James chapter 2, James chapter 2. We're continuing on and again we are hit, if last week you were sort of hit between the eyes, this week will be worse, if anything. Again, James is dealing with some very practical matters and things that ought to concern us greatly. It concerns him. And he is the practical emphasizer. in the New Testament. You may know that Luther famously called the book of James an epistle of straw, and it has always been sort of held up that he had very low esteem for James. I actually saw the quote for the context where Luther said that, and peeking through the German, my German is not very good these days, but what he was actually saying, he was comparing it, you know where Paul talks about building, he's laid the foundation of the church, no man can lay any others but Jesus Christ, and some build on it wood, hay, and stubble, some gold, silver, and precious stones. He was using that analogy, applying it to the Word of God, and saying that some parts of the Word of God are more valuable than others. And it was in that context, and that's where the straw comes from, the allusion to the book of James. But it It is a book that is very pastoral. It is instruction for the New Testament church of how they ought to live. And we have seen already up to this point, especially in the recent lessons, the problem of being a hearer but having no works. Last week being a talker, a professor, but no works. And now we come to things that are simply incompatible with the gospel and that's where we are tonight it is a warning about superficial christianity nominal christianity being a christian in name only and what is interesting about james is that we don't have the insinuation that there's false doctrine being taught when he talks about here's and doers of the word the way he's using the word word it's gospel true so this is not uh... false doctrine in you know coming into the church it is people who are being instructed correctly that are living incorrectly and so that's the context of where we are tonight let me read our text will read all the way from first one three verse thirteen i'm hoping will have time to get there and get a sort of moving a little bit further in our study uh... let's you follow as I read it. He says, My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment, and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, gay obviously has changed its meaning a little bit since then, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place, and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool? Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor, Do not rich men oppress you and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by which you're called? If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, you do well. But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one part, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy that have showed no mercy, and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. Notice again the allusion to this law of liberty. We saw it earlier, didn't we? Over here in chapter 1 verse 25, he talked about looking into the law of liberty like looking into a mirror. And then in our text, a little earlier in verse 8, he calls it there the royal law. Then a third time, the last verse, or next to the last verse of the text we just read, we shall be judged by the law of liberty. Well, what is that law of liberty? There's a lot of disagreement about what exactly it is. I think it is another name, I believe it's James' name, for what Paul would call the law of Christ. It's the law that comes along with the gospel. It is a law that demands certain conduct, and notice it's not just good suggestions. E.W. Johnson used to say A law with no consequences isn't really a law, it's just a good suggestion. Think about it. A law that's not enforced really isn't a law. But this law is enforced. That next to the last verse says we will be judged by the law of liberty. And it seems to be a little more broader. We would say, well, is this just moral law? Well, it's certainly that. Notice the allusions to thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not commit adultery there in verse 11. But it certainly goes a lot broader than that, as we're going to see tonight. It is the conduct that is expected of a Christian that reaches far beyond the Ten Commandments. First of all, let's just make some initial observations tonight. Notice the way James uses faith. And this is important to understanding the whole letter. Look at that very first verse. My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. What's he saying? Don't believe like Jesus believed? Well, that's not the point at all. Notice here, faith is used more like we use it when we say, of what faith are you? James is referring to the whole system of thought. And in that sense, the word faith there in verse 1 speaks very very close to the way he uses the word religion down here in chapter one verse twenty six or twenty seven just a couple of verses ago he talks about your religion as we said then that refers to your religious practices we have those we are doing one right now we did one a moment ago when we saying we did another one when we pray that's religion okay in the same sense when we talk about the faith He seems to be referring to the whole religious system that comes along with the doctrine, the things that we believe. And so I think this is a clue to that controversy that's going to come next time, if we get through tonight, of faith without works