Back to sermon search

Full transcript

Let's begin this final session, which is due to start, uh, to finish at four o'clock, by, uh, doing my best to, to cope with now some of your questions. Number one, Because the Old Testament promises are for Israel, are we the spiritual Israel? I suppose that means that, uh, we are the spiritual Israel as distinct from, uh, physical Israel. The way I would, uh, prefer to put it, I think, is to say what, um, uh, is said by Paul in Ephesians chapter two. Ephesians two verse eleven: Wherefore remember that aforetime ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that you were at that time separate from Christ, meaning being Gentiles, the Messiah was not for them. They didn't know anything about the Messiah, Christ in the sense of the Messiah. They were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel, nothing to do, they were absolute strangers to Israel as a Commonwealth, as a nation. And strangers from the covenants of the promise. Because the promises of the Old Testament to Israel were nothing to do with the Gentiles. And therefore, that being true, they had no hope. Whereas Israel was marked by hope. Paul, before his trial, said, I'm now on trial for the hope of Israel. This is Paul the Evangelist talking to King Agrippa, saying that I'm on trial for what Israel's hope was, that there should be a resurrection of the dead. But the Gentiles at large had did not, didn't have this hope and without, were without God in the world. That's what they were. Now through conversion in Christ, what has happened? Well, Paul tells us, verses fourteen and fifteen. And for s- time's sake, notice what he does in verse fifteen, That he's abolished all these commandments and things, that he might create in himself of the two, one new man. He's not added Israel to the Gentiles or the Gentiles to Israel. He's taken some of both and made a completely new man, you see. So making peace. For through Christ and so on, we have access in one spirit unto the Father, with the result, notice verse nineteen, So then you are no more strangers and sojourners. You are fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God. So whereas before they were strangers to the covenants of promise, they're not strangers anymore to those covenants of promise. The new covenant was a covenant of promise. It is given in Jeremiah thirty one. The days will come when I will make a covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. You see. So it was a, going to be related to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Well, what on earth have we got to do with that? Well, nothing until Christ came. We were strangers to the covenants of promise, but now in Christ you're not. For the new covenant applies both to Jews and Gentiles. As you will see from the Lord's Supper, and the very terms of the Lord's Supper given in one Corinthians eleven, that the New Covenant is already in force. We read the passage in Hebrews eight. Now, we shall find, if God will, next week, that Paul says in Romans eleven, not I was an Israelite, I am an Israelite. And what does he deduce from that? Well, that God has not finished with Israel. In spite of Israel's rejection of Messiah, God hasn't, uh, obliterated Israel. He has left a remnant that are true believers. And if you want evidence of this present remnant of Israel, Paul says, I am one. And of course, the Marthas and Marys, Thomas and Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and a good many more beside, believers in Christ. I would say with Paul, we are Israelites. We've not become Gentile. But we do believe in Christ. Whereas the vast nation of Israel is yet hostile to Christ. But that same Romans eleven will tell you that God hasn't cast away his ancient pis- people, Israel, and one day Israel as a whole shall be saved. That is how I understand the, uh, uh, uh, uh, what the New Testament is saying, put in brief. And when all Israel is saved, of course, they will come under the terms of the covenant. But already, those believers in Israel that are Israelites, Israelites but believers in Christ are now forgiven, as Hebrews points out, not on the basis of the sacrifices, but on the basis of the new covenant by which already their sins are forgiven. Does that make any sense at all? I- I forget who the questioner was. Does that begin to answer, sir? Have you got some more questions? No? Good. This is another question. What laws are written on our hearts? Ten Commandments or the higher principles of Christian living? Matthew five. Well, sir, uh, the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament as commandments, are they not? Let him that stole steal no more. Don't commit adultery. Honor your father and mother, Ephesians. And reference is made to the fact that in the, in the Old Testament, that command is followed by a promise that your days might be long in the land. So the Ten Commandments are repeated as commandments for believers, um, all except one, and that is Sabbath, of course, which is of a different order. Sensible enough to take one day of rest in a