Death and Restitution (Crime and Punishment) (Remastered)

C-R-101 Radio dot com, podcast and more.

The Caledceteen Foundation presents Death and Restitution, part one of our day rest

during his lecture series, Crime and Punishment.

This is the law of the steppern and rebellious son which will not obey the voice of his father

or the voice of his mother.

And the law goes on to say that if the charges against him are sustained that he is an

incorrigible delinquent, he is to be executed.

Now we understand this law.

This law is like the other laws outside of the Ten Commandments, a case law.

That is, it illustrates a principle.

As we analyze, therefore, this particular law, certain things appear first.

This law indicates a limitation in the power of the family.

In Roman law, the father had the power of life and death over his children.

He could expose them as infants, kill them as youths, sell them into slavery.

This was a common power in many cultures and antiquity.

The parent was a god who gave and took life and hence ancestor worship.

In this law, the state enters in a god's requirement, not because it is the state's well,

but to back up God's law concerning the family and society.

Second, this law requires that the family align itself with law and order rather than with a criminal member.

The parents in this case are not complaining witnesses in the normal sense of scripture.

As a result, they are not executioners, as the witnesses complaining witnesses were normally required to be.

In this case, the men of the city are the executioners.

However, if the parents refused to complain, they were guilty of condemnation or participation in their sense crimes.

The whole point in the case and every such case was, would they align themselves with justice or with crime?

The parental participation was also needed to avoid blood views.

Parents in refusing to file charges against the Lincoln son were therefore also guilty of crime, not blood but law had to govern.

Thus, we can say third that this being case law.

This law is not merely geared to sons, but as a specific case to illustrate a principle.

If an incorrigible son, an incorrigible delinquent, is to be put to death, how much more so an incorrigible criminal?

Daughters, incidentally, are clearly included also, as appears from Deuteronomy 23-17 and Leviticus 19-19.

The whole point of this law is that no Hebrew could be an incorrigible criminal and remain alive.

Thus, we have here, in this particular law, a case law, a principle established.

One that is stated again and again in scripture, so shall he put out iniquity from amongst you.

In other words, the purpose of the biblical criminal law,

was to eliminate from the covenant people of God, all those whose way of life was consistently and systematically criminal.

The habitual criminal could not exist.

This law passed very early into the law of America.

It is interesting that, when this was first, put on the books in colonial America, very quickly, juvenile link and see disappeared.

It became a part of the general law of virtually every state.

It is still in a somewhat diluted sense on the books of most states.

At the present time, there is an appeal to the Supreme Court against this law.

It is from a southern state, and I have forgotten at the moment from which state I have it in my files at home.

I have maybe Mississippi.

As the law reads today in this particular incident, a criminal with three convictions being deemed an habitual criminal is therefore to be executed.

There is a present and appeal to the Supreme Court to overthrow this law.

In other states, it has been altered now to require for the third or third conviction, light imprisonment.

The Bible, however, does not require for imprisonment at any time.

There is no jail, no prison in biblical law except for our temporary custody pending a trial.

This is an important thing. The biblical law does not care for imprisonment.

It requires either death or restitution.

We shall come to the matter of restitution very shortly.

The real point of this law is so shall thou put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

In terms of biblical law, the family is not allowed to say, we'll stand behind our boy, come what may.

No family in the sight of God has the right to say that.

The family and the godly family must draw in hands with the people of God to wage war against our evil.

Rest the biblical law does not recognize a professional criminal element.

A professional criminal element cannot live.

biblical law requires the death penalty against it from the delinquent on through the professional criminal.

But today precisely because we have set aside biblical law and have introduced what was a humanistic device, prison.

And now a further humanistic device reads a publication.

We are creating a growing criminal class.

It was not until the Enlightenment was born in the latter years of the 18th century, the early years of the 1900s, that the modern criminology came into being.

The use of prisons, the only prisons that existed previously were rather illegal affairs, used by medieval parents to hold people for ransom or to torture them to try to get information out of them, all of which was illegal.

But there was no such thing as a prison system until the last century and a half approximately.

It came into existence as a rebellion against the Lord God.

The consequence of the application of the Lord God was that throughout the Western world there was genetically a progressive improvement of the Western genetic science.

In that an element was continually eliminated that was a problem.

So that the racial stock was continually improved by the steady elimination of that element which was criminal.

It is significant that this law and other laws were of its pity.

The common humanistic perspective is that such a law is pitiless.

That biblical law demands pity for the offended not the offender.

