just thought first of all, I said, Be persnickety a lot, and he added one. He sent me one that said, Be ye persnickety. I like that. Be ye persnickety. It's what I want you to do. Little King James addition to it. It's good. But then I looked at it and I thought, well, there would be not only a poetry to the ear, but a poetry to the eye if we took the Y off and put ease there. And so I got this in the mail today. Be ye persnickety. There we go, being persnickety about pronouns. We say what's up here? Ye we. What's the possibilities? Our standard default in Romans is that ye are the Roman Jews and we are the Apostolic band, if you will. We are those Jews who've been living under the Law and faithful to the Law and proclaiming the Law. And Paul here is including himself with the other twelve. Normally, Paul's separate from the other, from the from. The twelve. But here he would include it. Now, you can take it that way, but as you begin to look down and he's got wes and several verses here, and as you begin to look down through that, I think you begin to say, I'm not completely sure that he's talking apostolically. So could it be here that now that they're become dead to the law and married to another? Well, that's just like me, Paul would say. And so he switches to the we that we should bring fruit unto God together. Could be. It could also be that he's saying, you know, we those who've been here before, you should bring forth fruit unto God. But it's a curious change there that we'll look at and consider more even as we go. But in verse five, it says when we, whoever we are, the whole group, or just Paul and the apostolic believers, or the earlier Pauline believers, whoever it is, when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Well, we want to bring forth fruit unto God. So we've got a change here, married to a different person under a different law, something new ought to be there. When we were in the flesh, the motions of sins. On the outline, I think I called it the ebb and flow of sin. The word here is, let me get over here again to the youngs and see how they have done. Verse five. The passions. Yeah, passions is probably the most literal way to do it, but I'm not sure it's what it means. I think motions is pretty good. And again in verse five, here, the pathos. I think motions is pretty good, but if you need a different word, it's the ebb and flow. Here comes the pathos of sin. It's in, it's out, it's all around. So when we were in the flesh, the pathos, the motions, the passions of sins which were by the law. Now here you have to do a little bit of sentence diagramming what were by the law, not the motions. You could say the motions of sins were by the law. That's the wrong thing. It is the sins which were by the law. He's talking about specific sins, and that is things that are sinful because they're stated as sinful in the law. For example, it is not inherently sinful to eat pork, but under the law it is sinful. So he's talking about those kind of laws that were given under the law. They were sins by the law. So when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we held, we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. He is saying that he himself at least and whoever's with him in this we now is delivered from the Law. Why? We're dead to it. Dead. Why? Because of the body of Christ. Life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, work of Christ, and now being delivered from the Law, married to another. We should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Now, this describes how we, whoever that may be, should serve. Should serve how in newness of spirit ought to be a great and wonderful new passion that is there a newness of spirit rather than the oldness of the letter. Now, something I want to point out and warn you about not interpreting this phrase the wrong way. You could say, oh, look what Paul is saying. He's saying that we are not to serve under the law. We're not to serve according to the law, we're not to obey the Law. I don't think Paul is saying that. I think to the Galatians he would say that. I don't think he would say that to the Roman Jews. I think he would say to the Roman Jews, hey, you're supposed to obey the Law. So you could misinterpret this and you could say, hey, now that we're delivered from the Law, we're not supposed to do the Law anymore. We're not supposed to serve in the oldness of the letter. You could interpret it that way. I just think you'd be wrong. And if you did interpret it that way, you would find a lot of conflict with other scripture. I think we talked a little bit about this this morning in our Ask the Theologian program. August the 30th, I think if today is the 30th, is today the 30th? 29th August, yeah. Okay, it's the wrong month. August the 30th, 1942, just like we've got right here today. Let's go. March 30. We talked about how Paul would insist there's only one gospel for the Galatians, but there were some other gospels. There are other gospels, the Gospel of the Kingdom, for example. But that's not for the Galatians. For the Galatians, one and one only. For me and you, one and one only. Now, we