Shabbat shalom and welcome to the fourth part on our series entitled The Kingdom Road and to the third part of our long look at the Old Romans Road. This has taken a lot longer than I had anticipated and I apologise for it being a little disjointed at times which is on account of my illness which on most days does not permit me to write more than a few paragraphs a day. I am hoping to have at least caught up today.

Lest we forget our objective, it is to clearly map out the 'Kingdom Road' but in order to do that properly it has been necessary to first examine a rival claim made by the proponents of the so-called 'Romans Road' which at best is a highly abridged form of it and at worst an unhelpful caricature of the bigger picture. Last time we summarised what Romans actually says about four of the five scriptures that are commonly used to mark out this Evangelical 'way' (we'll deal with the 5th today) and also took a little diversion to examine what the Olive Branch - a compilation of NCAY's early revelations - says on the subject in order to answer an accusation that we have doctrinally changed course. Those of you who have a hard copy of the Olive Branch are invited to read it through to get the full picture. Indeed, the Olive Branch, echoing Matthew 6:33 in which the Saviour commands, "seek first [Yahweh's] kingdom and His righteousness" (NIV), admonishes each one of us, in the context of seeking righteousness, to:

"Give thyself over wholly to the Kingdom, listening unto no voice that would take thee away from the GOLDEN WAY" (OB 237:10)

And then, the signpost leading to that Way with the same instruction on how to remain on it:

"Preach nothing but repentance unto the people, exhorting them to trust wholly in Christ their Saviour Who hath ransomed them from death and offered them life everlasting" (OB 237:12)

"For Elohim (God) so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have aeonian life" (John 3:16, NIV).

The word "believe" here in John 3:16 is a verb. It comes from, and is based upon, emunah (active faith) in Elohim (God). But Yah'shua (Jesus) didn't say to simply 'have faith' or say 'I believe' but to actually obey Him. Many times in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) the word 'believe' is used but it is a verb which denotes action, such as obeying what Messiah said rather than endorsing just a 'statement of faith'. James 2 indicates that faith is expressed by "works" which is exactly what the word 'believe' expresses. Romans 1:16-7 is a perfect example of this:

"For I am not ashamed of the Besorah (Gospel) of Messiah: for it is the power of Elohim (God) unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Judahite (Jew) first, and also to the Gentile (Greek). For therein is the righteousness of Elohim (God) revealed from emunah (faith) to emunah (faith): as it is written, The just[ified] shall live by emunah (faith[fulness])" (Rom.1:16-7, KJV).

Paul is indicating that belief, in its fullest expression, is equivalent to obedience. Yah'shua's (Jesus') own words in John 3 are also saying this as well. As we've seen already, the Apostle Paul was writing this letter to Roman belivers. The book of Acts, that so many skip to get to the 'Roman Road', is the origin of the messianic community (church), where the apostles preached what Yah'shua (Jesus) told them to preach in His final words in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and Luke 24. The Epistles are letters written for encouragement and spiritual growth for the born-again, Torah-obedient believer. Romans 10 is referencing the fact that the Judahites (Jews) were struggling with Yah'shua (Jesus) as their Messiah who had 'filled up' or 'brought to completion' the Torah (Law) of Moses by His death, burial, and resurrection. If you go back to the Book of Acts and read it slowly and carefully, you will find that the apostles preached exactly what Yah'shua (Jesus) said to preach - the New Birth which is two-fold - water and Ruach (Spirit) - by repentance, water baptism in Yah'shua's (Jesus') Name and the infilling of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit).

Let's now deal with the interesting expression, "works of the Law (Ma'aseh haTorah)" used seven times by Paul in the King James Version (KJV) [1]. I don't know if any of you were unable to resist your curiosity and decided to dip into the article I recommend to you last week [2] but I am assuming most of you did not so I am quickly going to summarise that material now. First, let's take one of those seven passages - the one from Romans - and see how it is translated as well as how it is interpreted:

"But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by Ma'aseh haTorah (the works of the law)" (Rom.9:31-32, KJV)

Popular preacher and conservative 5-point Calvinist, Baptist and KJV-user John MacArthur is typical in his interpretation, saying that the "law of righteousness" is "the righteousness earned by keeping the law" and explains that doing the "works of the law" means "doing everything the law prescribed" [2].