is dead, that James is using the term faith in a much broader sense than Paul, for instance, will use it in the Roman epistle. where Paul has the idea of your essentias and that kind of thing, the things you believe. For James, it's your lifestyle. It's the whole kit and caboodle. It's the way you act as a believer. Then notice the phrase, a respecter of persons. And if I were to ask you, what does that mean? What does it mean to be a respecter of persons? okay in other words the uh... no special treatment does it mean i had a lady one time a little said the doctrine election can't possibly be true because it says the bible says that god has no favorites that there was it's a god has no favorites you so right over here where it says god is no respect for persons is that true what would be your reply your and and it's always in respect of judgment That's the point, this idea, this phrase. Somebody look up Leviticus. You got a Bible, Noah? Adam? One of them. Methuselah? Whatever your name is. I got a new name for it. Jonah? Whatever. It's one of them biblical names. I'll call him OT, Old Testament, yeah. Look up Leviticus 19 verse 15. Jim, while you're laughing there, look up Deuteronomy 16 verse 19. Look up the other one. No, that's him. You look up 1915. He looks up 1619, okay? What's Leviticus 1915 say? Okay, it is direction to a judge that he is not to honor Either the poor or the rich, over the other, that he is to judge righteously, or what we might say, in rectitude. We hear the term rectitude. In other words, it lines up, it aligns with the judgment of God. Okay, Jim? Notice again, this is to a judge, warning him not to take a gift. Now what would we call a gift? A bribe. In other words, don't slip him a twenty under the table here. Don't let anybody bribe you. You are to judge, respect. And as I pointed out, Lady Justice down at the courthouse, how do we depict her? Well, she's got a blindfold on, but she does not see who it is standing in front of her. Now, that's exactly the idea of not being a respecter of persons. You do not take into consideration the there uh... any anything about them you treat each one equally under the law now does that mean that you can have favorites no it just means you can exit your favorite from the law if my child is standing in front of me and i'm the judge although my child is my favorite i must judge the child as i would judge your child That's not being that's what it means not to be a respecter of persons. OK. I've got something else. We'll wait a little bit to get into this a little more. And then the word assembly. Do you see that down here in verse two. If they're coming to your assembly. James as we know him was the pastor of the Jerusalem church. Told you they met in Solomon's porch there on the east side of the temple mount. and they assembled and the word there is soon to go gay or synagogue is how we would sort of transliterate that that's where the term synagogue comes from most in the Old Testament whenever you read the Septuagint version the Greek version of the Old Testament whenever you talk about the assembly of Israel congregation of Israel most of the time it's this word Sometimes, however, I'd say roughly 70% of the time it's this, 30% of the time it's ecclesia. It's the word for church, which means exactly the same thing. It's an assembly. Notice that here, being in Jerusalem, among the Jews, James uses the Jewish term for an assembly, the one that they're more familiar with. But really, they're really both sort of the same thing and used more or less interchangeably in that Greek version of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, ecclesia predominates, but it's really the same thing. So here we're talking about a man coming into your assembly. What does that tell you about New Testament Christians? They assemble. We don't think of the word church as a word that speaks of an assembly, but that's exactly what it is. And notice that Jesus says to Peter, thou art Peter, upon this rock I will build my church, my assembly. And if you had been in the Temple Mount in the days of James, you would have seen the assembly of the Pharisees over here in this corner, and the assembly of the Sadducees over in this corner, and then over here in Solomon's Porch, here's the assembly of Christ. Christians assembled around the word of their master. So it is the fact that Christians are to flock together. They are to assemble. You could say, well, I'm a church member, but I never go to church. That's like saying, I assemble, but I never assemble. No, you're not an assembly unless you assemble. Right? So notice from the earliest days we see this practice of the church having an assembly, a getting together. Alright? And then notice James' example. A rich man walks into your assembly. He comes in. He's got a gold ring on. He's got very goodly apparel. And then there is a poor man who comes in. with a vile raiment, obviously not well-dressed. But notice in verse 3, you have respect to him that wears the goodly clothing. You say to him, sit in a good place. Then this fellow that's the poor man, sit thou, stand thou there, or sit here under thy footstool. I'm wondering, is he saying the poor man can be his footstool, becomes his footstool? But notice that there is deference to the rich man. Now, what I wanted to ask a moment ago, is you give me, this is one example of this, one example of being a respecter of persons. But there are many, many more. He could have used other things. And we, in our culture, we have other things that