1620 Righteousified Transcript

7/31/2019 1620 Righteousified Transcript

1/21


2/21

Copyright 2009, Pastor Melissa Scott. All rights reserved in perpetuity.

Unauthorized duplication or publication of these materials, in whole or in part, is unlawful and expressly prohibited by the

owner of the copyright. Offenders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

So I'm taking you into Galatians 2:16.

Let me start off by going away from the scriptures for a minute, a

conditioned mindset that psychologists might use. The idea would

be, Johnny goes to school or Mary goes to school. Johnny, we'lluse Johnny as the example. And Johnny is told by his mother,

"Johnny, be good. Do good. Behave yourself." There's a set of

conditions not related to Christianity, which are the moral and

ethical codes of conduct that somehow get transported into

Christianity by the same means. Because somebody has a I tried

to explain this to somebody else this week somebody has a

conditioned mindset for example, as you were growing up in thehome a certain food that your mom did not make for you.

Now we'll use the example mom did not make anything with pork,

not for any legal reasons or anything. She just, she didn't like pork

so she never made pork. This is fictitious by the way. I'm giving

you an example. So you as a child did not consume pork. Now

you're at the age where you can go out and you can eat. The first

thing you'll probably do is begin to eat a lot of pork. It's the natureof how we are. We have a strange bent in our nature.

But eventually, later on, by that conditioned mindset that we

didn't eat pork as a child, and now we're eating pork now, there

will develop in the being of the person a conscious, a guilty

conscious of consuming something that really there's no reason to

not consume it except for the years of conditioning that make that

mindset so. What I'm trying to say is that is imported toChristianity and to our belief system of the things we are

supposedly doing, saying, acting etcetera, which have, there's no

spirituality in those arenas.


3/21




We can say we ought to not do something, as has been said here

by Dr. Scott, a universal sense of oughtness. But that does not

make it a part of Christianity. It makes it part of our being not, not

an importation into Christianity. Now you go outside in the

church world and every single evangelist, every single

denomination, for the most part, I believe without exception

hopefully, will say, "You're saved by faith, but... You're saved by

faith, but..." because that's starting point. We all, we can all read

the scripture. It says, "Christ is formed in your heart by faith."

But. And that's been the problem. The 'but' has been the problem.

So the church world says for example, "Come down to the altar." Iwish they would, by the way, I wish they would describe what

happens at the altar. "Come down to the altar where you feel

good," the church world, "and after you've given your life to Jesus

Christ, this is me playing the evangelist outside in the world. I'm

not speaking as my beliefs right now. I hope some of you know

that. "And after that moment occurs, we, as the church world,

we're not concerned with what you were like when you came down

to the altar. We say all are welcomed here in this place. Now

"After that when you show up in the church, you must look like a

Christian. You must look like a Christian and act like a Christian."

Well okay.

The starting point of that is how come no one ever uses-they look

like and act like, if there could be such a thing-how come we never

get the example, if you're going to look and act like a Christian,how come you're not going and turning over the tables of the

money changers, because that's what Christ did. And we're

Christians, we're little-do you understand?


4/21




It's the insanity that's been branded on the church. And some who

don't understand the freedom we have in Christ is then very

clearly laid out by Paul in many different places. So if you

understand what I just said, therein lies the truth of Galatians.

When Paul begins to speak and he begins to rebuke Peter, the

concept was full of hypocrisy of what Peter had done, the offence

that he had done. Let's read this then we'll get the context and I'll

come back.

Starting at 2:11. We're going to go to 2:11 to 2:16. Galatians 2:11,

"But when Peter wascome to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,

because he was to be blamed." This will need to be correctedeventually, but let's just leave it as it is for right now. "For before

that certain came from James he did eat with Gentiles"-before

those folks that came from the James gang Peter was eating with

the Gentiles.

With the Gentiles, they have no kosher laws, they have no hand

washing laws, they have no-there's; it's just what it is-"but when

they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them

which were of the circumcision," fearing the Jews, fearing those

that came who were going to enforce the Law, "What do you mean

you didn't wash your hands and recite the prayer before you ate?

