Galatians 2:16-21

Justification by Faith Apart from Works of the Law

Father, we are coming to you this morning as we continue on the teaching that Paul has given in this letter. We acknowledge that we are not justified by works of the law, but we're justified through our faith in Christ that comes from grace.

Lord, we pray that as we walk with you, as we seek to be better Christians, that this concept of a pretense of spirituality by being a stronger, more effective Christian by following various laws, Lord, the folly of that comes through in your word, teaches us.

We pray that you be with Jeff as he gives us this instruction from your word, through your Holy Spirit. In Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Who here has a dog?

A dog? A dog. A puppy. A dog. Used to. Used to? Used to. Used to. Dogs are some of the best evangelistic helpers you could imagine because it gets you out in the neighborhood. You're walking around. Well, I'm out walking the dog just this last week and come across a neighbor who's doing yard work.

We get to talking and before long, I have an opportunity to share the gospel and many of you have had an opportunity to share the gospel when the objection arises as it did this week. Yeah, but what about the Old Testament laws that you guys don't seem to follow?

If you say you believe, how can you pick and choose? For example, how many of you here are wearing mixed fibers, some polyester, some cotton? How many of you eat shellfish? This neighbor of mine brought up shellfish.

I like some shellfish, but the old covenant says not to eat shellfish. And what other laws can you think of that nature? Tattoos. Yeah, which incidentally probably had to do with marking oneself for the dead and contacting spirits and things like that.

It's questionable whether that's a one-to-one application to tattoos as we know them, but I don't have tattoos in case you're wondering. Too much information. What are some other laws? Putting a fence on my roof.

Yeah, the parapet around the roof. Okay, any other laws you can think of that we don't follow today? Two or three witnesses. We should follow that.

Not everyone gets circumcised. Circumcision, right. Having your wife put to death because she made a bad dinner. Whoa, is that in the Bible? Making a bad dinner? That's a paraphrase. That's a paraphrase.

Maybe in the message. So clearly there are certain things that came to a close at the death of Christ. For example, the ceremonial ritual sacrifices. There are no more sacrifices because Christ is our Passover.

In 1 Corinthians we learn that. He is the Passover lamp. All the others were only placeholders pointing us forward to Christ and his death. How about the Sabbath?

We're to honor, in fact, the whole way through the Old Testament. We're still to honor the Sabbath.

Okay, Clinton. What's your definition of is-is? Or the Sabbath. What's your definition of the Sabbath? What do you mean by that? Well, so, I mean, I think what I've heard argued is that no Christian has ever kept the Sabbath.

So, I mean, we might, you know, there are certain say that you can't.

Such a good point. So Seventh-day Adventists are not following the Sabbatarian laws. Dominic? The Sabbath. Okay. So we rest. Yes. And that's Hebrews 3 and 4. That Christ is our Sabbath. That we have ceased from our work when we come to rest in Christ.

Now, there has been a tradition developing from the earliest century of having a day of rest on Sunday, not on Saturday. Why would that be? Christ resurrected on the first day of the week. And that was referred to in the early Christian literature as the day of the Lord.

And there is reference to the day of the Lord in the New Testament. At the end of Corinthians, it talks about on the first day of the week, take up an offering. First day would have been Sunday. John will say in Revelation that on the curia hamera, the day of the Lord, he was in the spirit.

And day of the Lord in all early Christian literature was referring to the first day, Sunday. So there's reason for that. But all this to say, yeah, Rick, before I conclude that. Yes. Nobody does that, right?

Yeah. A good three work day would be solid. Yeah, Stan? Yes. Yeah. That's helpful. So when the ox falls into the pit, who among you wouldn't help that ox out of the pit, even on the Sabbath? In the same way, Jesus healed on the Sabbath, and they were ready to kill him for that.

There was clearly some priority of doing the will of God, principles of justice and mercy and love, that these Sabbatarians were misunderstanding in their application of the law. And this is the question I wanted to raise before we dive into Galatians, is what is the Christian's relationship to the law?

There is in our culture, because of the teaching of justification by faith, a general disdain for the law of God. But Christians for 2 ,000 years have understood that the moral, the general equity of the moral law, and even of the judicial laws and the dietary laws, of all of these things, there is a general equity, and that's the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second Baptist Confession of 1689.

They would refer to the general equity of the judicial law still applying. There were certain things that were for Israel, and when Israel ceased to be a nation and was driven apart, and Christ really is that Israel of God, when you see Israel pictured in the Isaiah 40s, Christ himself is the true Israel.