But is this what Paul either said or meant? We will look at this in two parts. First, let us see the way these verses were actually worded in the Aramaic:

"But Israel who ran after the Torah (Law) of righteousness, has not found the Torah of righteousness. And why? Becase they went after it, not by faith, but by the works of Torah (Law) (Ma'aseh haTorah)" (Rom.9:31-32, AENT).

Please remember two things here:

• 1. That Paul's emphasis is on national rather than personal salvation, justification, etc., as I explained in the first three parts of this sermons series, and about which I will say more in a moment; and

• 2. That the Hebrew word for "faith" - and this I keep on emphasising because it's so important - never refers to passive but active faith or trusting - in other words, the emunah (faith) that leads to action in Torah-obedience, in the same way that "hearing" (shemaia) never just means 'listening' but listening that leads to an active response. Always.

When MacArthur says that the Israelites tried to earn their righteousness, justification, or salvation, by observing Torah, he does a great disservice to the text and causes great confusion amongst Evangelicals, for there are two 'activites' being spoken of here:

• 1. "Not by faith" means not with the trust that leads to Torah-obedience, but rather
• 2. "By the works of Torah"

The translator of the Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) explains:

"When the Israelites followed Moshe (Moses) and were obedient to YHWH (Yahweh) by faith (emunah), they won their battles, but when they rebelled they lost and suffered great casualties. In our day, when Jews seek YHWH (Yahweh) by faith (emunah), they find Mashiyach (Messiah, Christ), but they stumble when they focus not on faith (emunah) but "works of Torah (Law)" according to relgious authorities and traditions. Mashiyach (Messiah) is the greatest stumbling stone to man's religions - but let's not pick on Jews only, because this applies equally to every other soul who regards their own religious traditions as more authoritative than YHWH and His Mashiach" [4]

This, brethren and sisters, is crucial, and we must not miss it, because the expression "works of the law" does NOT mean 'Torah-obedience' or observing the mitzvot (commandments)! It's referring to man-made commandments and laws which historically were those of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Torah-teachers (Scribes), the "tradition of the elders" (Mt.15:2; Mk.7:3,5). Thus when Paul asks the Galatians, "does He who supplies the Ruach (Spirit) to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith" (Gal.3:5, RSV), he is contrasting the teaching or "tradition of the elders" - the so-called 'Oral Law' (Talmud) - with "shemaia" (the hearing that leads to action) with "emunah" (the faith that leads to authentic Torah-obedience). This is not an attack on Torah-obedience or following the Mitzvot (Commandments) that Protestants traditionally make it out to be, confusing as they usually do the penalty of the Torah (Law) - which Messiah abolished on the cross - with the Torah (Law) itself (which He did not abolish but rather brought to completion)! The hearing, trusting-faith leading to action and obedience of the true believers leads to true salvation and justification.

How do we know this? Because of what we have learned about the meaning of this expression from the Dead Sea Scrolls [2]. Thus the "works of the law" that Yah'shua (Jesus) and Paul condemned were the human additions to Yahweh's Torah (Law) which made it a system of bondage and misery. Neither of them were condemning the keeping of Yahweh's mitzvot (commandments) or referring to obedience to Elohim's (God's) Law as "works of the law".

That is why there is no contradiction between Pauline 'Justification by Faith' (Rom.3:28; Gal.2:16; 3:24) and Jamesian 'Justification by Works' (Jas.2:21,24-25) because the works, which are Torah-based, flow out of active Faith. They are, as I tried to explain last time, like the two poles of a single globe. They do not contradict one another.

The matter of 'faith' and 'works' aside, the Romans Road approach distorts Paul's argument in his Letter in two ways:

• 1. First, it takes a large political narrative about Israel, pagan empire, and the future existence of the people of Elohim (God) and hacks it down to the dimensions of a personal narrative of salvation and life after death; and

• 2. Secondly, it takes a particular historical narrative and converts it into a universalised narrative that no longer has anything to do with the vicissitudes and accidents of history.