Pity for the offender is forbidden specifically in a number of places in Deuteronomy 716.

Deuteronomy 1369, Deuteronomy 1911-13, Deuteronomy 1921 and chapter 25-11-12.

However, the crime of the delinquent son of the delinquent daughter involves and assault are aware against fundamental authority.

Thus, the law which deals with the girl who turns prostitute speaks of her as doing so to sustain her father.

This is a significant point in modern psychology is confirmed that much of the delinquency is a deliberate assault on authority.

Thus, the parents must see the sins of the children as an offense against themselves as well as against society.

The principle of capital punishment therefore in scripture is a post millennial principle.

It declares that the world is to be improved by the elimination by warfare against the enemies of God.

However, life is to be taken only on God's terms in terms of this warfare.

Since life is created by God, it is to be lived only in terms of this law worth.

Neither the parents nor the state are the creator of life.

Therefore, a neither has the right to take life.

When man in terms of the word of God has the right to take life, it is only as the agent of God in terms of his law.

But neither does man have the right to permit man to live where God says he must die.

Therefore, man sins when he violate the laws of capital punishment.

He is praying God then as surely as he is praying God when he kills the man whom he has no right to kill.

He is saying, I will kill and I will make a life.

I will take into my hands the prerogative of God.

I will kill whom I choose and allow the criminal to remain alive if I choose.

Both are equally fearful offenses.

Now the pass on to the matter of restitution.

Restitution also is clearly basic to post-millennialism and is the post-millennial principle.

The last of restitution appear in many portions of scripture.

But perhaps the classic statement is in Exodus 21, 18 through 25.

That purpose in redemption is the restitution or restoration of all things in, through and under Jesus Christ as King.

The goal of history is the general regeneration or the new genesis of all things in Jesus Christ as Matthew 1928 makes clear.

The consequence of sin is to be removed, God's kingdom established and humanity to be blessed under God in obedience to His law.

Principal of restitution is basic to biblical law.

Again, let me add, restitution was a part of the law of every state.

Not only during the colonial period, but in the early constitutional period and in some areas up until the time of the grab between the states.

So that of thee was not sentenced to prison unless he were a habitual criminal in which case he was held in prison for execution after trial.

That he was sentenced to make restitution.

Now the principal of restitution very briefly requires that if a man stole a hundred dollars, he was to restore the hundred dollars plus an equivalent amount.

In other words, another hundred.

If he stole certain kinds of things such as sheep or oxen, he made perfold and fivefold restitution because the sheep could multiply.

They represented capital for the future.

The you could have young for years and years and therefore the sheep was restored plus their other.

Oxen were not only used for food when they grew old, but they were used for work.

Their training represented a considerable investment, therefore fivefold restitution.

As a result, restitution was except for our castle offenses.

The normal means of dealing with crime.

Most demeanors were dealt with with proper punishment with stripes that most offenses were dealt with by restitution.

Some of the laws of restitution deal with property others with damages.

They deal with naming persons killing animals or an animal killing an animal.

They deal with a variety of offenses.

Some restitution also had to be made to God as number five, six to eight specifies.

The guilty party was also liable for medical expenses to the injured.

Exodus 21, 15, the guilty party was liable for the time lost from work.

The penalty was applied if a man's animal were guilty.

And there was a greater liability if the animal had a record of violence.

The guilty party was liable therefore for a variety of damages,

which could be laid upon him by the court for injury in addition to compensation for time lost and medical expenses.

Now the principal of restitution is not entirely gone from our law.

The day, in most cases, if you steal $100 from a man, you go to jail.

Or you should go to jail.

The sad fact is incidentally, do you know that of all convictions today only 14% of all those convicted for criminal offenses now go to jail?

Only 14%.

Time is increasing as such a rate that the prisons can no longer contain all those who are sentenced.

So they are given a suspended sentence in the majority of cases.

In other words, the humanistic device at prisons and of rehabilitation is breaking down.

It is creating a growing criminal class that cannot be coped with.

The humanistic device, moreover, gently analyzes the man who has been offended.

If you have been robbed of $100, then happens.

You go to jail.

And it is a problem to go to jail because of the postponement.

It means sometimes that you appear three, four or five times in a row.

The birth, your case, comes up on the target and so you have lost.

That many days, if you haven't had this experience, let me tell you, it is very real.

I've had it.

I've gone to court time and again waiting for a case to come up and then found that the defense attorney asks for a postponement.

And of course, this is the stock device, right?