So there is a sense in which Christ fulfills things that were prophesied of Israel. And so wisdom is looking in the cross and understanding what has been fulfilled in Christ and what abides. Now, the antinomia era, which is against the law, anti-nomos, anti-law.

There is a movement that's common in American evangelicalism, and you saw it in the He Gets Us commercial on Sunday. If you watched the Super Bowl, maybe a lot of people didn't, I don't know. But it's a diminishing of the moral law of God because we're justified by faith.

So many of the things that the Bible prescribes and prohibits are simply disregarded because they're in the Old Covenant. And this is gross error. What the Bible taught regarding sexual ethics in Leviticus 18, 19, these remain God's moral standard for sexuality.

In fact, you could take it prior to the law of Moses, all the way back to the Garden of Eden, when God made them male and female and said, a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

This was God's standard, and it never changed, even as things unfolded. So, as we come to the text today, we need to understand that there will be people who claim to believe in Christ, yet have rejected His moral standard.

This is what we call antinomianism. They've rejected His law as a standard to teach us right from wrong. There are others that will try to bring us back under the law, and that's what we come to today.

So, in Galatians, John, would you read it through for us one time? Then I'm going to review what's been said so far, and we'll start to go verse by verse. Yeah, Stan.

I like where we're going with this, because the law, as for me, shows me what we really stand. Okay, and now what we're going to do today, we're going to...

The Three Functions of the Law and the Meaning of Nomos

Yeah, reformers have spoken of the three functions of the law. This is Reformation theology. Anybody remember what they are? Number one, Stan just said. It's a mirror to show us what we're really like.

It's a tutor to bring us to Christ. Number two, it's for the civil restraint of evil. So it has a civil function. The law keeps the peace. It holds back the evildoer, knowing that he's under threat of punishment.

The governor does not bear the sword in vain. The law keeps civil order. And the third function of the law is to teach the Christian right from wrong. It's to guide moral behavior. Yeah. How many laws...

There's like 1 ,050 laws in the New Testament, or commandments. Okay. It's almost double. So in a way, but they're different laws because they apply spiritually to our obedience, right? Right.

I think some have numbered at around 613 Old Testament specific commandments given in the Torah. Right. Now, if you give any New Testament imperative... An imperative is when the voice is a command. So, do unto others.

That's spoken in the imperative. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In that sense, you can call it a law because it's in the imperative voice. But you'll notice, say, in the ESV, there is a distinction as you're reading the book of Romans or Galatians between where the word law, nomos, is capital L or lowercase l.

The capital L is where the translator... It's not in the Greek because all of the Greek letters were capital in the original manuscripts. But in the translator's understanding, they're saying the capital L refers to the Law of Moses.

Law in the capital sense. Law generally could be the moral law. It could be natural law. It could be just a principle of right and wrong. So you have to kind of parse that out. We have to be careful calling the commandments or the imperatives of the New Testament law.

Because what we're going to get into here, and I'm going to have John read it, is that anybody who returns to the law is losing gospel. That's the point. And here, law will be lowercase, so it's not just referring to the Law of Moses.

It's referring to works. Doing works to contribute to salvation. And that's what Paul will guard against. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay, John, if you would. We left off last week at 15. But I'm going to read 15 because...

You're free to do so. As Rick would notice, it's part of the sentence flow. Right. Yes. We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.

So we also have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law, no one will be justified. But if in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?

Certainly not. For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.

And the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

This passage includes one of the clearest gospel verses in all the Bible, and that's verse 16 on justification. Paul will expound this in Romans 3 .21 to 5 .21, but here you have in a condensed version, and probably an earlier version than Romans, you have Paul's statement of the gospel.

Yet we know that a person, of justification by faith, that a person is not justified by works of the law. Now here it's, the translator would say, lowercase l, any kind of law. Okay, whether it's a Muslim doing the five pillars, a Jew following the ten commandments, or a Buddhist with their eightfold path, or a Roman Catholic with their sacramental system of self-justification.

There's no law that you obey to contribute anything. Not that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. You see the distinction. The gospel of grace is not of works, but is by faith in Jesus Christ.

That's a big idea. Then there's strong negations in that verse, which outlaw works three times. We'll get to that, but that's, I wanted to point out first of all, that this is where we're going with this.

Now, it fits with Paul's intention for the entire letter. The key word in Galatians is grace. Paul is expounding the gospel of grace. And we learn in chapter one, verses six to nine, that the problem precipitating this letter, the reason he wrote it, is because you have some coming into the church claiming Christ.