we would use to be a respecter of persons. Give me a few examples. someone's rank, someone's position. How important are they? How well-known, how famous are they? The famous person as opposed to the non-famous person. I was going to use as an illustration of this, in England, in some of the old churches over there, you actually had literally box seats for the mayor or for the important politician in town. It's the Church of England, so the government official has his own little box, or the royalty has their... It's more than a pew. This is actually a box seat. Literally, you go in, you open the door, and you go in, and you sit in the nice seats up front and center, you know. Again, your rank, your importance. A modern-day version of this, I won't name names, but a church here in Memphis held a conference of several years ago, and if I'm remembering, I think they had Sproul and maybe MacArthur. This has been many moons ago. And they sold tickets, and it was expensive. So one of our families said they wanted to go, but they couldn't afford the ticket, so they called over there, and they said, well, for half price, you can stand in the back. I'm serious. And this is Reform, I won't name names, But this is the thing, and it just struck me, that is clearly a violation of what James is saying here, that stand over here to the poor man. We're not going to give you a seat. And in a sense, you've got the money, you can have a seat. You don't have the money, stand in the back. Okay? That's why I've always sort of been turned off by the idea of having admission. To me, have people pay to come hear the Word of God? violates a lot of things and freely you have received freely give most prominently is we're not in the business of peddling the gospel and we realize there are costs associated with conferences we all know that but to say well you can come if you'll pay it just violates the gospel that's the kind of gospel conduct that's being forbidden here but this isn't the only thing jim jim's given us a couple some of the other jump in here Other things. Yeah, Charles. I couldn't see you in the dark back there. Yeah. This is true that we have. Well, I started hoping you wouldn't get to that one. You know, pastors put on pedestals, so to speak, and that kind of thing that we that we have a standard for one that doesn't apply to others. And that's true. But I'm thinking more of and we were just talking about Barry, where you at? There is. I mean, I saw Barry do this tonight. We heard the door open to the front, and he's looking, are they bringing food or are they not? You know, the food bringers and the non-food bringers, right, Barry? We have a different line for those that bring food and those that don't bring food. You understand what I'm saying? It just goes, it's everywhere. We would call it what? Discrimination. David? Yep, yep. We used to have, back in my home church, when the blacks did come to church which only were at funerals of a farmer for whom they had worked on time i remember seeing blacks in our church they always set up in the balcony up upstairs there would come downstairs that's that's exactly the kind of thing james is talking about here is that we treat educated non-educated democrat republican straight gay I mean, we might problem with their Christianity, but how do we respond when someone comes in who's not like us? And the tendency, of course, is to put them off. We're uncomfortable when that situation erupts. And what James is saying here, in his day, money was where it's at. I mean, you have this tremendous difference between the rich and the poor. Still have that in certain places today. Barry? Yeah. Get in the back. Yeah, exactly. That's the kind of thing that we're dealing with. Now, James's example is very pertinent to his culture, still is today. Let's face it, people with money. I've always made it a point not to know who gives what in our church. I mean, I've worked hard not to know. I mean, obviously, I'm not blind. I realize some folks in our church have more money than others. You know, Steve's hard to hide it. You know, what can we say? Of course, I can be mistaken too, can't I? Yeah. But the point is, is that I don't want to know that, lest I am even tempted to treat any of you any different because of how much you give to the church. That should never, ever enter into the picture of how you're treated. It would be respecting your person. So, still a problem today, rich and poor, educated, non-educated, clean, dirty. Notice this defiled, the goodly raiment, the dirty raiment. Notice that is not to enter into the equation. And then, notice the second problem, part of this, and the thing that James jumps on, is that you literally have elevated the rich in your eyes while the poor is put down. He's despised. you stand in the back you sit here under my foot still I'm assuming what he means is you need to stand in the back you can sit on the floor with the rich man we're going to give him a seat we'll make sure he's there and then notice that what this is called he called it being partial see his word there in verse four are you not then partial in yourselves do you cream up the cream yeah it's a interesting word It looks like the family for righteousness and all that, but it's really, it's a strange word in that it has a range of meanings. But the meaning that is clearly intended here is the idea of being partial in the sense of showing partiality. That's better, to me that gets the point across today more than the word partial. Because I'm saying if I'm being