It has been estimated that of every hundred criminal cases, depending on the state,

70 to 90 percent end up bleeding guilty.

And of the remaining, all but about 2 percent are ultimately convicted.

But there are so many cases that if every case were to come to trial, the whole of the eye to face criminal court structure would collapse.

So what happens?

The side of case in which I had to appear and my daughter not too long ago would respect to a gang of thieves.

So the postponement after postponement was secured, although they were obviously guilty.

They had been caught in the eye.

Right postponement, various technical reasons.

Now, basically this purpose in mind, which every defense attorney applies,

to negotiate for a lighter sentence to say,

with you drop these charges, you have so many against us, if we plead guilty to the smaller offense.

So that, in this particular case, instead of winding up with, say, a five to ten-year sentence,

they wound up with a 60-day sentence, basically.

They plead guilty for the lesser charge to avoid endless litigation, which would break down the cost calendar.

This is what is happening to our law.

But, as I started to say, the principle of restitution is not entirely gone from law today, but with significant differences.

If you are robbed of a hundred dollars, you don't get it back.

You lose time going to court.

So you're out, you're a hundred dollars. That's the time you go to court.

And if finally there's a conviction, then you are out, the cost of this keep in prison in the parlor tactic.

So who is penalized? You are.

I have a phone, the vary of a professional thief in which he makes it clear that

prison is just a professional risk, and it's a very cheap cost to pay in terms of the cost.

And so he says, why should I spend my life going to work, getting out of 6.30 in the morning to get to work at eight o'clock,

and spending all my days in that rat race?

So I spend maybe a third of my life in prison, but the other two thirds are live very well.

And I can laugh at the commuters who catch the train to work, and all the throbs who have to put in eight, nine hours a day on their jobs.

This is the kind of world we have created. In terms of biblical love, crime does not pay.

But in terms of modern humanistic love, crime, definitely pays.

Even when you go to prison, the state supports you.

And of course now, increasingly modern criminology says it is unfair to keep the men locked up in prison without the benefit of sex.

So let us open up the prisons and allow their girlfriends and wives to visit them.

We are creating a welfare society for criminals.

However, there is restitution required if you rob the federal government.

In that case, you rarely go to prison.

When I was on the Indian Reservation in the forties, and I've seen such cases since, when various government employees,

stole from the federal government, robbed various funds, and were convicted, they were not sent to prison.

The government worked out a plan for them to repay out of their salary.

And in one case, the man got a promotion, so he would be able to pay a little more rapidly.

The shift from restitution to imprisonment basically has its roots in the seizure of power by the state.

The state made imprisonment its criminal law and relegated restitution, the civil law, with little care to enforcing resources.

Today, if you want restitution, if someone should damage your property, the criminal car will not take it.

You, at your own expense, must enter a civil suit in the civil car to gain damages for what was done against you.

The burden is on you.

On top of that, if you gain the victory in the suit, the burden of responsibility of collection is then on you.

Increasingly, the state will not cooperate.

The New York State, a few years back, about 50 years ago, an examination of all civil suits revealed that only in 6% of all successful civil suits was collection consummated.

I would imagine, if the same study were made today, the results would be far worse.

Do you get the picture? The law-abiding citizen today is the victim.

He is taxed to take care of the criminals. He is robbed and there is no restitution to him.

Increasingly, in the name of enforcing this humanistic civil criminal law, the state takes more and more power unto itself.

The modern program of rehabilitation, which is coming into being, is an even more expensive program than imprisonment.

I have visited what they now call Correctional Facilities.

Correctional Facility is, in some cases, at least in California, like a Relaxed Country Club.

The prisoners must not think that they are prisoners even though there is a fence around the state.

Everything is done to provide them with a library, with movies, with teachers who will teach them parts, or anything else they meet with a psychiatric counselor every day.

Everything is done to help them to see who out there was this mama of papa who may be a criminal.

The next result, of course, is that they are confirmed in their sins because the sense of guilty is transferred all the more firmly upon someone else.

There are only two possible sources of civil power. Power and authority comes either from God or the people.

If the power comes from God, then God's law must prevail. If power comes from the people, then the people's will should prevail.

And there is no law then higher than the will of a mob.

Restitution then is not valid because it is alien to democratic society since it has reference to a higher order.

The dog absolute and unchanging justice.

If authority comes from God, then God's law must govern all authority in every sphere of life.

Restitution is the theocratic principle. The dog given principle. It involves three things.

