Chapter # 7 Paragraph # 3 Study # 1
March 13, 2007
Lincolnton, N.C.


<296> Thesis: Clarifying the "Law" in terms of its function requires us to make a distinction between its spheres of function. Introduction: In all of our studies thus far, we have focused upon Paul's intense demand that believers stay as far away from being "subject to the Law" as we possibly can. In the course of that study, we have insisted over and over that we are "not under the Law" and that the "Law" was designed for revelation, not regulation. But, at the end of the day, everyone goes away from our Bible study knowing that they must submit to the law or face the consequences. If we get into our cars and go peeling out down the street and lose control of our car and crash it into someone's mailbox and then slide across their yard gouging out deep ruts in their lawn and end up crashing into their vehicle and coming to a sudden stop, we know that when the cops have come and taken down all of the facts, we are going to be subjected to the penalties of the law -- and all of the "I'm a Christian and Christ has paid for my sins" stuff will not have any sway in the view of the neighbor, the police, or the judge. So, we sit politely and listen to the teacher say, "Do not submit to the yoke of the Law", but we go out of here knowing that we had better be in submission to the law, or else. So, we live with an uneasy imbalance. We know Paul insisted that we refuse to put ourselves under the law, but we also know that if we do not have law, and enforcement of it, our entire culture will disintegrate around our ears. Every parent in this room knows that if he does not have the authority to put his kids under his 'law' and the authority to enforce that 'law', the kids will, for the most part, simply go their way, thumbing their noses at their parents. So, how do we maintain the thesis that we cannot afford to be "under the Law" while knowing full well that we have to have "Law" for any culture to survive?