Good morning. How is everybody? Good. Well, let's go to the Lord in prayer first. Heavenly Father, Lord, as we come before you this morning, Lord, we are thankful for how you have stooped to our level to reveal yourself to us in so many magnificent ways. Your love manifested, revealed through your law, through your scriptures, through your son. Lord, we just asked this morning that as we look at this topic that is central to all three of these, Lord, would you give your speaker this morning clarity of thought and utterance And Lord, would you, by your spirit, be illuminating and connecting these truths in the minds of those who hear? Lord, we offer up all of this this morning to you for your glory. In the name of Christ, our King. Amen. As we, as I at least, conclude what I was asked to do, speaking on the law. This lecture this morning is going to be very relaxed. I'm not even going to use notes, which is scary for you. So what I need is somebody to tell me when I've got about 10 minutes. I don't want Vicki, because she'll hit me with a song book. But if you can let me know, that way I can make sure I'm wrapping up 10 minutes before I need to close it. What I do want you to know is Gary asked me to really highlight something that he thought was really important that during my research, I discovered, not that it was new, it's been around, but it's highlighted in the Westminster Confession, but it's veiled. And so I want to kind of get to that And so last night, you guys ended up with some notes from me between last night and this morning that are about 22, 23 pages. I put them together. Our dear brother, Aubrey, has printed them. So I want you to have them because this topic is massive. I want to hit some main points. I want to give you some hooks to hang some things on. But the two things I want you to come away with and I want to state this up front. I want you to see number one, how when we look at how God has so graciously approached his people through the ceremonial law, how merciful how tender he was to their conscience. It's going to make sense when we get to the end. But I also want you to see how during this apostolic period that we're going to talk about at the end, how the Apostle Paul in particular was exhorting believers to truly love one another and be mindful of one another and be conscientious to each other and not trample on another person's conscience. This idea of conscience and law come together in a really tight way. And you pray for me because, like I said, there's so much information. If I tried to go by notes, we'd never get through it. We'd just never get there. So I just want this to just be really relaxed. And I want to try to just walk you through. To do that, does everybody have the notes? Nobody's got the notes? Okay, well, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to read you some passages, and all of these passages are there. But I want to read these passages for you, and then we'll come back and talk about why they're important. But I want you to have them in your mind before we start, because they are proof texts that are used within The confession, the first two that I'm gonna read you come out of the judicial law. This is two proof texts that they use with the abrogation of the judicial law, and you'll know why I'm gonna use it in a little bit. Genesis 49, 10. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. Now in the confession, this verse is listed and then it says with. In other words, they want you to read this verse with 1 Peter 2, 13 and 14. Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human tradition, whether it be to the emperor as supreme or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. Now, when we move into the abrogation of the ceremonial law, the Westminster uses the following verses. Colossians 2.14. Listen carefully as it points out the cross. By canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands, this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. Ephesians 2.15 and 16. by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace. Verse 16. And might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross. There it is again. Thereby killing the hostility. Now, I'm gonna read you two verses. Only one of them is a proof text, it's the last. But it's Daniel 9.27. But I want to read verse 26 to give you a little more context. And I think the context helps put the verse in its place and you know why they used it, okay? Listen to Daniel 9.26-27. And after the 62 weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. That's key. There's a destruction of the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war, desolations, or decree. Now that's the end of verse 26. Here's 27. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week. And for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering and on the wing of abomination shall come one who makes desolate until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. Now, with those verses, just as a backdrop, I wanted to read them so you've heard them because I'm going to reference them later. Now let's read the confession of faith. This is chapter 19 paragraph 3 that says, besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel as a church under age, ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits, and partly holding forth diverse instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. Now, the reason I wanted to read the proof text is because you need to understand that there was a point when Westminster was commanded by Parliament to basically attach proof texts. They had not done that. And Parliament commanded them to do it, and they