First, that restitution is made to the injured person. Second, that restitution must be made to God when no person exists to whom it can be made.

Restitution is always mandatory for society to be healthy and before thought.

As a result, the Bible provided that a society the state must make restitution whenever it fails to find the criminal in a case or else it must face God's judgment.

In other words, order, God's order must be restored in every case.

The bareless society in terms of physical law is restitution, restoration. It must be affected, evil must be punished and penalized.

The godly defendant, thy kingdom comes and God's kingdom comes as his law is enforced.

The law of God, therefore, is the practical program for the institution of the reign of God.

They are bringing in godly authority.

Our country once was making tremendous strides towards a brave and at glorious reign of God.

The country was begun in terms of the law of God. Statue of law was something that came in after 1860.

Before that, and I have gone to court cases in various states in the early 1800s, 1830, 1840s and what was the basis of judgment?

John Doe, the criminal, had stolen. Did there have to be a statute law that covered that offense? No.

Not too long ago, a man in the criminal code revision in the state of Michigan could not be prosecuted for a murder because the particular kind of murder had not been covered in the revised statute.

But in terms of the bit of the law, there is no necessity to cover the crime with a precise word by word description.

Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal is sufficient. And what was the purpose of the jury?

Glad by jury, rested on the fact that there were men who knew the word of God.

They had to be men who believed in God. Remember, it was just a few years ago, about three years ago, that this provision was eliminated by the Supreme Court in a case emanating from Maryland, where the law required that the jurors believe in God.

The law once required that why? Because decisions rested on the law of God, and therefore the jury had to believe in God, they had to know his word.

And I have seen the decisions of the court rendered in terms of Scripture, which has reading the Scripture and saying, this covers your case and your guilty.

But today, what happens? Those of you who have served on a jury know that it may be obvious to you that the person is guilty.

Now, the judge says and he reads you the law, does his offense and the particular wording of the statute match?

Is it covered by the exact and the precise wording? And was the arrest and was the indictment precise and accurate?

One criminal the other day in California was turned loose because the wrong, the call for the arrest and he was caught with a tremendous crash of narcotics on his person.

The court who had made it out had failed to cross out A.M. when the grant was for an arrest at night and therefore he was turned loose.

The law of God gave us the basis for a reordering of society for a purpose under God. This is why all we have to do is to accept God's law as finding law.

And we are in a state of lead, post-millennial, in our perspective.

Are there any questions? Yes.

Yes, the statement and I for an Iatushra too is a statement that the punishment must fit the crime.

There must be a balance. In other words, restitution. There must be a commensurate thing.

Now, there have been commentators, including some pre-millennial ones. We'll try to say this was a fabric statement which called for knocking out the eye as someone who had, or knocking out the eye as someone who had blinded somebody else.

In fact, Merrill Under of Dallas, who is dispensational, actually makes such a statement in his Bible dictionary.

This is a shocking thing to me that someone who is a professing Christian who wrote the impalibility of the word would read scripture in such a sense.

Now, the interpreter's Bible, in its commentary, I believe, on Deuteronomy, plainly states that as such readings are in error.

So, here's a modernist commentator stating that this is the principle of restitution.

So, it's just a summary statement of the basic concept of restitution of justice.

How are we to understand Christ's statement in the sermon on the mouth with respect to an eye for an eye?

This is a very, very important point. Our Lord made it clear in the sermon on the mouth, first of all, that he had come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law.

And he will find, by checking some of the Greek lexicons, that the meaning of fulfill means to put it into force.

When, however, he goes on and criticizes the application of the law of justice, the personal relationships.

You see, here we're moving into another realm.

Here, husband and wife stand in terms of, say, restitution in their relationship to another. It's going to be a very good relationship.

In other words, you cannot, where you're dealing with very personal relationships, invoke the rather impersonal persons of justice that the criminal law requires.

Do you get the point there?

In other words, the personal relationship is something else.

And you cannot apply, where criminal law requires your dealing with members of your family.

There, you overlook things, you put up with things, you deal with preference and love.

Now, if the offense has become of a criminal variety, it's something else.

Yes.

The question is, with regard to the incident in John, where our Lord intervened, you might say, but actually was asked to render a statement when the women taken in adultery was brought before him.

Now, first, in this situation, what we have to realize is, first of all, the scribes in the Pharisee brought unto him a woman taken in adultery.

And when they had set her in the midst, they say, unto him, master, this woman was taken in adultery in the very act.

Now, Moses and the law commanded us that such should be stoned but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.