What do you mean you sat down with the Gentiles, those unclean,

dirty rascals, what do mean? You're eating what kind of food and

you drank what kind of beverage? "He feared those which were of

the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise withhim; insomuch as Barnabas"-faithful Barnabas that was a partner

of Paul. In that 1st verse of chapter 2 we read that-"Barnabas also

was carried away with their"-hypocrisy, it says "dissimulation,"

hypocrisy. He was carried away with their hypocrisy.


5/21




Now listen; Peter received that revelation, "Eat, there's nothing

unclean." And then he goes and reverts back to type. And this is a

matter I will touch on at another time because it bears

mentioning.

How is it we separate the Bible here and say, "Well, that happened

back there," but we don't separate what the brethren do now in

these days? Now I count it wonderful and God has such a great

sense of humor that I would be afforded to see some of the same

shenanigans because it only confirms the same problem we're

dealing with in the scriptures.

People who don't understand God said you can eat this. God saidthere's nothing unclean; now all things in moderation. This isn't

the license. We can go back to Romans 6; this isn't the license to

just say, "If grace abounds then just sin all the more and

Hallelujah." It's not what's being said. Listen carefully. So

Barnabas is also carried away with their hypocrisy. Paul says, "but

when I saw that they walked not uprightly"-by the way, it takes

three words in the English, "walk not uprightly" to make one wordin the Greek, from the word where we get "orthopedics" "straight-

walking" but not like we think, "Well I've got to walk worthy now."

Just simply that they were not going in the way that they had been

taught-"according the to truth of the gospel, I said unit Peter

before them all, If thou, being a Jew"-Peter, you-"being a Jew, live

after the manner of Gentiles, and not as the Jews, as do the Jews,

why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

The Gentiles had no compass point with regard to the Law, with

kosher law, with food being consumed or not consumed. They had

no frame of reference. "We who are Jews by nature" and not


6/21




sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the

works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have

believed in Jesus Christ" - I'm reading just King James right now-

"that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the

works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be

justified."

He's telling Peter, "We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of

the Gentiles," the most misunderstood passage as to say those

who are Gentiles, the ethnic people, not just those that are not

circumcised, that don't have the Torah, that don't have any Law

concept are not cognizant of breaking any laws or keeping anylaws when it comes to the Laws of God because there are none for

them.

The Law was given and these people of Paul's culture adhered to

it. Now take the Bible for a minute and make this little incident

stick to today. How many times have you been somewhere where

you've heard people say, you know, "Well that behavior offends

me because a Christian woman or man ought to not do thus-and-so"? Show me, first of all show me where I'm told or instructed.

And I tell you it always comes from the same place, James and

Proverbs. I want you to listen to me and I've said this before and I

need to just keep repeating this until enough people get this in

their head. Jesus' first miracle was not turning the water to orange

juice. It was not turning it to grape juice. It was wine. Now if Jesus

was against wine and against the consumption of wine, why wouldHis first miracle be that? Now I'm not saying that Jesus was like

kicking back and knocking them back like, "Oh, yeah. Party on

folks." What I'm saying is it's absolutely preposterous.


7/21




If it was something that displeased God-it's a wine miracle we're

talking about-if it was something that displeased God, very easily

He could have said, "I'm not going to turn that water into wine.

I'm going to turn it into tomato juice," or whatever's available in

the day, whatever it is. So the concept I'm saying is we stamp

those things on the church and because people read the English

language and don't go back to the Greek, we end up with doctrines

being stamped on the church coming out of two frames of

reference.

The real issue is understanding rightly, not what we think. And if

you have come with baggage I ask you take the time, this is why Isay you would do well to study the Bible with us, those that are

new, because I'm not bringing in ideas that I think work or a

grade. I'm only concerned with what the scripture says and what it

instructs me. So if I want to know what the will of God is and how

to please God, if there's anything ambiguous to it, it's right here in

black and white. I'm not having to go and fabricate it for you.

So the text, the text as I read, Galatians 2:16. Let's start off withfirst things first. The insufficiency of the English language to

convey concepts that were not intrinsic to English leaving us with

a lack in language to say something. That's why, those of you who

were here when Dr. Scott taught, he made up words because he

understood and I understand this, that when you come to the

place where the English language did not provide, in fact had to

import words, which is the case for the most part, you end up withdisastrous ideas that then become solidified with the translators

that then become part of our language that don't have any place.