drug their feet. And so there's a question among scholars as to why. Some say the Erastians were trying to hold up the process and hinder the confession being complete. There's that side. And that's probably true. There were some Erastians in Parliament who were trying to do it. There's different theories. But I love what Robert Lethem said. Robert Lethem said, he's the only one I've ever heard say it, and so when I wrote my thesis, I used his theory, and I applied it in my thesis, and I found it to be true. Here's what he said. He said the reason they drug their feet was because there was a different approach to how the proof text should be used. Parliament just wanted them to slap some scriptures on there. This is proof, that's all you need right here. Westminster had a different hermeneutic. They felt like, and now you see this in the first chapter of the confession. They felt like all of scripture needed to speak to this doctrine. Scripture interprets Scripture. Plus, you had this nuance. You've got some doctrines that only are derived by inference, i.e., the Trinity. There's no one verse that says God is triune, existing in three persons, equal in essence, power, and glory. We don't have that verse. It's inferred. Plus, there would have been a lot of time depending on who submitted what verse. So what you see is there was a difference in approach. Nonetheless, Parliament won out. But the way Westminster approached it was they used the proof text as signposts and directions. They wanted their reader to read the statement, see the proof text, and according to Lethem, go to those works, those good, solid, reformed, Protestant expositions of the verses that they used, and then see the broader application from Scripture, demonstrating the doctrine. Does that make sense? Okay. So when you see these verses that I've quoted, If you really want to get a really beautiful view of the doctrine that's stated, go get guys like Calvin, William Perkins, go get the Westminster annotations on the whole Bible that they produced, some of their own assembly members wrote, and read what they say about these verses. Because that's what I did. And what I'm going to share with you this morning is that there is a glorious truth in here that is beautiful. And most, well, I can tell you, I've never really read an expositor of the confession who brings out what we're gonna talk about at the end. That really hammers it and brings it out and unveils it. But before we get to the abrogation part, I want us to look first at the ceremonial law itself. I want you to see the beauty of this law for what God intended it to be. So I'm just going to start and I'm just going to walk through this confessional statement and just make some comments as we move through. First of all, when we talk about this law as ceremonial, it says beside the law commonly called moral. Now what the confession is doing is making the distinction between those laws that were perpetual, moral, As we discussed yesterday, and now these temporary laws, you need to understand that when we look at Daniel nine, we understand that the ceremonial laws had a shelf life. They, when God designed them, he designed them for a particular time. in the decree of God, in God's wisdom and understanding, he orchestrated them for a reason, and he already had the point in time in which he was going to do away with them. And that's vital. And it is prophesied even by Daniel right here. It's included in the idea of the temple being destroyed with the city. Think about what goes out the window with that. Okay, now, these 70 weeks that Daniel's talking about are gonna be important. But there's a distinction, classificational distinction between the moral law and the ceremonial. And so now let's ask this question. Why did God give the ceremonial law? And to whom did he give it? We know that the moral law is for all people and it's perpetual. And we discussed the qualifications of that yesterday. But notice the confession says, God gave to them. Who's the them? It's Israel. God gave to Israel, the people of Israel, as a church under age. Now that is critical. As we talked about yesterday, the ceremonial law expresses the first four commandments of the Decalogue. for Israel. How Israel was to relate to God was expressed. Those first four commandments were expressed through the ceremonial laws he constructed and he gave to them. That made their laws for them unchangeable. Think about that. God constructed those laws. then through Moses gave them to the people of Israel and said, as the church of the Old Testament, here's how you are to worship me. Remember, they were the visible church on earth. Within their group, you did have both believer and unbeliever, no doubt, just like we have today. In the visible church, there's believers and unbelievers. Nonetheless, in the Old Testament, Israel predominantly was God's people. And so God directs them in the worship that he expects from them through these laws. Now, we know that these laws express the first four commandments, but because they concern worship specifically, they are in particular an expression of the second commandment. Why? First commandment tells us who to worship. Second commandment tells us how to worship him. And so these laws were not only first table expressions, but particularly this one on worship. So it is key. All of this is building to something for you, I hope. So now as we look at these laws, Just as we talked about yesterday that the moral law was classified by its perpetuity. And if you remember, Daniel Cawdry and Herbert Palmer called the moral laws the perpetuals. Guess what they called the ceremonial laws? The