These are not outsiders. These are insiders. And these who claim the name of Christ are saying you must be circumcised in order to be saved. That's the language from Acts 15 .1, the Jerusalem Council.

They're literally claiming that you must perform at least this aspect of the law in order to then be saved by your faith in Christ. They're not denying faith. So the Reformation doctrine of sola fide isn't just faith, because the Roman Catholic Church would affirm that, but faith alone.

Faith apart from any sacraments, apart from indulgences and relics and purgatories and all these other means, it's faith alone. So Paul warns very strongly in chapter one, verses six to nine, that if anybody comes and brings any other gospel than this gospel of grace, let him be accursed.

He then goes on from there to explain how he received this doctrine by direct revelation from Jesus Christ. Jesus revealed this to him. And so he knows it, and he's unshakable on that foundation. However, he then recounts that he did in fact go to Jerusalem to confirm the gospel, to make sure he had not been running in vain, meaning to make sure there was no difference between what Peter was saying in Jerusalem with James and the other apostles, and what he had been saying up in the region of Turkey, modern-day Turkey and in Antioch, is there any disparity?

And he proves that from the very earliest, there was no difference. Remember Titus the test case? Titus the test case. Paul said, Titus, you're a Greek. You're uncircumcised. For that reason, you're my test case.

Come with me. We're going to Jerusalem. And he intentionally, they all knew he was Greek, he brought Titus in among the apostles to see what the apostles would do. And sure enough, the apostles welcomed him as a brother, not requiring him to be circumcised in order to have fellowship in the church.

And so the test case proved what they were also saying. They gave him the right hand of fellowship, and they said, you take the gospel, the gospel to the uncircumcised, and Peter will focus on Jerusalem and the circumcised.

But it's one gospel. It's confirmed. All of these examples prove it. Now last week, John taught us about an incident that happened later. And this was a confrontation in Antioch between Peter and Paul.

Anybody remember what led to that problem? What was Peter doing? Yeah, before a certain party of Judaizers showed up from Jerusalem, he would freely sit around a table, have meals, act like there's no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ.

Because, as Paul teaches, Colossians 3 .11, here there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, barbarian, Scythian. But Christ is in all. Christ is all and in all. That's how Peter was acting. And then when this party of well-to-do Judaizers, who were super spiritual, very religious, began to look down their noses at the Gentiles, Peter quietly left the table.

And would only eat with the Jewish believers. What did Paul do?

Yes, yeah. These are people claiming Christ, naming the name. But they're saying, you still, Gentiles, why don't you get circumcised, obey the law, believe in Christ. See, this is the big struggle here.

What role does the law play in the Christian life? And these Judaizers were saying, you have to obey the law in order to be saved. Like with the church,.

I mean, sometimes things come in, like we look at Catholicism, some of the things that, the requirements of that.

And I don't even go as far as saying some Protestants are, as well. So, just. There are Pentecostals, not many, but some, especially of the oneness variety, that say, if you don't speak in tongues, you are not saved.

Because that's the evidence of salvation. If you won't speak in tongues, then you're not saved. That's Judaizing the gospel. You're adding something. What about baptism? Could something good, an ordinance that Christ himself gave, become a stumbling block, and be added to the gospel?

That was the problem with the Restorationist movement. The Stone Campbellites in the 1800s, from which we got the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Mormons. These are all Restorationists that said, you have to do these certain things, baptism being the main one, in order to be saved.

Not because you are saved, but in order to be saved. That's Judaizing the gospel. All right, so, to answer the question that I threw out there, you guys know the answer. Paul opposed him to his face. Which is crazy to picture that.

This is Peter, the rock, and Paul, having a public confrontation. You think there's any place for that in our culture, or in our day? Guys, I'll tell you, when I wrote Wilk Free Church, and took a stand against our own denomination, it was because, people like, I talked about Paul Tripp, with his truncated gospel.

People were Judaizing the gospel, in a public way. They were saying that, the gospel is incomplete, unless you add social justice, work and activism to it. And to me, that was a Judaizing of the gospel.

And so, when I confronted, I did so publicly, in the front of them all. Because, I understand that Matthew 18, if I offend John, Never have. Never, never. But what would you, and have you done? You come to me privately, because that's how brothers deal with, an interpersonal thing.

And then you work that out, because you're brothers, and you're restored to fellowship. That's how it works. But there's something very different, about a public teacher of false doctrine. There's no private offense to me, if someone preaches a false doctrine.