partial to you, it's like I'm saying I'm only giving you part. You know? But if you say you're showing partiality, that hits the nail on the head. Or the word discrimination. I think the modern translations pretty much are in agreement that that's the way it should be translated. So it's talking about being discriminatory, showing partiality. Now, notice the... Yeah, James. That's true. Yeah, it are. We are really twisted. You think about it and we can actually you can actually go the other way. These things it's it's any kind of discrimination. It doesn't necessarily mean to be for the rich man or the poor. It could be for the poor man in certain circles. We can come up with all sorts of ways to be partial in the way we deal with people. Now, why is it so evil? Why is that so wrong? I mean, you'd have thought he was talking about serial killers or something here. James is, I mean, he's given a lot of print to this. With James, this is a huge, huge deal with us. This is little compared to thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not commit adultery down here. We're saying those are the biggies. This this is just a little bitty stuff. But notice the argument of James. Number one, it violates its contrary to the ways of God. Because he has particularly chosen the poor to be rich. God has said his affection especially on the poor man. The very one that you ignore is the one that God did not ignore. You remember, not many rich, the text says. And was it Queen Elizabeth famously said, I'm glad for that M. Because it could have said not any are chosen. Instead it says not many are chosen, not many rich. But God has predominantly chosen the poor man. So if you're going to favor anybody, you would think you're going to favor the poor man, especially if you're just a bunch of poor folks like us. You think, well, that's that's all. That's not the way it works, is it? Even among the poor, they want to be rich. And so the rich are esteemed and held up. So notice not only has God chosen the poor to be rich, but also, he says, to be heirs in this coming kingdom. They're going to be the rich man later on. They may be poor now but later on down the road they're going to be rich and God has chosen them to be rich. Secondly, it's contrary to your own experience and he goes on to show that nine times out of ten it's the rich man and we can add to that the powerful man. The man with status, Jim, you're talking about. They are the ones who are the source of most of your trials and most of your beatings and whippings aren't coming at the hands of the poor man. It's coming from these men who are important, who are in authority, the rich. Secondly, he says, they're the ones who blaspheme your Lord. Now, why does riches and blasphemy go hand in hand? You remember the Proverbs that says, don't let me either be poor or rich. poor lest I steal, rich lest I take the name of the Lord in vain." In other words, I say, I did this all by myself. And therefore, the rich man thinks he's a self-made man. He thinks, he therefore talks evil of God. He doesn't hesitate to blaspheme the name of God. The poor man's a little more cautious, perhaps. Does that make sense? Anybody else have a better idea than that or something to add? Why does blasphemy and riches go hand in hand? The rich man thinks he can buy his way out of trouble. Doesn't have to fear the Lord. I can be my own savior. All right? And then the third thing, and this is the one that really jumps out at me, it's a violation of what he calls here the royal law. By the royal law, I'm assuming that means it's the law that came down from royalty, and in our case, who's the king? King Jesus. It is it. It puts us at odds. I say here with the will of our king. We are standing opposed to the commandment of our king. Now, you might say, well, what commandment are we talking about here? And he says mainly in verse eight, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Now, let's stop right there a minute. How does that commandment Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Translate over, don't show respect to persons. Okay? The law of Christ is to sacrifice yourself for them. Do you remember the parable our Lord told to illustrate that commandment? A certain man went down from Jerusalem, Jericho, and fell among thieves. It's a parable of good Samaritan. And notice how he's illustrating, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But here we have this racial conflict between Samaritans and Jews, and this Samaritan does not discriminate against the Jew. He does not respect his person, his race, his ethnic background. Notice that there is a relationship between these two things, that I am not at liberty to pick my neighbor. I've often thought, it'd sure be an easy thing if pastors could pick their parishioners. You know, I'd pick all the rich ones. I'd get the good-looking ones, the talented ones. I wouldn't pick folks like you. Isn't it interesting? You don't get to pick your brother and sister with whom you assemble. Isn't that strange? And according to the law of Christ, the royal law, no matter who it is that walks through the door, you're to embrace them. Show them love. That's part of loving your neighbor as yourself. And you don't get to pick who it is. It's sort of like the Good Samaritan. You don't get to pick who it is laying in the ditch. We're to be colorblind. We're to be blind to the status and so forth. Of course, you could turn the thing around on me and say, yeah, if we could pick, we won't go there. I wanted to point