Last week I put the fifth paving-stone in (parentheses) and put it into a grey font because this is the official Evangelical Protestant 'reading' or understanding of Justification which we need to take a closer look at. As I have already pointed out, the Hebrew word for 'faith' - emunah - is not something passive - it isn't just 'believing', and indeed does not the apostle James remind us that Satan's demons already 'believe' in that sense in his critique of 'faith-only' justification - that's the spin they put on 'faith', the same one put on by lawless Christians:

"Show me your emunah (faith) without your works ('deeds' - NIV), and I will show you my emunah (faith) by my works ('what I do'- NIV). You believe that there is one Elohim (God). You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble!" (James 2:18-19, NKJV)

Demons know all about Elohim (God). They know how all the theology is supposed to work. They know that Yah'shua (Jesus) is the Messiah. They probably know more biblical theology than all of us put together which is why they are expert at twisting it. They know how to pass on their corruptions to deceived believers. They have refined their art for over 2,000 years and more. What they can't - and won't - do is inspire believers to do the works or deeds that perfect a man's justification or righteousness in Elohim's (God's) eyes, in the second sense - they don't wants us to have active, 'doing' emunah (faith). They want us to have a mere armchair belief system. They want our faith to be unmanifested and therefore dead.

Why? Because they know that without works, we will not grow in sanctification because the channel to imparted righteousness will become cut off, and that if we stop growing in sanctification there is a chance our faith will die and we will end up losing our salvation. Therefore the senior apostle James declared that "a man is justified by works (deeds), and not by emunah (faith) only" (James 2:24, NKJV) - please note the word "only". By deliberately including the adjective "monon" or "only" (or "alone" in some versions) he leaves no licence to the antinomians - the lawless believers - and the scripture-twisters whose heresies keep popping up right the way through the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament). And remember, please, as we saw in Part 2 how Luther deceptively added the German word "allein" meaning "alone" or "only" into Romans 3:28 ("a man is justified without deeds of the law through faith [alone]") where there was never any Greek or Aramaic word at all. Yet James does include it to make sure the doctrine of justification is not twisted by false teachers. Don't forget this!

What about 'imparted' righteousness leading to justification as opposed to 'imputed' righteousness leading to justification? I ask this because this is not something Calvinistic Christians understand well, if at all. According to John Wesley, the founder of the Methodists (with whom we share a number of beliefs about free will or Arminianism - he was against Calvinism), imparted righteousness is that gift of Elohim (God), by grace (undeserved loving kindness), given at the moment of the new birth which enables a talmid (disciple) to strive for holiness and sanctification. Wesley believed that imparted righteousness worked in tandem with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Messiah credited to the believer in the legal sense, enabling him to be justified - according to Wesley, imparted righteousness is what Elohim (God) does in Messiah by the power of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) after justification, working in the believer to enable and empower the process of sanctification and - in Wesleyan thought - Christian perfection. The principle lines of Scriptural support for this teaching come from Jeremiah 31:33-34 and 2 Corinthians 3:18.

"'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares Yahweh. 'I will put my Torah (Law) in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their Elohim (God), and they will be My people. No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know Yahweh,' because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares Yahweh. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more'" (Jer.31:33-34, NIV).

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Master, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Ruach (Spirit) of the Master" (2 Cor.3:18, NKJV).

The Methodists are not alone in maintaining a belief in this understanding of 'imparted righteousness'. Many Protestant preachers and theologians agree with him. By this means, they maintain, believers thus become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet.1:4) which is ever in conflict with the fallen Adamic nature. I'll not go into all the disagreements that Methodists and their allies in 'imputed righteousness' have with Calvinists as it is rather heavy and tedious. Personally I loathe this controversy but I take the time to mention this only because I believe Wesley was on the right track. What Wesley et al do not manage to incorporate into their teaching is the very clearly stated doctrine of 'justification by works' taught by the apostle James - Protestants just can't integrate this into their 'grace alone' theology. That's why Luther hated it so much. But let's give credit where credit is due. I'd give anything to be able to sit down and discuss this with Wesley knowing what we now know.

There really is only one solution to this apparent justification 'problem' that I have come across, that harmonises Paul and James, and that is the one offered by the Pauline scholar of our time, N.T.Wright [4]. In outline, this is what he says: 'the righteousness of Elohim (God)' and 'righteousness from Elohim (God)' have been confused and conflated in the past but are distinct concepts. He relates the courtroom metaphor, pointing out that there are three parties in the Hebrew court: two parts in disagreement and one judge (there is no 'Prosecuting Attorney'). The judge decides the outcome of the dispute between the parties, declaring one to be correct and the other incorrect. The one who is declared 'correct' in court is called 'righteous' in the matter that was judged. Thus:

• 1. The 'righteousness of Elohim (God)', referring to Yahweh's (the Judge's) faithfulness to the covenant relationship, can be neither imputed nor imparted to anybody but refers only to His rôle as judge; and

• 2. 'Righteousness from Elohim (God)' is roughly equivalent to 'vindication', meaning that Yahweh is pronouncing that particular party to be correct, vindicated, righteous, acquitted in their dispute with the other party.