week, good for health, psychological and physical, do you see? That's very good. But as a command that we must keep the Sabbath on the seventh day and worship God thereon, command- uh, because it's part of the law and therefore it's a moral commandment, is not quite true. You can see that by the statement of our Lord. In the, in the temple, he said, the priests on the Sabbath day break the Sabbath and are guiltless. Ponder that a moment. In the temple on the Sabbath, the priests break the Sabbath. They have to, because they do have to do a lot of work, sacrificing animals, that's hard work that was, and are guiltless. You try and substitute any of the other nine commandments for that. In on the Sabbath in the temple, the priests commit adultery and are guiltless. That would sound a bit odd. On the Sabbath, the priests in the temple steal and lie and murder and are guiltless. Well, no, that could never be said. There's a difference between the other nine and this one, is there not? As you see from the fact that in, on the Sabbath in the temple, the priests break Sabbath and are guiltless. You will not find in the New Testament any command to the believers that we are to keep Sabbath. If that had been a necessary part of Christian obedience, the apostles would have had to say so, because in Greek-speaking countries, they didn't even divide the week up into seven-day periods. They divide the, divide the month up into seven-day periods. They had a different system altogether, and many of them were slaves and were not free to cease work on a Sabbath or on what we call a Sunday either. Hence, very often they kept the Lord's Supper at night, you'll see. But if it were part of the moral, uh, commandments, then of course the apostles would have laid it down that they must do it and be prepared to take the consequences if their employers and slave drivers disapproved. Yeah? So, are we responsible also for the principles of, uh, of the Sermon on the Mount? As they apply, yes, I would have said yes. They too are repeated throughout the New Testament. The difference of question is of, of the question of whether they are treated simply as laws written in a code that we have to try and do in order to get acceptance with God. Or are they laws and principles and commandments that, so to speak, are written on our hearts because we've been reborn again, and the spirit of Christ who gave those laws is within us, and he empowers us to keep them. Uh, do you see? That is the question at stake. Hm? And what those basic laws written on our hearts mean when it comes to the fine detail of everyday life. Then, of course, the epistles talk about this. They lay down all sorts of, of, uh, s- particular rules and regulations, but they also come, as we shall see at next occasion, God willing, to the question, what are we to do where scripture itself doesn't seem to lay down specific rules and regulations? One such thing, as we shall meet in, in Romans, is about what you should eat. Should you eat meat? Or just vegetables? Um, should you worship, uh, would keep one day sacred above all others, or are all days alike? Well, where would you go for a scripture to tell you whether you were to eat vegetables or could eat meat, you see? But some people get really, uh, uh, uh, hit up about this. They think these things are very basically important. What is a Christian to do in those circumstances? And gives a basic principle to be observed, which I shall talk about next time if I get the, the time, as an exceedingly important principle. Says Paul, in the end, you must consider your weak a brother and not stumble him. And he mustn't criticize you if you're the stronger brother. You must not try and overpower him. He has a conscience. Uh, and uh, you think there's no need for such a conscience. He won't eat anything other than vegetables, does- has a conscience against eating meat for some reason. Don't overpower him, whatever you do. Because there's a more prin- a bigger principle at stake. Whatever we do, we're to do it unto the Lord. You see. And we shall have to give an account of ourselves to the Lord. And if the Lord comes to, uh, you and says, now, my, my servant, on a certain day you ate meat, you know, didn't you? Yes, Lord, I did. And when you ate it, you had a conscience about it, didn't you? Well, yes, to be honest, I did. And yet, in spite of having a conscience about it, you went and let it. Yes. So you did something that in your heart of hearts you th- thought would displease me, and yet you did it. Yes. Why did you do it? And if you were to say, but Lord, that's a gooding fellow, made me, overpowered me, made a mock of me if I, if I didn't, you see, and made me do it. And he made you do it even though you had a conscience and you thought you were displeasing me. Tell me, who on earth is this gooding fellow? Did he die for you by any chance? No, of course he didn't. And in these many places where scripture doesn't lay down any strict rule, it's not that we don't matter, doesn't matter what you do. We have to be personally exercising our conscience. Now I