typicals. Because the classification for a ceremonial law Predominantly had to be, it must, wasn't optional for a ceremony, it must be typical. It must have typology divinely embedded in it. Now, we know that for ceremonial laws, they had to be predominant. It was essential for them to be classified by these men. It had to be typological. We understand that some of the judicial laws had typology, but it wasn't primary. It was more of a secondary thing for them. And it was acknowledged. For the moral law, there was no typology. If it was, it was some type of accessory to it, like the preface to the Ten Commandments. I am the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the house of bondage, out of Egypt, right? I mean, that typology surrounded in the preface of God delivering Israel out of bondage, we can see that typology, how it reflects God delivering us from sin. But that's not the Ten Commandments themselves. Now, So we know that if we're gonna classify a law ceremonial, it must be typical. Why is that important? Now, when you look at the confession, there are two adverbs, partly, partly, listen very closely. Having mentioned and designated these laws as ceremonial, containing several typical ordinances, the confession says this, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits, and partly holding forth diverse instructions of moral duties. Now I want to camp right here for just a minute. The first partly, everybody for the most part gets that this typology When God designed these specific precepts to govern their worship, we need to understand that they were binding on Israel. Not to do them was a sin. So they were case laws. We do understand that also as a case law, they were built on general equity. But because of this typical aspect that God designed into them, The purpose of that typology was to set forth, foreshadow, picture, and I'm going to use the word because I think it's appropriate, prophesy who Christ would be and what he would do. And that is exactly what the confession tells us with this first partly. Partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits. And I wish we had nothing but a week to do nothing but talk about how these laws signified, taught this church, which the confession says is a church under age. What does that mean? You will see these divines in this period refer to the church in its infancy, its childhood, It being, as it says here, under age. Why? Because the church of the Old Testament had less of the Spirit's influence then. The church of the Old Testament was in anticipation of Christ. Christ had not come. They had less revelation of this mystery of salvation than we have now, thanks to the apostles. So they were in their infancy. The church was an underage church. Think about when you were a kid or think about reading to your own kids. Think about a toddler and you're reading the book. Does that book look like the encyclopedia? It doesn't. That book is one of those books that when you open it, it's got all these little pop-ups, it's got all these illustrations in it, right? Because it's a child. And the child is learning and being instructed by something other than just black ink on white paper. They're not really accustomed and mature enough to learn in that mode. So it's adapted to their age. The ceremonial laws were that. God adapted this system of laws to teach them, illustrate them, who Christ would be and what Christ would do when he appeared. Does that make sense? Clear as mud? Okay. So when we look at these laws, we understand that they have an added dimension of complexity to them. They had the case law and the general equity just like the judicial laws had. But now they have this typology added. And with this typology comes a whole new body of truths. With those truths come moral duties. Now those truths are referred to by many of these theologians as evangelical. Why? Because these truths did not exist when Adam was in innocency. There was no need for a mediator. Why? Because there was no sin. Adam had no need to repent. He had no need of justifying faith. Now, he had a faith, but it was a trust that God, who was who he said he was, that God would protect, provide, be who he said he would be. But there was not a justifying faith, because why? There was no sin yet. But when Adam fell, and hear me this morning, this is one of the truths that just resonates in my heart and just, man, it just gets me going when I think about this. When Adam fell, who preached the gospel to him first? It was God. It was God who preached the gospel on the planet Earth first to fallen man. Now I want you to think about something else. God not only just preached the gospel in Genesis 3.15 when he said there's coming a seed of the woman who will crush the serpent's head but he will bruise his heel in the process. Don't miss what follows when it says that God took this animal and clothed them. It was God who initiated the very first sacrifice as a type of this gospel promise. Now, why is that important? Because God instituted it. And you may have never thought about this, but I hope you think about it after today. Sacrifice had been a part of the human experience and life from the garden all the way to the cross. Now under Moses, many of those, many of those sacrifices like the whole burnt offering, which many scholars believe was the most ancient of all sacrifices. Maybe a debatable point, I don't know. But we do know we see these patriarchs prior offering sacrifice like Abraham. Everywhere he'd go, he'd build an altar, have a sacrifice, right? Testimony and witness to Yahweh. But when Moses comes on the scene, now all of a sudden, there's an increase in these sacrifices and types. Why? Why is that important? God is increasing his revelation of who this mediator is going to be, what he's going to do when he appears. And it's in this typology. And so God is now instituting a greater witness of who Christ would be and of our own sinfulness. Let that sink in a minute. How much time have I got, brother? 