The 'legal dispute' in question in New Testament theology is between those of emunah (faith) - i.e. those who trust in Yahweh's promises: in the covenant, in Messiah - and the 'wicked': everyone opposed to those of emunah (faith). Paul was positing, using legal jargon, that people of such emunah (faith) are vindicated when Messiah returns, being declared 'righteous' (or in other words, vindicated for their stance), which is exactly the meaning of the biblical term 'justified'. This means that we do not 'receive' the righteousness of Elohim (God) (or of Yah'shua/Jesus) as in the classical Evangelical vernacular, nor is it 'infused' as stated in the classical Roman Catholic vernacular either. (In my experience, the reality of believers' inner condition rarely matches what they claim theologically anyway). Our 'righteousness from Elohim (God)' means that we are found to be of the people of Elohim (God) and therefore of Israel (Messianic Israel, to be exact). Paul's argument is that it has always been so, but what has changed is that the Messiah, in Yah'shua (Jesus) of Nazareth, has now appeared, and is now the appointed King of Israel whose expanded and completed Torah is now the Constitution of Messianic Israel whose laws devolve upon all who claim to be His followers.

Let's go to another area of controversy, to Paul and his letter to the Corinthians:

"For our sake He (Yahweh) made Him (Yah'shua/Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of Elohim (God)" (2 Cor.5:21, ESV).

This passage has been traditionally interpreted to mean that the believer has, in some way, become righteous (by impartation or imputation), in exchange for Yah'shua's (Jesus') sinlessness. In fact, N.T.Wright and others say, Paul is speaking here of the apostles, and pointing out that in their rôle as apostles, their activity is effectively Elohim's (God's) righteousness (covenant faithfulness) in action. Let's see a traditional translation of this first (English Standard Version) followed by N.T.Wright's (better, in my view) rendition:

"We are ambassadors for Messiah (Christ), Elohim (God) making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Messiah, be reconciled to Elohim (God). For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of Elohim (God)" (2 Cor.5:20-21, ESV).

"So we are ambassadors, speaking on behalf of the Messiah, as though Elohim (God) were making His appeal through us. We implore people on the Messiah's behalf to be reconciled to Elohim (God). The Messiah did not know sin, but Elohim (God) made Him to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might embody Elohim's (God's) faithfulness to the covenant" (2 Cor.5:20-21, KNT).

I must give a word of explanation for N.T.Wright's choice of words that will illustrate the extreme importance of understanding the evolution of language. Why has the ESV, along with traditional renderings, chosen "so that we might become the righteousness of Elohim (God)" whereas N.T.Wright has chosen "so that in Him we might embody Elohim's (God's) faithfulness to the covenant"? Let me allow N.T.Wright to explain it himself:

"The English word 'righteousness' has been a technical term in theology for many years, and has often be used to translate the Greek dikaiosyne. But for many English speakers today it means self-righteousness: it has become a proud 'churchy' sort of word. So what are the alternatives? We simply haven't got them. We want a word that can pack 'justice', 'covenant faithfulness', and 'right standing or relationship' into all the same [ship's] hold, and can set off, with this cargo safely on board, to sail around the world. There isn't such a word. So I have done my best to bring out the different flavour which dikaoisyne seem to carry in this or that passage" [5].

Do you see now why context is everything? Why is it that Christians and Messianics have missed the obvious which is even apparent in our English use of a word like 'justification' which is a legal term - the proof, vindication or exculpation shown to be free of guilt or blame by virtue, in the Messianic case, of the Judge and author of Torah - Yah'shua (Jesus) - taking upon Himself the consequences of our crimes (sins). It does not mean, as Evangelicals and others erroneously teach, that the Judge has abolished the Law (Torah) - it means, quite simply, that He has taken responsibility for the payment of the penalty for breaking the Torah (Law) upon Himself. We cannot repeat this often enough lest we be accused of being legalists, which we are not.

How, then, are we justified by works as James says? By walking according to the Torah (Law), not against it! That is, by submitting to the Law-Giver (Yah'shua/Jesus) by being obedient to His Torah (Law), just like Abraham was as we said near the beginning of this teaching. Are not "those who believe [the] children of Abraham" (Gal.3:7, NIV)? Thus Paul explained to the Ephesians:

"Therefore, just as the Messianic Community (Church) is subject to Messiah (our Judge and Law-Giver), so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (Eph.5:24, NKJV).