propose to do this. If, when I get before the judgment seat of Christ, calls, Christ calls that into question with me, why did you do that? I need to be able to say, well, Lord, I did think about it, and I felt it was okay to do it with you. It would have pleased you. Sorry if I'm wrong, but I did try to think it through, and I genuinely thought it would please you. Because in those circumstances, having to think about it and come to make up our mind and get into the habit of consulting the Lord and eventually deciding on the fact I got to meet Christ over this one day. Let me think it through. As best I know how, this will please the Lord, so I'm free to do it. I have a feeling that it mightn't please the Lord. Well, don't do it, my brother. Because he died that he might be Lord. It's easy to look up a rule in a book, isn't it? And keep it like a Pharisee. It's more difficult, but more valuable to be exercised in life's ten thousand and one decisions by having, in that sense, to think it through and come to our decision in the fear of Christ, make up our minds, I'm going to do this because I think this is what Christ would approve of. Yes? That very process begins to develop a character and contributes to our sanctification. But that's a long story. I won't, I won't resist it. I'll write it down here. Don't preach. One, another question. If death comes to all because all have sinned, are guilty of sin, then in what sense is a person born a sinner? I would answer that by using an analogy. In Malaysia, oh, sorry, in Singapore, dealing in drugs is a capital offense, and the mandatory sentence is execution. Do you see? Righto. So let's suppose a woman gets caught. She is, um, guilty. She's been trading in drugs and a drug taker herself, and uh, uh, dealing in drugs. She's sentenced for execution. Summary this in, in Singapore. But at that moment, she happens to be pregnant. Now the child is in her. Would you say the child is guilty of her sin? And that when mother sinned, the child sinned? I don't think even the Singaporeans would say that. So give the woman time so that her child might be born. And then eventually she'd be executed. They wouldn't execute the child because the child was in its mother when she sinned, when she committed the crime. That said, you'll find when the child begins to grow up, it can already have withdrawal symptoms because it's been injured physically by the drugs, and it therefore is born with a tendency to go to drugs. Of course, the child then knows what the law is and what its sentence is. If the child, knowing all that, goes on and personally engages in drug dealing. That's another story. But the child is born a druggie in the sense that it's already affected by the drugs. Though it is responsible for its own deed, and if it goes on and indulges in the drugs, will be, uh, uh, uh, sentenced and punished by the government. That's a crude analogy. As I understand it, we're not, uh, condemned because, uh, we sinned when Adam sinned, because we were somehow in Adam or belonged to his sinful race. But because we are descended from Adam, we've inherited from him a fallen nature, which leads us personally to sin, and we do sin. But we're born with a fallen nature, and then in what sense is a person born a sinner? By one man's disobedience, we were constituted sinners, that is, through his fall. All his descendants have been born with a fallen human nature. In that sense, basically sinners. Like a tree might be an apple tree, basically, even if it never bore any apples. That's least of why I understand it. Why is it nec- se- se- question two: Why is it necessary to die before I can change principles? What is it about the law or the law that will not release a person apart from death? Answer, I think, to that is simply because of what the law is. If we're under the law, and the law says you have sinned there and you must be executed. I can't just walk away and say, I don't like you, or you're far too strict, you know, and I, I shan't, uh, I, uh, I shall now run away and I shall take myself outside the remit of the law. No, you won't, says the law. The law demands that you be, um, executed. You can't just walk out of it. And that that is what I think scripture means, seems to me to be borne out by Galatians chapter four. Galatians chapter four. Um, before Christ came, they were in slavery. Verse four, but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law. What for? That he might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. He couldn't just come and invite folks to leave the law behind. They sinned under it. Christ couldn't say, yes, you sinned under the law, didn't you? But nowadays nobody takes any notice of the law, you know, so don't worry about that. Nothing will come of it. No, no. If they are to be released from the law, then the penalty must be paid. They have to be redeemed from the Lord, you see, uh, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And Hebrews, likewise says the same thing, if I can find a place. Hebrews. Mm-hmm. Uh. Chapter nine, verse