So I want to start on your handout to circle all of these words. If

you can't read them, some of you new folks, some of the old timers


8/21




can, but if you can't read it don't worry. I'm only concerned with

what reads in your King James, we've circled the Greek words for

what reads in your King James, "justified," "justified," and

"justified." Three times.

Now do this one little thing with me. If you read down at the very

bottom of your handout, I said Galatians 2:16, the dike words.

These are dikaio, di-, di-, dikaio. I want to make it legible for

English folks but all of these words dikaio are being translated

"justified" and if you will read the first guy over here, this first one

is a verb. The second one is a verb. And the third one is a verb.

So I write down on the bottom of your paper Galatians 2:21 in theGreek has a derivative of this word dikaio except it's a noun, not a

verb. So they translate it "righteousness" I believe; is what the

translation should read, "righteousness." Three-that's right,

"righteousness." Same word, except here verb, verb, verb. The

English will translate it as "justify," "justify," "justified,"

"justified." Okay. And likewise, "justified".

The problem is because English does not have a verb for

righteous, that's the right translation. It should have been

"righteous." And if we were going to add a word, which has been

made up here, we had the word coined on this platform,

"righteousified" or "righteousfied" to make it a verb. The problem-

the beginning of understanding any Bible exegesis is that the

scripture was not given to us in English, and the English language

falls terribly short in its lack of preciseness, or precision,conveying exact concepts from the Greek.

So the verb, each time it appears, "justified" in your King James,

has the sense from the English word, justified, as a judicial word.


9/21




Bear with me for a minute Justified. A review for some, first

time for others. John Ayto's Dictionary of Word Origins, looking

up the word "just". Just. Latin jus, j- j-u-s. That's the Latin stem

right there, jus. "Originated in the terminology of religious cults,

perhaps, to begin with, signifying something like sacred formula.

By classical times, however, it denoted right, a particularly legal

right or law. It has provided English with a number of words

connected with rightness in general and the process of law." And

they go on to talk about the derivatives of justice, justis, or the

combination of words like judicial, which is law, and part of the

word decir, to speak law. Judicial: that's where we get our words.

But it still doesn't tell me what happens.

This stem, the, I'll write over here, the ending justify and justified.

The endings in English, they had to be imported into our

language. They weren't part of our language. Now I took out of the

dictionary, because I know no message is complete without

lugging out tons of dictionaries, so I just photocopied the page out

of Oxford's Dictionary. -fy, f-y, the suffix. "The older English verbsthat end in that are adoptions of French verbs." Do you hear what

I'm saying? Because English is not the language of the Bible; it's

not a Biblical language.

So we end up with having to try and convey something, and we

lose the real essence of what's meant. You think about how we use

the word "judicial," "justice," "justification," just in the secular

sense. It is the context that conjures up a courtroom, a judge, ajury. It has a forensic context to it. Versus, if we talk about the

word "righteous" we get back to the stem of the word "right,"

which goes down awhole different path, and you can see that the

two words could never meet in the middle.


10/21




But yet we use one word, the word for "justice," "justification,"

"justified" in place of the other, and then if youfollow the

scriptures, you say, "Well, why did the translators make this crazy

switch of words?" Because the English language didn't have a verb

"to righteousify" to, the act of righteousing, or being made

righteous; there's no verb for it. So you end up with, okay, well,

because we don't have that word, we'll use that one because we

have a verb for. So it becomes justify.

Now let me ask you a question; would you like to have justice

imputed to you, hammer comes down, or would you like to have

God's rightness, His righteousness, be imputed to you? Now I amgoing to speak for me. Personally, the thought of judge-have my

heavenly Father-He will, I'll stand before the judgment seat. But

as it stands now for my faith, the only people who have seemingly

acquired the mindset to judge are the brethren that sit and go,

"Well, she doesn't do that. And she, if she was a real Christian

she'd be doing this." So I don't want the judicial side of that. Not

from the brethren, nor from God. But I want His rightness

imputed to me. I will not get anywhere to close to where what I'd

like to convey because this is a concept that has left many people

saying, "Well, don't bother me with it. Justify, righteousness,

same thing, right?"