out that this hits pretty hard uh... in a controversy that has gone on for ten fifteen years uh... inti rights new perspective on paul i'm not sure how many of you have been acquainted with that some of you theologians have i know but uh... the average fellow here may not have but it is a uh... uh... a well exactly what it says it's is a new perspective a new way of looking at what paul was saying that basically puts an emphasis on future justification rather than present justification. Wright would say that there is a future justification, what he means by that, a vindication in the day of judgment that is to come. And that the Jews were all concerned about how do we know now in our present day which group we will be in then in the final judgment. and that that's what Paul's teaching on justification is all about. When he says you're justified by faith and so forth that he's telling you how do you know now who will be in the group that is justified then in the day of judgment. And so it's about the emphasis is shifted from where in Protestant Christianity where your emphasis is being placed on your justified standing right now through faith in Christ to the fact that really what you've got right now are these boundary markers that identify the people who will be justified at the end of the age. Is that making sense? And therefore what happens, since the judgment at the end of the age is always a judgment based on works, then there is a subtle shift away from a justification by faith in Christ to a justification based on your works as a believer. which is the difference between imputed righteousness, which is what Protestants believed, and infused righteousness, which is what Catholics believe. And I don't think it's any accident that among those men that I knew personally that were impacted by anti-rights teachings, that all of them have gone in the direction of Roman Catholicism. Not all of them have gone all the way, but many of them have certainly headed in that direction. And the tendency is to promote infused righteousness. In other words, that Christ makes you righteous, and then you do good things, and on the basis of those good things, God justifies you at the end of time, at the judgment. Rather than imputed righteousness, which N.T. Wright said is a fiction, that you can't pass righteousness around the table. Our problem is that we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm afraid. And I would certainly, I think he is exactly wrong on the idea of imputed righteousness, that I cannot possibly read Philippians 3 any other way than Paul simply saying, well, I once had a righteousness which was my own doing, this legal righteousness as a Jew, and I have forfeited, I have ejected and rejected all hope in that righteousness for another righteousness, namely the righteousness of Christ. And so that the reformers are dead right, that the righteousness that justifies us is an alien righteousness. It's not our righteousness, it's the righteousness of Christ. But before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, we can say that at least N.T. Wright has brought to our attention, in other words this is confusing justification and sanctification, But you dare not separate the two. That justifications and sanctification are like Siamese twins that share so much that you're going to kill them if you separate them. And you say, well, what do you mean? That there simply is not a concept in the New Testament of someone who is justified by faith who continues to live like he used to live. That there is an infused righteousness that comes to us in salvation. is it the righteousness of by which we're justified is it the ground of our righteousness absolutely not because our best fruits as christians are wormy they're full of holes the best things we do even as christians are good enough to satisfy the justice of god not far infinite say it that takes the righteousness of christ but though the Our righteous life may not be the ground of our justification. It most certainly is the evidence of it. And without that evidence, we have absolutely no reason to think we're going to be in that number when the saints go marching in. So we've got to be very careful. And I guess if there's one thing I can be thankful to N.T. Wright about, it is stressing the fact that there is a coming day of judgment. And that judgment, as we see right here, notice, he says, you're going to be judged by this law of liberty. And look at this last verse. He shall have judgment without mercy that is shown no mercy. You say, well, man, where did that come from? Well, I'll tell you where it came from right out of the Sermon on the Mount. Blessed are the merciful. They shall obtain mercy. That's where it came from. You say, well, I get mercy by doing merciful things. No. That's not how you get in, but it's sure the evidence that you're in, it's the evidence that you're one of Christ. And so you see the idea that the law of Christ, this law of liberty, this royal law, is a very broad thing in that it is a law that demands what I call congruent behavior with what we say we believe. In other words, we will not be able to cry out to God, grace, grace, grace, mercy, mercy, and then turn around to our fellow man and say, judgment, judgment, judgment, justice. I want mercy from God, but I'm going to show justice to my fellow man. And that's why he says, mercy rejoices against judgment. The life that lives by the principle of mercy has no fear in the day of judgment. He's a product of mercy. He's a child of