fifteen. And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant. Israel was under the first covenant, had transgressed it many times. Along comes Christ. Christ cannot say, well, never mind that. I mean, that's old fashioned stuff now. Nobody takes any notice of that now, you see. So you did transgress, but never mind, don't, don't bother about that. Uh, you come under my system, that's far better. No, no. That old law was given by God, and people that transgressed it were in serious trouble and were guilty and deserved the penalty. And before they could come over to the new covenant, a sacrifice had to be offered to redeem them, to re- uh, release them, to cover the transgressions that were under the first covenant. And Christ did that, of course. Paid by his blood to redeem them from the penalty of the law under that covenant because he suffered the penalty and paid it for them. Yeah, does that make any sense at all? Good stuff. Have I got some more questions here? Oh yes, we have another one here. What are the key distinctions between the old man and old nature? What is the body, this body of death? Which is seven twenty four. Well, to the first question, what are the key distinctions between the old man and old nature? Well, to answer what the old man is, let's look at the way it is used in the epistles. Uh, do you see? Ephesians chapter four, for instance, verse twenty two. That you put away as concerning your former manner of life, the old man, which waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man, which after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth. The old man is said here, do you see, to be your former manner of life, the old man. And that former manner of life goes on becoming more corrupt after the lusts of deceitful lusts. It is what the way you behaved and were before you were converted to Christ. It was a way of life. It wasn't merely that you did all sorts of deeds. It was that your mindset, your motivation, was that of the old man. And therefore, the whole setup that was you, not interested in God, basically hostile to God, moved by ambitions that were selfish, maybe. And, uh, developed a whole lifestyle, a mental attitude, a moral attitude. Your setup, your mind setup, your mind attitudes, what you were, as the kind of man you were before you got converted. With Saul of Tarsus, it was a highly religious man, but it was a mindset and an ambition, and absolutely hostile to Christ, and though he didn't know it, quite independent of God, obnoxious to God, thinking to gain salvation by his works, which is a form of independence of God that is obnoxious to God. And with all the pride and conceit, and then bigotry, and then persecution that went with it, that was the old man. And through the death of Christ at the cross, you saw what change made that made in in Paul. And then, of course, from the practical side, he had to put it off, this old man, because there's a new life in Christ, a new man, new principles, new motives, new attitudes, a life based in the fear and love of God, and Christ dwelling within. In other words, the old man is not a part of us, the bad part of us, so to speak, is the person we were before we came to Christ. Does that s- make any sense to anybody? Yeah? Mm-hmm. And we put on the new man, though in w- in one sense we are a new man in Christ. We have like a child that somehow was born a beggar and is taken into a royal family and is now to be trint- treated as a prince. We'll have to learn to put off the old man and the things and habits that went with being a beggar and the deceit and and all this kind of thing, and put on the new man, consistent with his new father, so to speak. What is the body of death? seven twenty four of Galatians. Uh, s- uh, oh, sorry, of Romans seven twenty four. uh O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? And as generally in Hebrew, the question of what a phrase like that means linguistically, the body of this death, what does that mean? This dead body? Uh, an idol of silver in Hebrew means a silver idol, you see. A body of this death, this dead body, is that what it means? Some people say yes. Paul felt that his old, uh, self... struggling to find perfection and salvation through keeping the law and endlessly failing, and, uh, conflict within his members, do you see? Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, strife, so to speak, in his mind, and this, that, and other. He feels it, some people say, like being chained to a dead body. In the ancient world, sometimes a, a, a punishment inflicted by the government would be for a living person to be chained to a dead body, and as the dead body, uh, uh, uh, went putrefaction, of course, the experience was hideous. Or is it merely saying, who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? Not that the physical human body is dead, but the body, meaning now the whole setup, once more, of a man unsaved, unregenerate, without God, without Christ, without the Holy Spirit, trying to be good ethically and, uh, earn salvation, maybe. But under that condition, that kind of behavior will lead to