If 'Justification by Works' is the 'wife' (like Sarah of old) and 'justification by faith' the husband (like Abraham of old) then, if the two are rightly related, as discussed earlier, will not the works be submitted to faith, and will not all in the end be of faith? (1 Pet.3:1-7) Such is the endlessly repeated divine tavnith (pattern) in Scripture as also seen in the proper relationship of wives to huisbands [6]. I think we have difficulty in understanding this these days because this is a particularly rebellious generation that hates authority and submission. It is a generation of spoiled brats obsessed with self-entitlement, wanting handouts but no rules or responsibility. So also is the doctrine of justification by faith stripped of the perfecting element of works that the apostle James demands.

So what is the shalom or peace that Paul speaks of in Romans 5:1? It is the relief and security one feels when a court of law acquits you of a crime and declares you no longer guilty because one is innocent. In this case, though, it is the Heavenly Court with Yah'shua (Jesus) as Judge, not because we aren't guilty but because we are and because the Judge Himself has taken the punishment upon Himself conditional upon our repentance, submission to Him, and continued trusting. Our faith - our emunah (faith) - in His Davar (Word) - for those of us who live after the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension - that says this is what the Judge has done for us on the Cross and is what enables the incredible and almost unbelievable decision of the court to be applied to us - that we are no longer guilty because the Judge has made an atonement for us which we have been eagerly willing to embrace on the terms of trust and future Torah-obedience, much as debtors could be freed from Debtors' Prison in the old days if someone else paid off the debt.

We are reminded at once of the case of the woman caught in adultery. She was guilty of the crime with which she had been charged and deserved the death-penalty. She symbolically represents us as willful and unrepentant sinners. Two things happen in this amazing narrative that are germaine to this whole discussion: what it is the Judge does for her and what she, in her turn, must do for the Judge:

• 1. >"Neither do I condemn you" (Jn.8:11a) - Justified by Faith in the King's and Judge's power to forgive and restore life; and
• 2. "Go now and leave your life of sin" (Jn.8:11b, NIV) - Justified by Works which is ceasing to sin or living the Kingdom or Torah way of life mandated by the Judge and King.

Notice how the latter follows on from the former. The latter does not confer chayim (life) to the the sinner now 'saved' but ensures that that condition of absolution and chayim (life) is maintained. What do you suppose would have happened to her had she returned to a life of adultery and sinning? What would such disobedience and rebellion have resulted in? You know the answer. Her repentance would not have been real, just remorse at having been caught. Justification by Works does not allow her to return to sinning which is why Yah'shua (Jesus) warns her, a warning which would have had no meaning in an imaginary Calvinist context wherein she could sin as much as she wanted to and still be justified by her initial faith alone - 'once saved, always saved'. The Calvinist would tell her that there would be consequences for repeated adultery in this life only but in the end she would be alright even if she continued in whoredom, which rather makes a mockery of adultery being decreed a capital offense by Yahweh the Father and Law-Giver of all. It matters both sides of the veil of mortality. Justification by works ensures you don't deceive yourself into looking for loopholes. Paul explicitly warns against any attempt to exploit grace because such exploitation is imaginary - you cannot, in reality, do so.

If you are still not sure about this matter, you have only to turn to the parable of the debtor related by the Master for a clear answer to teach the sobering emet (truth) that I am trying to get over to Protestants:

"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured ('scourged' - AENT), until he should pay back all he owed.

"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart" (Matt 18:23-35, NIV).

The debtor, having been forgiven for his debts by his Master, refused to act the Messianic way - to live according to the Messianic Torah lifestyle. Therefore what happened? Not only was his debt restored to him but he was thrown into debtor's prison where two things happened:

• 1. He had to remain there until he could pay off his own debt; and
• 2. He was tortured or scourged to make sure he did so.