Well, when we get to heaven's gate together and we're standing

side by side, we'll ask that question. But for my faith, I'd like to

have His righteousness imputed to me, not His judgment. Doesthat make sense to you? (Yes, ma'am.) why we have this f-y suffix-

I'm going to read this to you-for example, if we had words that we

were going to say, "simplify" or "electrify". Putting those verbs in

motion. And again, it says here, borrowed from the French.


11/21




We have the French is fier. That's the ending from the French.

Now, I know you're going to love this and I'm certainly not going

to let an opportunity pass to just bore you with French. But I need

to do this to show you how even in a language such as French,stuff

happens. Sachant que l'homme-"knowing that man, the man"-

l'homme n'est pas justifie-"is not justified." Here's your -fie

ending, all right? We just borrowed it and imported it into the

English language.

Think of this. When the pleadings were going on in England, they

were going on in Latin and French. It was the law, the pleadings

that allowed those judicial hearings to be held in English, wherepeople could actually understand what was being said. I wouldn't

want to be in a courtroom with a foreign tongue being meted out

as the punishment, not knowing what they're saying. Smile, you

sit there and smile and go, "Oh, that's wonderful." Yeah, you've

just been sentenced to death. I'll get to that. Oh, I have a good

thing to read you, too, about that. You'll love that. I've got a lot of

things to tell you.

So knowing, sachant que l'homme n'est pas justifie par les

oeuvres-"by the works"-de la loi-"of the law"-mais par la foi. You

know why the French is-I put this up here for a reason. La loi is

"the law". La foi is "the faith". I wouldn't want to be, and I mean

this by no offense to French folks, but I would not want to have

my faith be that close to the law; just one letter. See that? F-o-I is

faith and l-o-i is law. Yikes! Somebody get me out of here. Learnanother language, guys. "Knowing"-sachant que l'homme n'est

pas justifie par les oeuvres de la loi-"that man is not justified,"

using the same translation, just, and the ending, "by the works of

the law, but by the faith in Christ."


12/21




We're going to make some corrections here, too. "In"-en Christ

Jesus nous aussi-"we also"-nous avons-"we have"-cru-"believe

in"-en Christ Jesus, afin-"at the end"-d'etre justifies-there it is

again-"of being justified"-par la foi-"the faith"-en Christ, la foi en

Christ-"the faith in Christ"-again, bad translation-et non-"and

not"-par les oeuvres de la loi-"not by works of the law"-parce que

nul-"because no, nada, nothing"-nul sera justifie-"nothing will be

justified by the works of the law."

Now let me tell you what happened. Indulge me.

This 1605 French Geneva Bible, they do something really neat.

Now I'm going to try and do it by French and then I'll go back tothe Greek to show you. Sachant que l'homme n'est poie"-not at

all"-justifie-"justified"-par les oeuvres de la loi, mais-mais. They

add a word in here that makes it all worthwhile. Seule- seulement.

Seulement-"only." The word added in changes the context of the

whole sentence. Now, you say-I'll come back to this for a minute.

Bear with me.

Because of improper translation, you say, "How did all these

people go so wrong, then? Because if it's right there in Greek and

some of the most famous scholars read Greek, how did we go

wrong with this?" And I'll show you why. Eidotes-let me get my

piece of paper-"that having known-we, having known-we, having

known"-follow along with me-hoti-"that"-oun-"not, not." And

we're going do this right now right.

This no longer has a judicial, forensic meaning, although I will at

another message I will show you why it's important to trace the

word back. Yes, we know dike in the mythological realm, the

daughter of Zeus, the enforcer of justice, the daughter of Zeus and


13/21




Themas, sitting and accusing and pointing out who needs to have

justice meted out, but the word comes from that mythological

universe down into the stream of time and metamorphosizes

itself. The use of it gets changed and it no longer will bring the

connotation that even we, some of us have thought that it had. So,

"we, having known," the knowledge of something, not gnosis;

that's the other word in Greek.