In other words, the whole situation was fragile. They were not interested in justice.

What they wanted Jesus to do was to say, the death penalty or no, not the death penalty.

At that time, the death penalty was no longer being used for adultery.

And so they wanted him to, since he was supposedly the champion of the law.

This is what it meant to preach the kingdom of law, you see, because the laws of the kingdom and the kingdom were inseparable.

All right, 730 deaths a week and make you a very unpopular before the entire nation.

Or if you say no death sentence, then we can make you look very bad and we can say, oh, so you claim to come, but we'll fill the law and proclaim the kingdom well.

You see, you have no regard for the law, but the law also specified that the judge must have clean hands.

She put it in modern terminology, but he could not be a guilty man.

Our dishonest man would take and bribe, so our Lord nailed them there.

He said, he that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her.

Now, this is an important point. In other words, they were the complaining witnesses.

They had seized her in the act.

So if Jesus was going to render the verdict, they as complaining witnesses had to cast the first stone for her execution.

So Jesus was not setting aside the death penalty, although he was refusing.

And in every case, he said, man, in another case who made me judge amongst you, he hadn't come to be a judge, but to be a teacher.

All right, and of course, the incarnate one, the sinner.

But let him who is without guilt among you cast a stone.

Well, of course, as fast, since the dawn for you at that time was treated very lightly and casually as it is today, they all strength the way.

What did he know about that? You see, have them convicted in their hearts, figuring, oh, somebody's told on me, or he has something on me.

And if I have sent to the death penalty, then I have to accept the death penalty for myself. So they turned tail and ran.

So you can't use this to say Jesus set aside the law at all.

He would then jump with her, not as a judge, because he wasn't a civil judge. He then jumped with a woman as her law and said, when she acknowledged him to be barred, and she said, he said neither do I contempt the devil and sin no more.

He gave her religious forgiveness. He didn't interfere with the civil affair. He didn't say now, I'm going to tell your husband not to divorce you.

Or I'm going to interfere in the disposition of this and say to the court, nothing should be done. He didn't enter into the civil aspect at all.

Religiously, he pronounced forgiveness on her knowing that her power had been converted. So you have to distinguish there between the two. Yes.

Under the law, you can take over a government to disarm and be followed by a lawful principle of existence.

Could you restate that?

When the government has been taken over a while today for a long several several times to the lawful of our own.

Yes. That after these days or eight, I think the total is as the open conduit, they were ordered to take the day away and get it back into another time.

Oh, yes, I understand your question. Yes, today we have seen the fulfillment of these various predictions about what would happen to the country.

The answer is not any kind of mob rule or violence. It is to begin to reapply the law of God ourselves in our respective domain.

To begin the recreation of a Christian community, which can again bring about a Christian law order, to begin as I spoke out the other day by the development of the significance of the time in its broad social function.

It was yesterday, I believe, I dealt with the importance of the time and all the things the time deals with, health welfare, education, medicine, all the basic social functions of the world were met by the time.

You see, as we begin to recreate society in terms of law order, then you can change the social order from within, which was precisely the way the early churches at pointed out yesterday did it.

Yes.

The post of many of these have been built and been brought in by a certain number of people.

Also, the post therein, if you have wanted for you, please write it all.

First of all, it does have a double sense of the kingdom. Yes, here and in the future.

It is the last time the exclusive view of the post millennium. I wish it were not.

But first of all, dispensational pre-millennialism has ruled out the law.

They've dropped it overboard, totally.

And the amulet perspective, because it doesn't see much future, except the tribulation and trouble, gradual decline, doesn't see too much point in and pressing the law.

Now, there are are millennials who believe strongly in the law.

One such person, I believe I noticed his book in the bookstore, is Reverend T. Robert Ingram, who does believe very strongly in the law, has done excellent work in the Houston area, in getting men in law, in the sheriff's department, and elsewhere to recognize how important the law of God is,

and how he must return to it. He is, however, amulennial.

Now, I feel there's a contradiction involved here, but it is possible for them, and I wish they would.

But you can see how the law, in escapeably, points to a post millennial perspective in that it envisioned the progressive conquest of the world by the law of God.

Yes.

I don't know what?

Oh, yes.

Yes. Yes. When our Lord, in verses 39, following, goes on to speak of what is called non-resistance.

He is dealing, as some commentaries have pointed out, and I believe, Robinson, in his description of this passage, does some telling analyses of the meaning of the words, tracing at least one of them back to the Persian.