Many rightly see this also as a picture of what happens to the wicked in hell. If we refuse the Saviour's forgiveness and atonement for our undoubted debt occasioned by sin or Torah-violation, then we shall not only be expected to pay the debt off (which is impossible) but we shall be "scourged" or "tortured" to make sure we do. Now you don't compel someone to settle an account unless he is able to, which is the apparent contradiction here which finite man is unable to resolve. Those who believe in eternal punishment mean that because the debt cannot be paid that the torture goes on forever. Those, like ourselves, who believe that it is both impossible to pay off a sin-debt and that it can and will be paid on day in the distant future at the end of some really long aeon of time, conclude that there is one further act of grace which is extended to the wicked after they have realised their folly, pride and wickedness, that we call the Cosmic Jubilee. Then there are the annihilationists who 'solve' the problem (as they suppose) by executing the wretch supposedly to put him out of his misery, a violation of a tavnith (pattern) in the parable. But we don't have time to go into issues about universalism today, interesting though they are.

I hope that this serves as a salient reminder that in interpreting the apostles we must always go back to the Master's own teachings. Theology frequently gets done badly when we put human teachers above the Teacher for His Davar (Word), which is itself only to be understood in a matrix of Torah, comes directly from the Father, as He Himself attested (e.g. Jn.15:15). Remember what I taught you previously in Part 2 about scriptural hierarchies - Messiah interprets the apostles, and the senior apostles interpret the junior apostles, not vice versa.

In relating such parables Yah'shua (Jesus) forces us to deal with the questions of Justice and Mercy in our own, personal minds and hearts. It forces us to examine the Road we are walking and whether we are rightly related. The way we settle the matter is supposed to be a self-revelation on the condition of our own souls. While Yah'shua (Jesus) has these two in proper relationship, we don't as a rule. Indeed, I would suggest, we cannot be properly endowed leaders and rulers until we have done so without doing spiritual harm to those who look up to us. And as I hope some of you will have started grasping, there is a very clear relationship and divine order between Mercy and Justice, and between Faith and Works. The Kingdom Road may be narrow but it is as straight as a ruler and the paving stones are perfectly aligned.

We will continue with subject for at least one more week, Yah willing. May you all have a blessed week in communion with our Master is my prayer in Yah'shua's (Jesus') Name. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] Romans 9:32; Galatians 2:16 (3 times); 3:2,5,10.
[2] William F. Dankenbring, Just What are the 'Works of the Law'?
[3] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, Tennessee: 2005), p.1539
[4] Andrew Gabriel Roth, Aramaic English New Testament (Netzari Press LLC, USA: 2012), p.480, footnote #55
[5] N.T.Wright, The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation (Harper One, NY: 2011), p.xiii
[6] "You are not responsible for how your husband plays his role, but you are responsible for how well you play your role. You are to show the world the relationship of the church of Christ, and your part is to make the church look best you can. It is the husband's part to make Christ look as good to the world as he can by playing the part of Christ. You say, "What if he doesn't try very hard? What if he messes up? What if he gives me a tough time? You mean I still have to play my role?" Yes. The Holy Spirit says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ. so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." She says, "In every thing?" "Yes, every thing." I made a mistake as a young pastor that I corrected later. I told a lady, when her husband told her not to go to church, "You just tell him you are going to church anyway. You are going to live for God." I gave her unscriptural advice. You are to be to your husband what the church is to Christ-submissive, obedient. It is like buttoning up a shirt-if you get one button right, you get the rest right. If you get your role right and keep it right, no matter how much pressure comes-and you can believe there is going to be pressure--it will work out right. A preacher once said, "Do good and it will be good." Did you know the whole life is pressure? You are like a vessel on a potter's wheel. God is forming your life, and He makes you form the pressures that come to your life. When you say, "I do," and the curtain goes up, it is like getting inside a pressure cooker... Submission is a right attitude, recognizing that the husband is the head. That doesn't mean the wife can't make suggestions--that she can't tell him what she wants. But the husband is to lead the home, and he is make the final decision. Someone says, "Now, wait a minute. I have said, 'I do,' The drama is on. I know my role. Now, what is my husband's role?" Well, if he were here, I would tell him. I might say that his script is a little longer than yours, a little more detailed. But there is no need to talk about him; he is not here. Your role is to be submissive. Look at Titus 2. Your role is to love your husband. Your role is to be discrete, chaste, keepers at home. Did you know a woman's home is her career? It should be... I must confess I have not been as much like Christ as I wanted to be. I must confess I haven't tried very hard at times. It is easy to forget your role. When your husband asks you to do something, it is easy to say, "Do it yourself. I am not your slave." Remember, you are not playing the role of the church when you do that" (Dr.Curtis Hutson, The Woman's Role, ch.3)

Acknowledgements