might slip into old evangelical thinking and say, he being delivered from the Law. He doesn't want us to serve the Law at all. But this is not talking about the manner in which we serve. It's talking about the motive in which we remember. You and I are not included in the we, the motive in which we serve. So he wants the motive to be a newness of spirit rather than the oldness of letter. Now, honestly, I think that I don't know. Moses, Joshua, the prophets, whatnot, they didn't really care what your motive was. Do it. Just do it. You obey the letter of the Law. Do it. Do it grumpy, do it happy, just do it. However you do it, whatever your motive is, do it. But now he comes and says okay? I want us to serve even if we're doing the Law. You and I aren't, but Paul speaking, even if we're doing the Law, I don't want us to do it the oldness of the letter. I want us to do it in a newness of spirit. Now, why do I say we have to be very careful to take this as the motive and not the manner? If we take this to say we're delivered from the Law and therefore don't do any of the oldness of the letter anymore, don't do that stuff, we're going to find ourselves really at conflict with Paul himself several times. So my premise has been through the book of Romans that he wants the Romans to accept the grace Gospel over here, but he also recognizes they're being delivered the Kingdom Gospel, and that the grace Gospel is free from the Law, not of works, but that the Kingdom Gospel is not free from works. It requires works. He wants them to serve with a newness but keep doing this. I'm not ashamed of the gospel of the Kingdom. So let me try to give some proof to say, yeah, he wants them, they're Jews. He wants them to keep being Jewish. He wants them to keep doing the Jewish Law. Let me give you an example here to help prove that. Because I know especially well in the right dividing community, there's a lot of evangelical thinking and so right dividers would be saying, no, Paul never wanted anyone to do the Law. Haven't you read Galatians? I have read Galatians and I saw that it was to the Galatians and this is to the Roman Jews. There weren't any synagogues and Jewish people living in Galatia. They had to come from Judea and instruct them about the things of the Law and those Judaizers. So the Jews, and these are absolutely Jews, we've proven that here. I think by the time we get to chapter seven, the Jews, he wants them to do the Law even though they're delivered from the Law and he wants them to do it in a new spirit. They're delivered from the Law for their individual salvation. But the Kingdom requirements haven't changed. Now let me try to prove to you that he wants them to keep doing the Law. For this proof, let's go to Acts chapter. Chapter 21, beginning in verse 20, says, when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. These are they are Jews living in Jerusalem. When they heard it, they glorified the Lord and said unto him, paul, thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. Now this is the Judean believers saying these are people who believe in Jesus Christ. And I would even go so far as to say they believe your poly mystery, but they are zealous of the Law. So you see this. Now, I want you to know, I think if you took the the standard right dividing answer. Say, you know, the Jews should Jews live the law after they accept the mystery? No, absolutely not. Free from the law. Don't ever, ever do that. But Scripture doesn't back that up. Here they are talking to Paul and saying believing Jews are zealous of the law. What we would expect is for Paul to say, I wrote the book of Galatians. Can't they see that? Shame on them for being zealous for the law. But that's not what happens. I read the rest. Come on and read it with me. Verse 21. Still these leaders speaking, they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses. Okay, this is what they've been told. They've been told that you're teaching the Jews out there in the nations to forsake Moses, saying they think you're saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither walk after the customs. Now, again, if can I highlight this? I think I can if this indeed is what Paul is saying. And still today, I think among right dividers the testimony is Paul's teaching people not to circumcise their children or walk after the custom, walk after these other customs, Jewish customs. Paul is going to be appalled. They think I'm teaching that. Stick with me. So they say, what is it therefore the multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come to Jerusalem. Do therefore this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow on them. Absolutely. It's a Jewish vow, maybe a Nazareth vow, whatever it is. We have four men which have a vow on them. Here's what we want you to do, Paul. We want you to take purify thyself with them that is according to the Jewish law, be it charges with them that they may shave their heads. Amen. And let's highlight this right here. All may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing. Now, Paul surely is going to step forward and he's going to say, they heard right. I am