death. And anybody who, like saw Paul of Tarsus or anybody else, who is conscious of the holiness of God's law, will eventually come to see, in spite of all their struggles, they continually fail. And this whole setup of a life built on that principle is bound to lead to death endless, eh, evident, eh, eh, eh, in the end. How can he get rid of that? Desperately trying to keep the law, always falling short. Mind, emotions, will, trying to keep the law, falling short, believing the law, and therefore subject ever more to its penalties, and it's leading to death, and eventually to eternal death. Who shall deliver me from it? Well, not the law, can't. It's the law that's part of the trouble. It's not that the law is sinful. The law is good, you see. Or was it that, um, the law was good in itself, but was bad for me? After the war, when Englishmen, poor souls, uh, were rationed for meat during the war, you see, they didn't get much meat. And when the war was over, and they went, I remember a story of one who went to a nice civilized foreign land and was, um, entertained by his host and hostess and lavish beef steaks, and he hadn't had seen such things for some years, and his system wasn't used to digesting them either, but he ate liberally of this. And then, unable to cope with it, he he he he found himself being a little bit confused in the brain and came up with some very curious behavior, which I won't describe now. You'll see that nothing wrong with the beef steaks, but in his condition, it was bad to give them to him like that. And if you get somebody nearly starving, don't push a beef steak down his mouth, you'll kill him. Not that there's anything wrong with beef steak. He's not in the condition to receive it. And is it so, says Paul, that the, the law is good, but it wasn't particularly good for me? And it was stupid to give it to me. No, it wasn't stupid to give it to me, because the law is holy and good. And what is more, I agree with it. My mind agrees with it. My emotions agree with it. My will agreed with it. Mustn't say, well, God, don't be so foolish. I mean, after all, have common sense. Uh, no good telling a child or two to ride a bicycle. It's no good telling Saul of Tarsus to keep the law. I mean, you can tell Caiaphas, the high priest, to keep the law if you like, but not Saul of Tarsus. That's no good for him. No, no, says Paul, isn't that? I agree with the law, it's good. I couldn't keep it, that's the trouble. It had to be, therefore, a different principle. Mm-hmm. Any, um, questions still? No? No? No. What's the difference between the old man and the flesh? Oh, that's a very good question. I would want to say myself, and gentlemen, I'm not sitting here like the Pope ex cathedra, anything like that at all, nothing approaching it. I give you my own opinion, for what it's worth. Yes, I'm saying here, uh, the self-evident truth. I'm not sitting here making pronouncements like the Pope ex cathedra. I'm merely stating, and clearly as I can, what I myself believe, but it's all open to your questions and, uh, to disputings. Try all things, hold fast that which is good. The old man, I repeat, is what I described a moment ago in my thinking. It's the whole system of a man before he gets converted. His basic attitude underneath is still hostility to God. He still has his pride of independence. He has his ambitions, he has his principles, and the whole setup, but it's that of a man who's not reconciled to God. Do you see? Uh, this is the old man. And coming to Christ, conversion, repentance, conversion, and being born again of the Spirit changes the whole setup of the man's attitude. Now the flesh, if you ask me what the flesh is... The word flesh in the Bible can mean all sorts of things. It can mean the flesh of animals, for instance, what you eat, uh, you see. It can simply mean the flesh, we're made of flesh, covering our bones. But flesh takes on a deeper sense. For instance, I think it is the prophet Jeremiah who says, rebuking Israel for going down to Egypt to help. And God is protesting about this and saying, why you go down to Egypt to help? The Egyptians are men and not God. Their horses are flesh and not spirit. And when flesh is used in a bad sense in the Bible, it very frequently, as far as I understand, has that implication. It is man apart from the Holy Spirit, apart from the Spirit of God. God calls that mere flesh. Independence of God, from God's point of view, of course, is is uh foolishness indeed, because man is weak, he is merely flesh, and he's not spirit. Flesh is therefore man in independence of God, not relying on the Spirit, not relying on God, in his own independent effort. And the fruit of that, Paul lists it in Galatians, the works of the flesh are, a man independent of God eventually becomes corrupt. That is why the whole business of justification by faith, which is the basis of our gospel, is so absolutely right. The man like Saul, who was very religious and as far as you could tell, blameless by the law, is obnoxious to God because he's doing it in all independence of God. That is the flesh, says