There's a thousand sheep, who could be led astray. And even if I went privately, and worked something out to say, Hey, you know, I was offended or whatever. The thousand people, who were led astray, are still led astray.

Public confrontation, for public false teaching. That's the principle here. And I get it where it says, before them all. Verse 14. I said to Cephas, before them all. This had to be public, because the hypocrisy was public.

And it was something, that was affecting the whole church. Just like the social justice movement, affected the whole church. We had to deal with it, in a public way. And praise God, there seems to be healing, coming from that.

And hopefully more so, as we go. Now, look in your Bible, at the end of verse 14. Raise your hand, if it ends the quotation, of Paul's rebuke, to Peter, at the end of 14. I've got the ESV. What do you got John?

This is ESV. You're also ESV. Okay. Anybody have King James? New King James. Does it end the quote, right there? It does. Yeah. Yeah. Question mark, yeah. But does it end it, with quotes? In the NASB?

No. Keeps going? No? Okay. Do you know why, there's a difference here? In the Greek, there's no quotation marks, here, or at the end of verse 21. The NIV, 1984, is one example, that holds, that this entire passage, is Paul's rebuke to Peter.

And so this is the section, we're studying today. I hold that view, for a couple of reasons. I think, as you go from the end of verse 14, there's no textual marker, to indicate that we, which has to have a referent, is anything other, than Peter and Paul.

And he's setting himself up, as distinct from, the church in general. Meaning, that he's describing himself, and Peter, and other Jewish believers, as, essentially messianic Jews. Completed Jews. Christians, I should say, who have a Jewish background.

So yeah, that's my first reason. Go ahead. I followed it through, and eight from the beginning, and it closes. Yes. That's where I close it. Yeah,.

And you have the NAS, right? Yeah, I agree with the NAS, the NIV, I think disagree with the ESV. It's not a substantial difference, because, whether Paul is saying this to Peter, specifically in context, or whether he's shifted, and is addressing us, the reader, or the Galatian reader, he's still saying the same truth, right?

So, the reason I think the quotation ends, at the end of verse 21, is because when you, what's your favorite expression? Follow the pronouns. It's one thought. From verse 14, he's referring to the Jewish believers, Peter and Paul, if you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile, not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles, to live like Jews?

He goes on, we ourselves are Jews. That's how I'm reading that. Paul is pleading with Peter, we're Jews by birth, not Gentile sinners. And then verse 16, would be part of the quote, in this case. Yet we know, that a person is not, justified, by works of the law, but through faith.

He's pleading with him, to keep, he's pleading with Peter, in this case. Now in verse 16, I mentioned, this is one of the great, gospel verses, in the entire Bible. Notice, how strongly, it negates, works.

Find them. Not, that's negation, right? Not justified, by works of the law, but through faith in Christ. A positive statement of the gospel. Justification by faith. So we also have believed, in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified, by faith in Christ, and, what does he say again?

Not by works. Thank you Tim. Not by works. He's emphatically, because, now again, by works of the law, no one, will be, justified. The gospel, I've mentioned has, several elements, that need to be communicated.

The person of Christ, the work of Christ, according to the scriptures, the gift of eternal life, with forgiveness of sin, repentance, and faith. That last word, repentance and faith, is what distinguishes, within the Christian world, so to speak, the West, and all of, all of the religions, that claim, to be the gospel.

The difference is, whether, anything, is added to faith alone. It is part of the gospel, to preach faith alone. How many additions, to faith, are required, in order to lose the gospel? Who said that? Janet?

One. You're exactly right. Here in Galatians, that's a point. It's really only one, right? Circumcision. Which becomes an entry point, for other ways, that they'll Judaize the gospel, but that's what they're demanding, in Acts 15 .1.

In the same way, every cult, does two things. It diminishes Christ, in some way, to someone less than, fully God. It's a downgrade, of the person of Christ, and then secondly, it's the introduction of works.

Something of their system, whether it's knocking on doors, as Jehovah's Witness, temple marriage rituals, of Mormonism, Sabbatarianism, of the seventh day, especially the Ellen White, version of that, because nowadays, Ben Carson, and some of the seventh day Adventists, are a little bit more evangelical, in how they express their views, but if you look at, the investigative bar, of Ellen White, in seventh day Adventism, you have to perform certain works, to be found worthy, at the investigative bar, after death, in order to have heaven.