not going to do that. No way. What does Paul do but that thou might thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law? Paul walking orderly and keeping the law and touching the Gentiles which believe we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing. Gentiles don't have to do this. Galatians don't have to do this. But Roman Jews, they got to do it. I won't go and finish the article there or the deal there, but you know that Paul went through on it. Paul said, yeah, I want the Jews to keep doing the law because that's the requirement of the kingdom. And the kingdom is still being offered because there is an overlap. Now, again, remember, you and I don't live in the overlap, so we don't teach this message. But the problem is, again, let me get back here to Romans chapter seven and verse, verse seven I think is where we were, verse six actually. Romans, chapter seven, verse six. What we've got here is that most everybody wants to apply this to me and you. And so they say, hey, you know, Randy White's delivered from the law and therefore he should not do any of the oldness of the letter at all. Not like he used to. I'm telling you, I never did squat with the law. Not anything, nothing ever. A single little bit of it. Never. I thought I was tithe than once, but it turned out I wasn't. Not because I can't figure 10%, I'm pretty good at that, but because I was the fake evangelical method of the tithe rather than the biblical thing of the tithe. So I've never done it. Randy, quits serving under the law. I never served under the law. Might have been legalistic, but I never served under the law. This is not ours. But to the Jews he says, okay, you are delivered from the law, so serve now with a newness of spirit rather than with the oldness of the letter. Make your motivation different. That's his message. And then he goes on continuing to explain what is happening in verses seven through eight where we'll stop. He says, what shall we say then? And really I would say verse seven kind of starts a new segment. We've even got it right here. The Past Purpose of the Law on page 35 of Romans graphically presented. And he begins to talk about the past purpose of the law. I probably should stop at verse six and pick up verse seven, but I got six minutes before I'm overtime so I would hate to do that. What shall we say we'll introduce seven through twelve for next week. What shall we say is the law sin? So it gets into this question, I guess it's a hypothetical question to say, is the law a bad thing? He's going to end up in verse twelve saying absolutely not. It's holy and righteous and good and all through seven through twelve. He is not condemning the law, he is promoting the law. So is the law sin? He gives that customary answer when he really wants to say something strong. God forbid, absolutely not. And then he starts talking about some advantages and benefits of the law. One of those he says, I had not known sin but by the law, for I had not known lust except the law said, thou shalt not covet. Okay, I mentioned earlier pork not being inherently sinful. Well wanting something is not inherently sinful. Even wanting something that someone else has is not inherently sinful because actually there's nothing that you want that somebody else doesn't have. The store has it, shopkeeper has it, maybe the neighbor has it. Whatever they have it, I want it. I kind of want a new tractor. Well actually I should just say a tractor, because I don't have an old tractor. I want a tractor. I think a tractor would be nice with a snowblower on the front. So is it sinful you should not desire anything? I think that's aestheticism that gets you into that you shouldn't have anything nice. You shouldn't have anything beautiful. You shouldn't have anything. Can I chase a little bit of rabbit here? In evangelicalism, and this came from the Calvinist bent of evangelicalism, young people have kind of been taught you're not supposed to desire anything. My generation and older, I think, let's say from the time you came home from world war II up through, I don't know, the millennial generation probably maybe go back. Just say if you're born into the 80s, born from the lived in the 40s through the 80s, we were kind of taught a house in the suburbs or a house in the country. That would be nice. A few acres, a car, a second car. Boy, that'd be good. I think I'll get a house with a bathroom in it. Wow, that would be fantastic. Maybe two bathrooms even, and a stairway. One going up, another coming down, another going nowhere just for show. That's what I want. And there was that kind of, okay, it's not sinful to want anything. Something came along, I'm going to say about the Christian world, only in the Christian world came along. Maybe not only in the Christian world. I see a lot of young hippies that choose to live free as a bird, not having anything to their name. Something came along in the American psyche that said we shouldn't have those nice things. We don't need that. We don't want that. Idaho. I don't even have a desire. No. And it became kind of holier than thou. I live in a little hovel. That's it. I think young