That what is in mind here was the fact that, and there's considerable evidence for this.

In terms of the law of the day, the Roman Empire had the right to compel any citizen to surrender their clothing, the surrender their services,

to be used and to be beaten if they resisted, resisted.

In any crisis where a Roman official said, I'm drafting you for this service. Now, this was very bitterly resented by the Hebrews.

And what I learned was saying, very long with it. It may be evil in much of its application, but very long.

We have something comparable today. In most states, a chef can come and dear your car if he needs, and in most states he's not liable for any damages to it.

You pay for the damages.

For example, when I lived in Northeastern Nevada on the Indian reservation, more than once I had to serve on the fire line and a forest fire line.

What I always did was when word of the fire came was to volunteer.

Anyone who was foolish enough to refuse could be in prison, then some people were.

They could stop at a highway and just take every car that came along and stop it and catch every man on the shoulder and say, alright, get out there on the firing line.

Or on the fire line.

Now, on one occasion, I was on my way to a meeting and I was at a point where the issues were called.

I didn't wait for them to come around and say, you have to go. I went up and volunteered and I said, I'll go in the first truckload of men.

Well, the man who was in charge appreciated it because it meant he could get a truckload immediately with some of us who volunteered.

And he knew that, first of all, I wasn't dressed for the firing line. So I had the easiest job.

I asked him to go up, line of fire. I stayed back where the fire had already burnt down to make sure it didn't get away.

And so I just called for about 12 hours from mid-afternoon to the next morning.

And I really had the better of it.

But I said, I want or two people complain and say, I've got to go somewhere. I can't take the time.

It's important for me to be there. And they spent 12, 14, 15 hours right up there against the planes.

And it was dangerous as well as very difficult work. Now you see, this is a practical instance.

The law specified the Roman law that they could be drafted, they could be compelled.

At the time of our law, they were facing increasingly a revolutionary temperament in Israel and Judea.

And so, if any man comparably to go mild, go with him plain.

And by a large upgrade, also the evil of the cross, with the fact in mind that you're not dealing with godly men,

would sound practical counsel. You see, our weakness is we tend to feel,

because we have been influenced by faithness and that everything our Lord said represents an abstract universal.

And we forget that the law of God is concrete, it is particular, and the words of our Lord were always relevant to reality in terms of the wisdom of God.

Yes.

How did you get the first part of Roman 7 and how did we recognize the law in New Year's New Law?

Yes. I dealt with that several days ago, and I pointed out that Saint Paul deals with the law in several senses,

in some of the commentaries, deal with the various senses, various meanings.

He deals with the law when he speaks of us as dead to the law as a bill of indictment or death sentence.

The law is a death sentence against us in one aspect.

Now, once we are dead in Christ, the death sentence has been executed against us.

We are dead to the law in that sense. But then, having been regenerated, made alive in Christ, the law is now the righteousness of God unto us.

You see, the logic of that position, to take only the sense that the law is now dead to us, means that we are then free to do as we please.

Then rise in the attention to thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal.

This was the logic of Davenport, one of the revivalists in the grave awakening contemporary with Jonathan Edwards.

He said, we are dead to the law. Therefore, it's a sin to have anything to do with the law.

So, he applied it. The first thing he did was to get rid of his wife. She was old anyway.

And he took out with any number of young girls to prove that he was dead to the law.

We must say for him that at least he was an honest and a consistent theologian.

Because he carried his belief that we are dead to the law with logical conclusion.

But it certainly was not a godly conclusion. But he did have at least consistency.

But the people who say, well, we are dead to the law. Well, what are you doing with it? Are you living in terms of it?

Oh, yes, but I'm keeping it that I'm not keeping the law. You see, you end up in verbal gymnastics there.

What is the name of this word in here? It's a very nice poem.

Yes. Right. Because one of the promises of the covenant is that the law is now written on the tables of our hearts.

The law is no longer something alien to me that is an imposition so that I feel an enmity of the law.

The law, because it represents the righteousness of God. And Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity,

is now the new life in me and the Holy Spirit in dwells.

I therefore now find it my nature to keep the law. I delight in the law.

So I keep it now and the newness of spirit, not reluctantly, feeling if somebody isn't rushing or breaking.

This has been a Calcitan Foundation production produced by Grace Community School and Nice Scene Covenant Church.

If you enjoyed this lecture, be sure to visit calcitan.edu for more lectures and series by RJ Rushnery and the Calcitan Foundation.

Thank you.