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 20 minutes? Okay. If we had time to just walk through and just begin to look at the things God instituted, like the tabernacle, the temple, which replaced it, looking at the sacrifices, looking at the priesthood, looking at the feast days, Looking at even the vessels in the tabernacle and asking the question, how does each one reveal Christ? Because that's how you need to study it. What is it teaching me about Christ? You would see that there is this massive doctrine of Christology embedded in this corpus or body of laws. I want to give you something else to think about. I'm going to give you some homework like Gary. Read Exodus and ask this one question. How much space is given in Exodus to the judicial laws? And how much space is given to the ceremonial laws? And let the amount of data influence you on which one is more important. Worship is key to God. Revealing who Christ is is a major overflowing theme in both Exodus and then we've got a whole book following it. That is nothing but ceremonial. Even the two narrative texts, Nadab and Bihu in Leviticus 10, who offer strange fire and kill, they're doing it while they're doing what? Worshipping, supposedly. Then you go to Leviticus 24 and who do you have? The Egyptian son who blasphemes God. Still the first table of the law and he's stoned to death. But the rest of the book is just unpacking the ceremonial aspect. We read that and we go, this is boring. It is a world removed from us, I get it. But when you understand that these laws with this typological nature reveal Christ, it'll change the way you read it. You have to begin by asking those questions. What is the typology and what does it mean? But then let's go to the second partly, and I want to touch this real quick because I've already kind of hinted at it. The second partly is the one that most commentators just ignore. and partly holding forth diverse instructions of moral duties. Now we found out that they use the word moral to mean perpetual. There are perpetual duties. The whole chapter is on moral law except for the inclusion of this paragraph and the one on judicial law. Everything else is about moral law. So the context, the context demands that we hold this definition unless we have good reason to throw it out. So now we have an abrogated system of laws, but yet we have perpetual duties that they teach. Now, I challenge you, find somebody that has really expounded that, because that's what I ended up having to write a whole PhD on, because I couldn't find anybody. And they would restate it, but they would never explain it. Chad Van Dixhorn gave it the old college try, and he just said they were sins to be avoided. Well, we know that where you have a negative, you have a what? Positive. And then you have everything associated with both of those arenas. So it's bigger than just sins to be avoided. But these truths are these evangelical truths flowing out of these types. If we know we are sinful, The law, these ceremonial laws reveal how sinful we are. And we know that we need a vicarious substitute. What's the duty? Flee from sin and flee to this vicarious substitute. That's why it's commanded every man everywhere to repent. And so these evangelical truths create a whole new level and body of moral duties that did not exist at creation. until after the fall. And I don't have time to go into that, but I just want you to see how glorious that is. Now, with that said, I want to move to this last phrase. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. Now, as you will see in your notes, because I don't think I have it in mind. Yeah, I do. Thank goodness. When the Westminster Confession says, are now abrogated under the New Testament, as soon as the confession was written, two other groups took the confession and adopted it, but then altered it to fit what they thought, you know, fit their own beliefs. And some of them may have made some changes because they thought some stuff needed to be clarified. I think that's what's going on here. The Savoy Declaration, the Congregationalists took the Westminster and this is what they changed. Instead of saying that these ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament, here's what they said. all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of Reformation are by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only lawgiver who was furnished with power from the Father for that end, abrogated and taken away." Now, they provided no proof text. They just changed it. In 1677, the particular Baptist said, hey, you know what? We like what they did. We're going to do the same thing. They laid down the Westminster Confession. They laid down the Savoy Declaration. They said, hey, look at there, they're more particular. We're particular Baptists, we're gonna go with the Savoy. I don't know if that's what they said, but just sounds good. So they adopted, instead of going with the Westminster Confession, where it says they were abrogated under the New Testament, they went with this more focused, pointed explanation in the Savoy. Now, what does that mean? Here's what I think. I think when they sat down at the Savoy Declaration to make their alterations, they said, we need to be more specific. And if you read Westminster, it almost sounds