people should get a truck, get something out there where you got to get up and go to work in the morning, move on. So I chased that rabbit. Now I'm back to the Bible study here. I think that desire. Here's the word lust. And obviously we have bad connotations with the word lust, but desiring something not inherently sinful. But God did come along then and say thou shalt not covet. And he gave some examples of that as well. But thou shalt not covet. Okay. All of a sudden, that which was not inherently sinful under the law, there became a sin to that. God's given you everything you need. You're supposed to trust in Him. These are some ideas that have come over into modern American evangelicalism and they should have stuck with the law, stayed where they were in the law. But if you don't rightly divide, you get it all mixed up. So he said, I hadn't known lust except that the law said thou shalt not covet. I didn't know about this. Now, lust, I don't want you to read it sexually. Or negatively. Just read it as covetousness. I'll show you why in a moment. But it then says, sin taking occasion by the commandment, thou shalt not covet, wrought in me all manner of concupisance. But you hadn't used that word all day, for without the law, sin was dead. Okay? I didn't really have a problem with coveting until I read Thou shalt not covet. And there's something about somebody telling me not to do something that just causes me to say, I wonder if the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Paul says, all of a sudden, I started to covet all over the place, and now I know I'm kind of a sinful. Being a sinful creature, paul's going to give some of the advantages of the law. Let me say, by the way, before we get away from here, that three words right here, lust, covet, concupisance, three different English words, but they all mean the same thing. As a matter of fact, it's the same Greek word, at least the root. They're in different forms, but the same Greek word, all three. So to desire. I didn't know anything about desire till I found out I wasn't supposed to desire, and then there was all manner of desire within me. So, again, the reason we've talked about this before that the reason that the King James used some different words there is because the King James is also made for the ear as well as the eye. And therefore, when you're listening, rather than using three words, boom, boom, boom, change those words up a little bit. And that's exactly what the King James has done. And that, my friends, brings us to where the end of session 17 of Romans, rightly, divided verse by verse. We'll pick up there because this is a segment that, again, we just sort of are stopping. We're going to chop it off right here, and we're going to mend it back together next week and get started right there. And I would love to say hi to you and thank you for being here. If you have not already put a word of hello in, now would be a great time to do that. And I'll give greetings today from wherever you are. And as you get ready for that, just an announcement or two we have see if I got the got a picture up here I was looking for. No, I already took it down. We have a couple of things coming up this Sunday. We've been taking a virtual and biblical tour of Israel. We're going to go to Mount Carmel this Sunday, even look out over the Jezreel Valley. Come join me for that. 945 live or archived? 1045. We'll have an Easter related sermon we've been taking a new look at, an old story, kind of eyeing in on some of the specifics. We'll pick that up at 1045. And the next week is Sunday, April the 9th. And we will have 01:10 a.m. Service for that. If you happen to watch us live on Resurrection Sunday, Easter, it'll be 10:00 a.m. Mountain time. And then the next Sunday after that, I will start this new series called Unlearn It. Unlearn It. It's about some things we need to get out of our minds that we've likely had in our minds, had put in our minds. We're going to unlearn it now. Let's say hi to Jim in Piedmont, South Carolina. Welcome. Glad you are here. And Crystal Springs, Mississippi. I am glad you're here. Thank you very much. Darryl and Debbie, the binners in Inkerman, Pennsylvania. Welcome. Always good to see you. Scott down in the hill country of Texas. Good to see you. Everett and the Sholo, Arizona branch campus. Glad you're here. Do you know, I just found out that Everett and Debbie the other day just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. Happy anniversary to Everett and Debbie. 