mercy. Therefore, he shows mercy. The child of grace is a gracious man. That's what he exhibits in his life. We have the extreme example in Matthew 18 of the man who owed 10,000 talents. And by the way, that's in the billions of dollars. This is not chump change. Well, for anybody but Steve, anyway. This is this is huge amounts of money in fact there are some who have sort of tallied it up and said what it was there even that much wealth in all of palestine in the time of jesus if you took all the wealth of the entire country maybe it would tally up to ten thousand talents of gold is that much money and he owed it and he couldn't pay it now i don't know how you ever got somebody to loan him that much money uh... you know what Goofball would have given him the money in the first place but then not to be able to pay it back. In other words, the whole point is that this is an infinite debt. This is tremendous debt and you know the story. He was forgiven the whole thing. And then he goes out in the street and finds the man who owes him a hundred denarii. Now a hundred denarii is substantial money. That's a third of, for the average working man, that's about a third of a year's wage. So this is not pennies. But it's certainly nowhere near the billions that the ten thousand dollars would be. And he says, you're going to go to prison. I'm selling you and your family into slavery and you're going to jail till you pay me everything you owe me. And you know the rest of the story. The king hears about this and drags him back in and says, how dare you? How dare you? Well, what is Jesus saying? You're not going to be able to play this game with God where you want mercy for yourself, but you want law and justice for everybody else. The gospel won't allow it. It violates the royal law, the law of liberty. So usually when we think of the law of liberty, we're thinking about, well, we're free from feast and Sabbaths and, you know, sacrifices, those types of things. But notice that system under which we have been saved is a system that demands certain conduct to be exhibited by those who belong to this kingdom. Okay, that's where we are tonight. I think I've pretty well hit. Oh, I wanted to say this. I just glanced and saw this. The crux of the conflict between law and grace is really which of those two systems will make us righteous. Let me say that again. Now, you see, the fellow who simply hears of the conflict between law and grace, thinks it's all about license. Who gets to sin? The conflict really is over which of those two systems will produce the better man, a righteous man. Let me give you a text for that. In Romans 8, there's therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus. And he goes on to say, For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh. What could the law not do? It couldn't make you righteous. Because why? Because there was something wrong with it? No, something's wrong with you. It's weak through the flesh. God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. What you couldn't do, God sent his son to do in your place. But look at the next verse, "...so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." And I'm convinced that's not just imputed righteousness, it is that. But this last phrase tells me it's more than that, because he says, "...who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." In other words, grace will produce a better righteousness, a holier convert than will law. I think that ought to be obvious because the only convert law will ever produce is a man who's self-interested. It's quid pro quo. I'm doing something to get something. It's all about self. Whereas grace requires the crucifixion of self and freely receiving the grace of God in Jesus Christ. So there is a sense in which We are bigger debtors now than we ever were before. You know, we used to be in debt to the law. Now we're in debt to grace. And that debt is much, much bigger than the other one. Our duty is broader than it ever was under the law. Okay. Jim. Rights and duties. Yeah. Privileges and duties go hand in hand. Responsibility. Yeah. Anybody else have a... Yeah, Charles? Boy, it's a tough call. Darren asked something not that long ago about the same thing. It seems to me that James, by making reference to thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt not kill, clearly assumes if those laws are not applicable, then his argument doesn't make much sense. Of course, what he's arguing is that you violate one, you're guilty of the whole. But it would seem to me that... I guess we could ask the question, did the law of Moses require me not to be a respecter of persons? That required a judge not to be a respecter of persons. But did it demand that the individual Israelites not be a respective person in fact is there not some respective persons built into the system of law when you really think about it. There were certain people on the basis of their race that you were not to allow into your midst. Moabites good example. But it seems to me that what James is doing, he has this broader concept of what is our duty as a Christian. Yes, it clearly involves moral commandments like those. The taking of life, committing adultery. But it's a lot broader than that. And so the question is, when he says that if you don't kill but you commit adultery, you become a transgressor of the whole, we also say that if you show respect to the rich man instead of the poor man are you guilty of the whole and i think so i think that's his point but you're out of sorts with the law