sloppy, right? Under the New Testament. What? Where? How? So what did they do? Well, they pointed out who did it, Jesus Christ. They pointed out and highlighted the fact that he had the authority to do it. They pointed out this time until, you know, these ceremonial laws existed until the time of Reformation. So it's almost like they tried to clarify what they thought was missing. But when they did it, they veiled something that had been part of Christian theology since 397 AD. Yesterday I talked to you and I told you that Augustine and Jerome had this debate and Augustine responded to Jerome because Jerome had questions about the abrogation issue of both the judicial and the ceremonial. So Augustine writes back and he gives him this little motto. This is what developed. The judicial laws are dead, but not deadly. We talked about that yesterday. The ceremonial laws, are dead and deadly, but for a time, they were not deadly. Now, what does that mean? Here's what I see in this, and as you read these older commentaries, as they take these proof texts and unpack them, it's interesting that the London Baptists, when they added their proof texts, the Savoy didn't. They left out Daniel 9, 27. They had reasons for leaving it out, but Westminster had reasons for putting it in. Because Westminster's phrase does not just point to a moment when they were abrogated. Yes, there was a point of abrogation, and we'll talk about that in a second, but there was also a process. that their phrase allows for. See, when you say under the New Testament, it didn't say in the New Testament. They're talking about not a location, they're talking about a period of time. Under this New Testament period, where there was this apostolic oversight. And that's why they put Daniel 9, because Daniel 9 talks about another event. that ends that process, and that is the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. You see where I'm going with this? In other words, that Daniel 9 passage, whereas the one in Ephesians 2, the one in Colossians 2, they all point to the cross event as the moment, the point of abrogation. And those notes that you have, that you'll be getting, They have all kinds of quotes. But we know that the moment Christ died, the scriptures tell us that the temple veil, now you think that thing was as thick as your hand. That's a thick veil, was rent from top to bottom. At that moment, At that moment when that prophesied perfect spotless lamb of God appeared, laid down his life in fulfillment of all that the ceremonial law had been teaching and pointing to was fulfilled, the Jews should have at that moment walked out of that temple, shut the doors and been done with it. They should have let the animals loose. But what do we know from the book of Hebrews? It's interesting when you read the book of Hebrews and begin to look at the verb tenses. I'm going to say Paul because I really believe Paul wrote Hebrews. While Paul is penning Hebrews, they're still sacrificing. Now the question is, how is that to be viewed? This is going to open up for you. A different way of looking at some of those New Testament texts. Let me give you an example. There is, I'm not going to name the theologian's name because I have great respect for him, but I disagree with him. In his commentary on Acts 21, he looks at Paul where Paul, under the advice of James, James looks at him and says, brother, the Jews have heard that you're telling everybody to avoid the law of Moses. Here's what I recommend. Now, you know that at the council of Jerusalem, you know, when we had the council, Acts 15, we're not gonna put a yoke on the Gentiles, but we have got to silence this lie. Here's my solution. There's four men who have undergone a Nazarite vow. You go undergo it with them. You pay their tax. And then you don't have to say a word. The Jews will see you keeping the law of Moses and know it's a lie. This commentator says that when Paul agreed to do that, he sinned. That he committed the same kind of sin as Moses when he killed the Egyptian, buried him in the sand, or when Samson gave his strength away to Delilah. I don't believe that. And when we look and understand that there was this period between the cross and 70 AD, where God, as these older theologians said, allowed Moses to be buried with dignity. Why? Here's what you need to hear from me. And as I explain this to you, I want you to first and foremost see how gracious our God is, how long suffering he is with us in our weakness, in our ignorance, sometimes even in our stubbornness. What do they mean by this middle period where the ceremonial law was dead but not deadly? Here's what they meant. That yes, there was a point of time when the ceremonial law was abrogated. That was the cross. And from Moses to the cross, it was obligatory on the Jews. from 70 AD, the destruction of the temple, to today, it's deadly. What does that mean? What that means is if you reinstitute the ceremonial laws, you deny Christ. Why? Because they typified, they prophesied Christ to come And if you reinstitute that body of laws, you deny that He has come. And you throw off your salvation because you have just thrown off your mediator and Savior to whom they pointed to. Does that make sense? Okay. But now, we've got this third middle period between the cross and 70 AD when Titus destroys the temple. Because when the temple was destroyed, That whole system came down. Priesthood, sacrifice, it was all gone. But this middle period, they said that was a period when God was long-suffering with the consciences of the Jews who were coming to Christ. Now, I want you to think about something for just a minute. And I think God, that He