50 wonderful years. Appreciate that. Darryl and Lisa from Kansas where the wind is raging here, too. It seems like it's died down after the sun went down. So that's good. I guess that's spring, isn't it? Merles Inlet, South Carolina. Donald, good to see you today. Thank you for being here. And our friend Neil up in Vulcan, Alberta, Canada, and Roger in Maryland. And Wabashaw, Minnesota. You're a blessing and thank you very much. Jeff in Trinidad, Colorado, has got a windy trinidad also. Good to see you. Nancy up in Pueblo West, oh, just stopped in to say hi. Said we won't be present tonight, but we send our greetings. Must be out bar hopping or something like that. Nancy and Ed. Jody and Rich. Good to see you. Poco, West Virginia. I hope you're doing well. Roger out in Fresno, California. Thanks for being here. Jack and Teresa multitasking in Houston. Thanks for being here. And let's see dr. Mike and Lorna. I think I already mentioned them. Inkner, Pennsylvania. Auburn, Kentucky. Keith and Carla, thanks for your presence tonight. And Deb in Arkansas. Welcome. Good to see you. Edith in stormy West Plains, Missouri. Yell in the South, Missouri. Maybe you don't call that south. Maybe you do call that south. Maybe it's a compromise, I don't know. But lots of stuff been going through there recently. Bev up in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. Good to see you. And which one of you is it? Bleeding Kansas? I don't think now I lost my yeah, I don't think that's Darryl and Lisa. Kim and Roger maybe, or whoever bleeding Kansas is. I should put that in my mind. Thank you. John, good to see you. In West Virginia. Almost heaven. Cliff Kitchener, Ontario. Thank you very much. Linda N. Lexington. God bless you. And Annie P. I've seen you recently online. Glad you're here with us. I don't know where you're from. Annie P. I would love to know that. Thank you very much. Valerie, I think in Kentucky. Good to see you. We got Gerard in the netherlands. God bless and good to see you. Thank you. Let's see here. Jerry in southeast Georgia. Welcome. I got to look close when it's a new name. Chuita. Did I get it right? Guerrero, glad you're here from wherever you are. We'd love to know where you're from as well, but welcome to the program tonight. And oh, you're right there, aren't you? I see. Cliff said the camera is low. We might see his shorts. I have blue jeans on today, but short season is coming soon. The camera is a little low, isn't it? Chopping my head off there. Sorry about that. Sherry. Sherry, I don't know where you're from either. Would love to say hi. Sherry, good to see you. Thanks for being here. And I'm reading some of the comments. Jordan, there's another new name. Glad you're here. Herb and Sherry. Yes. Be ye persnickety. I like it. What did you tell me? White oak. That's nice scroll work. Impressive. Thank you. Herb, glad you're doing well. Well enough to get out and take care of a few things. Sharon and Russ, good to see you. We were talking about you yesterday, bob and I, and welcome. Thanks for being here. Oh. Annie P is from West Virginia. Good. We're about to take over west Virginia with john and rich and Jody and Annie p. Watch out, west Virginia. Sharon and Russ, back to that. Ellendale, Minnesota. Thanks for being here. We got Thomas Jamie up in Lilywap Washington. God bless you. Thanks for being on board here tonight. And oh, dave, the special ops unit. We needed some special ops. Dave, thanks for being here. God bless. Glad you're here. Let's see. So I see we've got sherry in north bay, Ontario. Very nice. Is that anywhere near kitchener? I don't know. We've got kitchener listeners. But sherry, good to see you here tonight. And each one of you. I don't think all those came because I know earlier I saw Lenny was on and Alex was on. I think I only got worship five chats. I think I missed YouTube chats there tonight. Sorry about that. They're supposed to feed over, but I think something went wrong and did not do that. But yeah, teresa says tell those on YouTube to come join us on worship i. We need a reunion. That's right. They're not spying on you on worship I. Thanks for being here, all of you. Whether I called your name or not, it's a real blessing to have you here. Oh, there's vena down under. I see you come in there. Thanks, veena. Good to see you in Australia. God bless you. Oh, Shirley and Ridgecrest. Okay. There's some more there. Sorry, I'm missing some of that. Okay, nathan's working remote control tonight from far away, so he's not here for me to give him a hard time. He's just listening in. But thanks, each one of you for being here tonight. We'll have ask the theologian in the morning. And you can always ask your questions in advance@asktheologian.com. Little question button right there. Look forward to next week in Romans and all the other good things that we have. Let me lead us in a word of prayer. Heavenly Father, thank you for friends new and old, near and far, and the blessing that we have as we gather around a great big electronic table and just study the word week after week as we've done for so many years. And the blessing that that is to us and the book of Romans, even tonight, it has inspired us and it has perplexed us altogether. And yet we're okay with that, dear Heavenly Father, because we're on this journey of learning the word of God and rightly dividing it. And we just pray that what we didn't get right this week, we would soon come to see the error of our thinking and get it right quickly. And thank you for your love for us, your watch care for us the blessing of this fellowship, and we ask this in Jesus name. Amen. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate you very much. God bless you. And again, I'll be on tomorrow morning, 10:00 a.m. Mountain daylight time.