There are many words in Greek for knowledge. This one conveys

the idea of something perceived, something learned. "We having

known that not he is being"-and I've put on my translation "being

made righteousified." "Being made right," but put it in a verbbecause it is a verb. And I want you to-this is where grammar is so

important. Some of you who are not interested, I pray the Spirit

will quicken your heart to go, "I want to know. I want to learn. I

don't understand it right now."

Well, keep pressing close to what I'm saying because once you see

this, it's so staggering it makes everything perfectly clear and you

wonder how anybody could debate this. Dikaioutai is a verb,indicative; you can check this out when you go home on your

piece of paper that explains grammar. But indicative is a mood of

factual statement. It's in the present, so it's continuous, but here's

the main thing. I've underlined that it's passive. It's in the passive

voice in the Greek. Passive. In fact, it's passive here, too. And in

here it's passive.

Now I have to explain the passive for this to even hit home forsome folks that have not done grammar here. In the Greek you

have three voices. You've got active, middle, and passive. Active:

I'm doing. I'm doing something. The subject is doing something.

I'm actively doing it. I used the example on here, I think, "The


14/21




Pastor delivers God's Word." The active delivery, I am actively

doing something to deliver the Word to you. Actively. In the

middle voice it's the same as active, except I find myself doing the

action for something that's going to come back to me. In the

active, in the Greek in the active, the action that I'm doing, there's

a purpose that eventually it will come back to me.

We use that famous picture out of Ephesians: He chose out from

among others He didn't choose, for Himself-God. Passive:

Somebody opened up these lights here. I'm just standing under

them; I did nothing. The light shines on me and illuminates me,

but I did nothing. I personally did nothing but stand still and thelight is shining on me. Passive. Are we clear? (Yes, ma'am.) Okay.

This is why grammar is important.

These words being wrongly translated "justified" in the English,

which should be-let's just do it. Let's just say these words here,

we're going to make up our word and we're going to call it, we'll

call it "righteousified," as it's been said here, rightly so. We're

making up a word, for those folk at home that go, "Well, that's not

even a real word." We know that.

That's why I've labored all this time to tell you there's no word

that exists, proper. Righteousified. But it's passive. So, "We have

known, knowing, we, having known that not a man"-anthropos-"a

man"-it's singular, therefore I added the article-"a man not

righteousfied" and it's passive. So even if you wanted to do works

and you thought your works might add up to something that

would bring you righteousness, this verb, every time it appears in

this sentence, is passive.


15/21




It means that there's nothing that you can do except the activity of

Faith in God, Jesus Christ and the efficacy of what He did.

Faithing in that act brings you into a right standing, a right

relationship. The passive tells me that even if I thought, "Well,

isn't there something I can do?" it means even on the thought of

what's being imputed to me for my faith, like a sphere of grace I

stand and He imputes it to me.

And the concept of justified in the garbage can. Passively a

recipient. So, "We, having known a man not righteousfied"-ex

ergon nomou. All of these things need to be clarified. All of them;

there's not a single thing in here that we can just say, "Oh, take itfor what it's worth and move on." Here "out of" this little word

right here looks, looks like this little word except, because there's

a vowel in front of it-I know, we have grammar lessons going on

here-except there's a vowel in front of it, it changes the way it

looks, but it still means the same thing. So, "out of, out of, out of

works"-"works," genitive-"of law"-there's no definite article, just

"of law." And this is why it got so messed up.

Some translators, when they read this, ean me, they read it and

translated it, "except" really saying, "if only." In other words-listen

carefully because this is not what I'm teaching-but some have

translated this so poorly that they say, "We, having known a man

is"-and they would use "justified;" I'm saying "righteousified" or

"righteousfied"-"not out of the works of law." This is with an

acceptive absolute force in the negative, but some have translatedto say, "unless-you could be made right by the works of the law,

but unless da da duh."


16/21




This, as an acceptive force, could be translated by those who don't

have the full perspective of grammar to say, "Well, we know that

in essence it takes this plus that." No! Absolutely not!

In fact, this little word here is a contraction particle of this andthis put together and the negative absolute force backwards, "no,

not, absolutely not." But, so "except for," and I put this here,

"except, but, only, by negative force, only through, through faith,

through faith, through faith of Jesus"-genitive, this tells you it's

genitive-"of Jesus Christ." Let me stop there.