It's always the same thing, and so this is why, this verse is so important, and you should mark it, and remember where to go, because Judaizers of the Gospel, always add at least one work of law. It might be an invented law, something like Mormonism, just made up out of Joseph Smith's brain.

He will quote part of Ephesians 2, 8, and 9, in the Book of Mormon. I think it's 2 Nephi 25, 23, something like that, where he says, that we are saved by grace through faith. Sound familiar? Ephesians 2, 8, and 9?

But his version is, we are saved by grace through faith, after all that we can do. Do you see what just happened? Works, he reintroduced what we can do, what we can contribute. The Gospel is purely of grace.

That it's all what God has done on our behalf,.

In the cross. And that's what happens in Genesis 12, in the RSV, where it takes the correctly translating a verb, in our scripture, N-A-V, N-A-S-V, and all nations will be blessed through you. Changes it to, all nations will bless themselves, through you.

And what is the RSV? Is that the Catholic? Yes, it is. And either is correct to the text, so you gotta go into context, to know which way it should be. But it becomes works versus sola fide. Wow, well said.

Thank you. Verse 17 is debated, even amongst faithful commentaries. Both interpretations are true as such, but the question is, which view is tracking with Paul's train of thought? In verse 17 it says, but if in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?

Certainly not. Two views. One is the view of Matthew Henry, in his commentary, which I think is the correct view. Here again he's referring to Judaizers. And if somebody Judaizes the gospel, introducing works, what happens when a person tries to obey the law?

They can't do it. They can't do it, Rick. They're gonna fall short, and the law will expose their hypocrisy at some point, the anger in their heart, the lustful heart, the covetous heart. The law will expose the person, and find them out as a sinner.

So in verse 17, but if in our endeavor, the concept here is you're working, you're trying to be justified in Christ, but by law, we too were found to be sinners, found out by the law to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?

What Paul is asking is, this savior that you have, does he deliver an unfinished product? One who's trying to obey the law, but falling short? This is how Matthew Henry would read it. I think he's right.

I think he's right because of verse 18, when he gives the rationale, the grounding for that thought, for if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. To rebuild here is the idea of reintroducing this edifice, this rock, this mountain in Pilgrim's Progress of the law that you can't keep.

If you try to rebuild that, you'll break yourself against it. And that's Matthew Henry's view. The second view is Bible knowledge commentary. Dallas takes it to mean, well, Don Campbell, who's writing the Galatians commentary for the Bible knowledge commentary.

He takes it to mean, if I rebuild what I tore down, referring to if I go on sinning so that grace may increase. Kind of the concept that's later developed in Romans, chapter six to eight. The person who is rebuilding an old life of sin.

If I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. So in verse 17, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were to be found sinners. This is the person going on in sin, not having truly repented, but living kind of a double life.

Then is Christ a servant of sin? Are you just using grace as a means to go on sinning so that grace will increase? That is the concept of Romans six one. Should I go on sinning so that grace may increase?

I say that the principle in both cases is true. Either one is an abuse of the law. The person who tries to reintroduce law as a means to salvation would make Christ a servant of sin because he's not a perfect savior.

He can only deliver you so far. He leaves you undone and the rest trying to strive, but falling short. And that I think is what Paul is saying. But it's also true that law doesn't become irrelevant. Grace does not become a license to sin.

And I think verse 19 really makes this point. For through the law, I died to the law so that I might live to God. When Paul speaks of being free of the law, having in fact here died to the law, does that mean he's going to invent a new standard?

Of what's right and wrong? Many people will say, I'm a Christian, I believe in Christ, therefore I'm justified by faith and I can do what I want in this area of rebellion against God. Sexuality or any number of things that a person desires to do.

And then they make up their own private morality. They invent their own morality. Is that what Paul means to die to the law? No. To die to the law here means that you cease trying to obey to the law in order to be justified.

That old striving man, that hamster on the wheel died. He can't get there. You can't attain, you can't climb Jacob's ladder. You can't make it. You need a perfect savior who's come down and you die with him.

And this then will introduce the doctrine of union with Christ in verse 20. But I wanted to read and introduce two verses. We haven't done much reading around the room. We don't have much time. But John and then Janet, would you mind reading about the Nicolaitans?

Some who took this view that you could just go on sinning so that grace may increase and they just invented their own morality. They threw the law out. They're dead to the law. Now they did what they want, were the Nicolaitans.

So John, if you could read Revelation 2 .6 and then Janet, the Revelation 2 .14 and 15. Remember, Jesus said, do not think I have come to abolish the law. I've come to fulfill it. Capital L. Capital L.