Paul. Working in independence of God. As distinct from dependence on God, dependence on his Holy Spirit. Yeah? Did that make any sense to you, sir? Pardon? Can a believer walk in flesh? A believer can, uh, be carnal, yes. W- w- witness one uh, one Corinthians, fleshly, sarkinos or sarkikos. Yes. We can act in independence of the Lord if we're not careful. Are you not yet fleshly? When one says, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, and you make divisions in the church, and then you all fall one and again the other. That kind of thing, even in the church, says Paul, is fleshly. That's acting as mere men in the flesh, not dependent on the Spirit of God, and contrary to God's, uh, d- directions, of course. Mm-hmm. Is the experience of Paul or of Saul in chapter seven, is this experience previous of his conversion or after? Well, uh, that is a very interesting question and is much debated. Some people will say, uh, this is very much my own experience as a believer, you'll see. Others will say, how can a believer talk like that? Does he know nothing of the liberating power of the Holy Spirit? And so some say this is, uh, Paul before he got converted. And others say, no, he could have experienced this after he got converted. If I may make a third suggestion, neither one nor the other, consider the context in which it comes. Paul is discussing sanctification, and what purpose does the law have to contribute to the process of sanctification as law? And is making the point, uh, are we saying that the law is sinful when we say that you cannot, in that sense, be sanctified by the law? We're not saying it's sinful, but look at its inadequacy, what the law could not do. As he sums it up in chapter eight, what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh. God has interposed to do something that the law could not do. And therefore, though we may all feel like this from time to time, that Paul describes in Romans seven seven onwards, we ought to go beyond it, to see that we are not under law in that sense, but we are married to another. We're not under the old covenant, with us desperately trying in our own strength to keep law. We are married to another, we're under the new covenant, and we have the Holy Spirit within. That is the difference of principle. And it, uh, uh, would be odd if a believer would say, now after fifty years, I don't know what you're talking about by the, by, uh, when you talk about the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know what that is. What on earth is this new covenant, and what does it do, and what is it supposed to do? Surely we know something of what the new covenant is about, not only in forgiveness, but in the reality of the Holy Spirit within our hearts. Yes, we have to practice. Yes, we have to learn how to take, uh, advantage of the Holy Spirit's presence and power. Yes, surely. But I don't think that, uh, Romans seven seven onwards is meant to be the, the norm of Christian behavior, always struggling and always defeated. We're under the new covenant, after all, gentlemen. Sin shall not have dominion over you because you're not under law. We are being empowered by the Holy Spirit and should know increasingly in practical experience the gracious help of the Holy Spirit. Not that we are perfectly sinless, of course not. Mm-hmm. I personally feel, and that's why I spent some time on it today, that this difference between the law on tables of stone as a rule book and the New Covenant with its laws written on the heart, I think that is very important, and that is the, uh, if you keep the Lord's Supper weekly, as many people do, it would be a pity not to remember from time to time that that is a celebration of the new covenant. Which is this matter of, first and foremost, writing God's laws on our hearts. Mm. So that when I take the cup, I'm saying, yes, Lord. Certainly I thank you for dying for me that my sins, uh, shall be forgiven, sins not remembered against me anymore. Lord, this last week, I have not done what I should have done. I confess it, Lord. Thank you for your forgiveness, and thank you for this promise. It's your promise. You have promised that you will write your laws on my heart. Lord, write them ever more deeply. Because in the end, it's not my determination, really, try and behave. It's the pledge of what he does. I will write my laws on your heart. And therefore, when we come, we ought to discern ourselves. You see, my good brethren, I must know now, by experience, that not all my attitudes at my age are necessarily right. My friends know it more than I do, of course, and can see it. Not a question merely of, uh, discerning what I've done wrong, but discerning attitudes that are wrong. I need to do it. For to come to the symbol of the, of the New Covenant and not see any need to discern myself and where my attitudes are wrong, that they be corrected. Well, then I'm neglecting what is one of the major things of the New Covenant. But even when I confess my sin and see that I'm, you know, my attitudes are wrong and I've got wrong habits and things, and I confess it, but all the marvelous positive side as I take that cup. I can come, you see, I don't have to stay away. I can come in that spirit, therefore, and claim the promise pledged to me by the cup of the new covenant. I will write my law on your heart. It's he that does it. This is magnificent gospel, gentlemen. Yes. And what happens if I become careless? And don't discern myself. If I do that, gentlemen, it is after all a covenant, and it's the Lord who covenanted, not me. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't, uh, initiate the covenant. It's he that does the covenanting. And if I don't cooperate with him, then he will fulfill his covenant. He'll write his laws on my heart. He'll do it in a way that is happy and convenient. But if not, if I'm careless and I am a believer, he's going to write them. So we are judged of the Lord and chastened, so that we are not condemned with the world, which covenanted to do it. And to do it now, and and we are chastened of the Lord so that we shall not be condemned with the world. A believer will never be condemned with the world, but if he's careless in this life and doesn't in that sense cooperate with the Lord, the Lord will take it in hand because the Lord has covenanted to do it. Marvelous, isn't it? Well, perhaps you don't think so, but to me it is gospel. We shall have to leave till our next occasion, God willing, a few remarks on chapter eight. But you see, one of the comforting things about that, you see, is surely this, that I'm not the only one responsible to see that God's program is carried out. God has a big program for those that are called according to, not his purpose, according to purpose. You say, what's the difference? Call him a... If you are inviting somebody to dinner according to purpose, that means that you, uh, you're going to invite them. And if they said yes, you had already made provision for what you would lay on. Uh, soup, of course, hors d'oeuvres and things and funny things like that, and uh, main dish and entrees and this and that, and sweets and cheese and all the rest of the thing, and a nice bed and everything else, uh, laid on because you were inviting them on purpose. And you invited them and already prepared what you were going to do for them. If, on the other hand, you went downtown one of these days, and there in Marks and Spencer's downtown you saw Auntie Emma Liner from Canada, and you said, fancy seeing you here? Yes, he said, I took advantage of one of these cheap flights, and I thought I'd come over and see you. Oh, I wish. Yes, well, oh, I, I, yes, I'm very glad to see you. Yes, please come home. You see, we had the painters and decorators in, and the place is a shambles, and I've got nothing in the oven and nothing in the pantry, and, and dear me, this is embarrassing. You invite her now, but not according to purpose, you see. And God has invited us, he's called us, according to purpose. Having called us is a program what to do with us. It's ultimately to be conformed to the image of his son. And thank God he's not left it to us in final control of the fulfilling of the program, that the Holy Spirit witnesses that we're children of God and makes intercession for us according to the mind of God. For he knows what the next step ought to be, the necessary next step, whether it is peace and prosperity or whether it is some tribulation or whatever it is that would be necessary for the next step in the program, the Holy Spirit intercedes according to the mind of God. Very good, isn't it? The old story is true still, and the analogy is very helpful. When Abraham sent his servant to, um, go down to find a wife for Isaac, and the girl said, eventually came to the decision, the family said, well, you better call her and ask her. And he put on the jewels and that, of course, that was a bit of diplomacy and enticement, and, uh, uh, told all about the master, and now the question was the family put, well, will you go with this man that is with Abraham's servant, you see? The servant didn't say, well, I'm delighted with your response, my dear, and I'm sure when you make your way across the desert to my f- uh, master's sons, you won't be disappointed, you see. So look forward. Now here's my visiting card, and uh, when you come to our place, look us up and you'll find everything is lovely. No, it didn't. No, when she made her decision, Abram's servant was in charge to lead the dear woman and conduct her step by step and bring her at last to his master's son. So is the Holy Spirit given and intercedes for us according to the mind of God, to see that God's program is, uh, being put into action and calls for our cooperation, of course, as being no longer slaves but sons of God. But the time is far gone. It's oh, five minutes past the time. That's wickedness already. And so I cease, but God willing, look forward to seeing you, uh, in uh, uh, two weeks time, and that I can comfort you with the con- concept that that will be the last you will have to endure of me for a number of weeks, the sessions in two weeks time. Thank you for your company.