appointed the apostles and empowered them to navigate the church through this. Now, when you read those passages where Paul is just imploring that we not trample on another one's conscience, that we look at our brother and sister and we don't put a stumbling block in front of them. Paul is writing from something he is battling and dealing with right then. because I need you to put yourself back 2,000 years. It's easy for us 2,000 years now to look back and go, oh yeah, Christ died, temple rent, shut the doors. Flip the switch, it's over. But like I told you, 4,000 years of custom, tradition, all instituted originally by God. Now you've got the Jewish mindset where God has given them these laws through Moses directly. You've got the history of the Jews where they failed to keep those laws and God had drugged them off, right? Put them into slavery and then brought them back. They learned their lesson. God means for us to keep this. So now the apostles appear, Christ has been crucified, and you're telling me these laws are gone? I need some proof. I need evidence. Now we bring Genesis 49.10, that verse that speaks of the judicial laws passing. I want you to see two things are happening here together. When Jacob tells his sons and prophesies that the scepter will not depart from Judah nor the staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes. Let me give you what that verse is telling you. That the scepter is a symbol of what? Magisterial power, kingship. This is talking about the civil polity of the Jews, Judah. that Judah's scepter will depart when Shiloh appears. And by degrees, Israel as a nation is going to decline. But that is going to happen concurrently as Shiloh appears, the gospel is preached, and obedience of the nations is brought to him. What period was that happening under? The cross event to 70 AD. So here's what we've got going on. Abrogation at the cross of the ceremonial laws. But at the same time, Judah as a nation is declining. Christ has appeared. The gospel is going forth. I mean, just read Acts and look at how many times 3,000, 5,000. We've got people coming in mass to Christ. The obedience of the nations is coming to Christ. Shiloh is being preached. Judah's declining. What we find is that under this apostolic witness, God is allowing the Jews, this period, a whole generation. Now remember, Christ had already told them in Matthew 24 that the temple would be destroyed, and verse 34 says what? In this generation. Now, we've got Shiloh appearing, nation declining, but if you remember, the confession, the proof text say you take Genesis 49, 10 with 1 Peter 2, 13, and 14. Well, when you read that, it just, Peter's writing, he said, hey, you need to be obedient to the magistrates and rulers over you. That's the gist of the law. Well, what do those two have together? When you read the commentaries, they bring these verses together and they show the decline, they show the proclamation of Shiloh, and they say it was right for Peter, because of the time, to tell the dispersed Jews. Who's he writing to? The Diaspora. They're outside of Jerusalem. They're in these other nations. They're scattered. You submit not to the laws, the judicial laws, but the laws of those nations where you are. Why? Israel is fixing to be wiped off the face of the earth and Peter knows it. Christ told him. You see how they've pulled those together? There is this period of transition where God is being very cautious, very tender to the mind of the Jew. who was brought up under that and they were struggling. Now there were some that just denied Christ, but you have to understand the battle that was raging in the conscience of the Jew who had been raised biblically, faithfully. These are God's laws. And so when they speak of this period, they say Moses is being buried respectfully through this period. So these things became indifferent, not obligatory, indifferent for the Jew. Remember, there was a difference between the Jew and the Gentile at this point. Why? Those laws governed their worship, but they were given by God. The pagans outside were worshiping a god. We have no idea who they were. They didn't exist. They were idols. You don't see the apostles saying, hey, you guys can keep doing that. But what do we do see? We see Paul as a Jew becoming all things to all men that by all means he might do what? Win some. He felt the liberty as a Jew to heed James's advice Although he did rebuke Peter now. Remember, he rebuked Peter because what Peter did was sinful in Galatians. When he separated, it wouldn't eat with the Gentiles. But these rites, these rites at this period, they considered indifferent. And so what does Paul do? Paul goes on, he goes on and enters in. It's the same principle by which Paul circumcised Timothy, but did not circumcise Titus. It's the same principle when you look back at Acts 18 and Paul shaves his head in Cancria with a Nazarite vow. It opens up and it'll help you see this tension that the apostles, God used the apostles to navigate the church through and be gentle to these Jewish Christians who were coming into the faith because it was a battle. Make sense? All right, let's pray. Father, we love you. Lord, your word just always amazes me. And I pray, Lord, that as you just continue to use these giants of the faith who are able to rightly divide your word, and Lord, that as we stand upon their shoulders, would you continue to just instruct us, teach us how to handle your word more faithfully as your image bearers so that Lord we know how to both love our neighbor and to love you as you've called us to do. We love you Lord and we just commit all of this to you in the name of Christ. Amen.