Yeah. Good. Yeah.

But I have a few things against you. You could hold the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balaam to put a stumbling block before taking sacrifice to idols. Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the...

So the Nicolaitans were a sect that broke off of Christianity following most likely, and the early church fathers say this, the teachings of Nicholas. Do you remember the seven deacons that were named in Jerusalem in the early church?

Stephen was the first martyr. Nicholas was among them. Nicholas, it seems, went on and created a cult that existed at least in these two churches in Turkey. And the followers of Nicholas followed him into sexual immorality.

The early fathers explain that he had a beautiful wife and he decided to begin wife swapping in the church. That he would allow other men to sleep with her and then he would sleep with other women in the church.

And it was their sexual ethic. Not at all grounded in the law of God but made up out of his own head. And the language of Revelation 2, 6 and 15 couldn't be any stronger, right? How does Jesus feel about that?

He says he... hates it. He hates it. So to die to the law means to live to God. And it's not to be removed from the general equity of the law and the teachings of right and wrong as given in the law. It is to be alive to God and now have the spirit of life, the Holy Spirit living in you to transform you more and more into the image of Christ.

To be sanctified. This is the genuine teaching of what happens when a person is born again. They're given the spirit of life and there you see that contrast in Romans 7 and in Romans 8 between the law to which we're dead in order that we would live to God.

That the spirit would now give us victory where we never had the power to obey. Now through the spirit we can. Which introduces in verse 20, John, would you read that again? The doctrine of union with Christ.

Union with Christ and Life by Faith in the Son of God

I've been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. A life that I now live in the flesh. I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.

The doctrine of union with Christ is a key to the Christian life. Anybody here memorize Galatians 2 .20? It's a very prominent memory verse and for good reason. It spotlights the doctrine of union with Christ.

I have been crucified with Christ. His death is my death. I'm crucified with him. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. His life has become my life. Him living in me. The hope of glory, Christ in me.

And the life I now live in the flesh. I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. Notice where Paul always puts all of the emphasis and to whom he always gives all of the glory.

It's Christ and his cross, the love of Jesus that Christ did this work. The Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. In Ephesians 1 .3 it says, blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.

Make note of that emboldened phrase that I put in your notes, in Christ. In Christ appears 25 times in the writings of Paul. But if you include in him, the tally runs up to 200 times. Paul will say in Christ or in him.

You think that's an important point to pull? In Christ. He wants us to understand the Christian life this way. That you are united with Christ. United with him in his death, in his burial, in his resurrection.

United with him in your baptism, which is a picture of that union with Christ. That you're buried with Christ and raised to newness of life. And now you no longer live, but the life you live in the body, you live by faith in the Son of God.

It's him living his life through you. This is the metaphor of John 15. Remember? I am the vine, you are the branches. Unless you abide in me, you cannot bear fruit. The Christian life is lived in Christ.

Union with Christ. And so, we keep the law by the spirit of life. The law teaches us and guides us, should I do this or do that? But it's the spirit of life that helps you and strengthens you and enables you to live the life you could not live without it.

Without Christ in you, you would be nothing but disobedient all the time. But in Christ, you have victory. And he says, I do not nullify the grace of God. There's our word. We're closed with this. The doctrine of union with Christ is essential to the gospel of grace.

If you understand that it was all Christ's work and he has made you to be united with him, then everything is to the praise of his glorious grace. The gospel is all of grace. It's all the work of God.

For if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. So John, I'm gonna ask you to pray, but let me just highlight what's in the notes for your application. Remember that Christ is no servant of sin.

Meaning he is a perfect savior. He doesn't leave you to complete law and leave you half finished. As a sinner, he's a perfect savior. Beware of Judaizers of the gospel. The Hebrew Roots Movement, which returns to Old Testament law and loses sight of Christ, sometimes even rejecting Christ outright.

Council of Trent Roman Catholics, as in official Roman doctrine. Not necessarily every Catholic on the street really knows what that is. Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Iglesia Ni Cristo, which is the biggest thing going on in the Philippines.

And some holiness groups think they are attaining a higher spirituality by reintroducing law as a means to be saved. But they fall short of God's standard, proving themselves to be sinners and would make Christ a servant of sin were he to countenance their pretense of spirituality.

Conversely, the Nicolaitan, who goes on sinning in order to make grace increase, demonstrates that he never died with Christ or received the spirit of life. But we are to live by faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us, never forgetting his finished work.