"We know a man is not, is not made right, righteousfied"-it is the

rightness concept: a right relationship, a right standing, viewed asright for His Son taking my place on the cross-"by the works of the

law, but only by the faith"-and what do they do?-"by the faith in."

That's what a lot of these translators ave done. Some of them, at

least here in the King James it says, "by the faith of," which is true

and correct. But some of the Latin translations say, "in Christ."

Now you say, "Well, what's the big deal between 'in' and 'out of'?"

This is a lesson you need to relisten to and you need to repeat it in

your mind because maybe at some point it'll register with some

people that there's only one door. And it doesn't start with me

going into something as a concept, it starts at what flows out of

Christ's amen-ness, that when the Father gave the promise to

the Son and said He would raise Him up, His amenness to go to

the cross, that amenness to say God will make good on what He

said-"faith of Jesus Christ."

So the starting point is not, sorry, it's not my faith in Christ. We'll

get-that will be revealed here later. The starting point here is

"through faith"-I'm going to put "the" in brackets. It does not exist


17/21




in the translation. It doesn't even exist here. I'm putting it in here

to be able to read it to you. We're going to scratch it out

afterwards. So, "through the faith, through faith of Jesus Christ"-

His faith. Jesus Christ's faith. That's the beginning point. "And

we"-kai hemeis-"we." "And we," or "also" or "even we"-here we go.

Eis-look at your grammar, your piece of paper I gave you that has

grammar. Director, do you have one of these? Do they have one of

these? You do? Good. I'm going to draw on it. So you take a

picture. Eis, that word right there, I just circled for you on the

board - eis.

This is what happens. It's in the accusative, so its motion-this is soimportant, folks, there's not a more basic lesson for

understanding why we do what we do than this. Eis, pronounced

like the English word "ice" is in the accusative, moving in this

direction, towards the box. We drew the box as a diagram to give

you some concept that these accusative, dative, and genitive in the

Greek, they create motion. They either show motion or lack of

motion.

Now the accusative, I have a little mnemonic for you, which is,

you're to blame. It's your fault. I'm accusing you. See? I point the

finger at you. He thought he was actually to blame for a minute;

he got uncomfortable. But I'm accusing you. I'm pointing the

finger towards you.

These are little helps to remember in the grammar, it's pointing

towards, towards the source, but it's not emanating from, whichwould be dative or out of, which would be genitive. Are we clear?

(Yes ma'am.) Okay. Simple. Simple for some, and some are just

learning this will be like, "Aaaaaah. I don't understand all of this."


18/21




Accusative makes this little word right here pointing to Christ. So

watch how this breaks down-"the faith of, through faith of Jesus

Christ"-that's His faith. His faith in what the Father said-"and

even we"-and it changes now-"Christ"-Christon becomes

accusative and Iesou, Jesus become accusative. In the English you

don't see that.

The translators took a liberty to keep the words for continuity's

sake, "the faith of Jesus Christ, we who have believed in Jesus

Christ." Do you see that? It's reversed. There's a reason why.

That's why I said the Greek is important, the grammar is

important. There's a reason why here "the faith of Jesus Christ,"or "faith through faith of Jesus Christ, and even we, into"-

accusative-"Christ"-accusative describing that past tense-"we

faithed." That's us right there, folks. The accusative says we are,

we're going in the direction, pushing towards, moving towards

Jesus. Let me do it the right way, because, as I said, the accusative

is going this way, dative is here, genitive is there.

So we're over here, concerning this box, this diagram I've just

drawn to you, and the motion is towards. That tells you the whole

story of this verse. The first part is all about Him.

The second part is about our faith into Him, but you don't see in

there. You don't see it in the English. The accusative shows me I'm

moving towards Him. His faith, the faith of Jesus, the faith to lay

down His life, the faith of perfect sacrifice, the faith in what the

Father said. My, my faithing in Him, we have faithed puts it in the

past. The accusative has me moving towards Christ. That, that,

here we go. This, that we, "we might be made righteousfied"-

sorry, we have to make up the word-"we might be made righteous,


19/21




righteousfied"-we have to make up the word. Passively, by the

way, passively, like the light shining on me.