giver you're at odds with the one who gave you the commandment when you refuse to obey it right when he keeps bringing that law of liberty into the play you could have said the law of moses and that would have settled the thing and instead you're right he points out the law of liberty which is clearly something else than the law of Moses. And that's what I'm saying. It's bigger, comes from a higher authority than Moses. But does it include some of the things Moses said? Absolutely. And so the Ten Commandments, people ask me, is the Ten Commandments a summation of moral law? I would say it is a summation of moral law. It's one of them. If viewed through New Testament glasses, that's what we've got to be careful of. But is it the summation of moral law? I think moral law becomes a bigger thing. And of course, Jesus himself talking about loving God with all your heart, loving your neighbor as yourself. That's his summation of moral law. If you view it through New Testament glasses, and I'm thinking specifically of the Sabbath commandment, I've often asked myself, is it immoral not to believe the gospel? And is that in the ten? And I'm saying, I think so. It's the Sabbath commandment, because that's what believing in Jesus is, entering into rest. But that's, but Hebrews 4 is looking at it through New Testament glasses. You see what I'm saying? If we look at it through a New Testament grid, then the fourth commandment is the immoral act of not believing the word of your God and resting. Charles? I keep wanting to say, I see that hand. And there he's using ceremonial law, clearly circumcision as opposed to one of the big ten, shall we say. So I don't think it's right to say, well, we don't have, you know, the law of Moses is completely out of the picture. It's not. But it has to be understood in the light of the New Testament revelation. David, say that again. The law is finite and grace is infinite. Well, I don't know. I don't know if I'd say that. Jim, what were you going to say? I wouldn't say that. You can say that. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Ingrained in us, the law written on our hearts, the new covenant picture is not that there's no law. It's just that the law is in a different. We're in a different relationship. I keep going back. I love my illustration. Nobody else does. But anyway, I love my illustration about the fact that the center stands before the judge as judge and condemn one. Whereas Christians, we stand married to the judge. We are in law to he who was law personified. There's you want to see law in action. Look at the life of Jesus. Yeah, there. I think there are principles, and this is where I find myself in disagreement with the whole notion of the tri-division of the Old Testament law, that only certain, you know, the moral law, the Ten Commandments are in effect, but the other two, social and civil law and ceremonial law are not. Because I would see that Paul, for instance, in talking about paying your preacher, one of my favorite subjects anyway, goes to the civil law, what we would call the social law, not muzzling the ox that trades out the corn. And when he deals with the fact of being unequally yoked together, which involves a whole lot more than marriage, certainly involves that, but a whole lot more, he's obviously quoting from the civil law of not putting an ox and an ass in the same yoke. And so you see what I'm saying. Through New Testament eyes, it's even the civil law that is in force. But we've got to see it through New Testament eyes as the apostles would employ. Yeah, and there's a lot of things that clearly don't because it was exactly that. It was their constitution as a civil state. And as such, there are elements of it, just like in the ceremonial law, elements of it that simply don't apply to the New Testament church, mainly because we're a priest after Melchizedek's order and they've got Levitical. I mean, those that's one great example. But I'm simply saying that there's still things in the law of Moses that we can benefit from. And one of the questions that pops up is if you do away with the law of Moses, where would you find commandments against such things as bestiality or you know, things like that. And I would say, well, in my view, fornication is a umbrella term that pretty much covers all kinds of sexual sin, including bestiality. But you don't find any direct statement in the New Testament regarding that particular sin. Well, I think that gets dangerous when you say, well, the Spirit's going to keep me in line. I'm saying that's an example of where I find value in studying the Old Testament law, that these things were abhorrent in the eyes of God, clearly so. And I realize it's a covenantal situation, but I can learn a lot about it by studying that covenantal situation, but realizing that it's a covenant that I'm not under. So it's just a very, and that's why I keep going back to the fact I've got to look at it like the apostles looked at it. I've got to view it through New Testament eyes. That's a good way of putting it. Good way. Okay, on that intelligent note, let's bring this. No, it's a good discussion. And it's a difficult, you know, that's part of the difficulty of New Covenant theology in particular of how to If we're not under the law of Moses, what law are we under? Well, we're under the law of Christ. Well, is that a nebulous thing? That if I feel like it, you know, I get very leery of that. I think it is clear what my duty as a Christian is, but I've got to sometimes dig and define the basis of it.