The light illuminates me; I stand here-"that I might be made right

for my faith." No movement. No works. No moving around. Nomulling around. No doing. No don't doing. So it's so amazing to

me how the brethren are busy talking about "Why do you do this

and why do you say that?" Hey. Why don't you listen to what I'm

saying, because I'm not saying it, God's Word is revealing it

perfectly clear.

In the most passive way, I stand still that my faith, He sees that

and I'm receiving from Him something that I could not, no matterhow good I could be, ever wipe out: the debt that I created in my

sinning nature that is in me. I'm born that way. So here, that I

might, "we might be made righteousfied"-oh, this is good, ek

pisteo. Ek, again, the same "out of" or "from faith of, of Christ, of

Christ"-genitive, so out of this flow-"and not out of, not out of"

ergon-"the works of law, works of law"-hoti-"because, because," or

"that out of works of law"-plural, singular, genitive-"the works oflaw"-those works emanating from the law-"not, not will any, nada,

nothing, will he be made righteousfied; no, Nothing will be made

right, all"-sarx-"flesh."

The message is perfectly simple.

What happened-I said, you know, I'm going to do this. It's a lot of

work here, but I'm going to do this to show if people can actually

understand the concept of a judge-a judge sits, you've seen the

judge in those, I pray some of you have never been in a

courtroom, but if you watch movies, let's say you've seen a judge

because you've seen movies, the Hollywood version of a judge.


20/21




The Judge sits and hears the matter and then rules. The mallet or

hammer comes down, guilty, not guilty. Well, there will be a time

for each of us when we must stand, but Romans 8 declares boldly,

for those that are in Christ Jesus who are faithing, the faithing

ones, not-has nothing to do with works, or how good you've been,

or how good you look, or how good you act, or what you do, or

what you don't do. For your faith, "There is therefore now no

condemnation," no ultimate condemnation, "to those that are in

Christ Jesus."

Now, I will elaborate so people don't think, "Well, are you against

good things?" No. Good things are good. But keep good thingsseparated, because good things, all the good things that you or I

could do, imagine this. My life is like some people's MasterCard or

Visa bill when it comes at the end of the month, maxed out. All

right? Maxed out in that I have made such a huge debt that month

after month, even though I might, with my little bitty works of

goodness or random acts of whatever I think I can chisel away and

pay off my debt.

But before God, even if I could work to pay off all that debt, the

debt that is not seen, what the world doesn't see, the debt that I

accrue. I accrue these things by my thoughts, what's in my heart.

People say, "Well, I don't do this and I don't do that," so basically

you must say you are debt free. You are not a debtor.

Well, Jesus says if you think the thought and even those things

that are thought of create debt, so it comes back to Romans 3:23and the impossibility of whitewashing any of it because each of us

is a debtor carrying around a credit card of some form, just

charging away. Just laying it down. Just keep going, just keep

going. The concept, spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, wow!


21/21



How'd I get that debt? Whoa! Who's going to pay that? Did I do

that?

Now God is looking on and He says, "Lady, you don't have to go

wash dishes to pay off that debt." And He doesn't say you have tolisten to Brother So-and-so, second generation Christian who

thinks he's going to belittle me because I'm not acting rightly like

he'd like me to act, or I'm not performing to the standards that he

deems a Christian woman should, or a Christian man, or whoever

you are.

God looks at me and says, "Lady, you racked up a real good debt,

but as long as you realize that there's only one debt solution," andit doesn't come for sending away for this magical great book that

I've created, it comes by your faith! And your faith alone in Jesus

Christ. That wipes the debt free and clear, and I can stand and say

this little tiny word, this little tiny word that I'll go on to explain,

faith, not believe, faith. First, beginning with Him, the faith of

Jesus Christ as the pattern, setting the mark for me to look to Him

as the author and finisher.

Then I, with my faith, looking to Him, and He imputes to me. I am

declared. I don't care what the world thinks, or what Brother and

Sister So-and-so think of you or of me. I am declared debt free

because He set me free. Jesus Christ, that is, set me free.

That's my message!

1620 Righteousified Transcript

Documents

Transcript of 1620 Righteousified Transcript