{"id":18476,"date":"2018-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-03-25T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/ecclesiology-017\/"},"modified":"2018-03-25T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-03-25T05:00:00","slug":"ecclesiology-017","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/ecclesiology-017\/","title":{"rendered":"Ecclesiology 017"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[93],"series_event":[484],"sermon_service_type":[473],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-18476","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-galatians","series_event-ecclesiology","sermon_service_type-sunday-school","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Ecclesiology 017","sermon_date":"20180325","sermon_month":"3","sermon_year":"2018","sermon_notes":5599,"sermon_slides":5600,"sermon_mp3":5605,"sermon_id":"32518757421","series_or_event":484,"service_type":[473],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":93,"chapter_and_verse":"6:16","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nEcclesiology 17\n\n3-25-18\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 17\u00a0\u00a0 Galatians 6:16\n\nLet me open us in a word of prayer.\u00a0 Father, we\u2019re grateful for this morning, grateful for Your people that have gathered and grateful for Your word and Your truth.\u00a0 We\u2019re grateful for the illuminating ministry of the Spirt that comes alongside and assists us and we ask for that illuminating ministry this morning, both in Sunday School and the worship service that follows, that we can have free unhindered access to you as we pause and momentarily confess our sins to restore broken fellowship and also that we can be taught freely from Your Word.\u00a0 So we\u2019ll pause just for a minute.\u00a0 We\u2019re thankful for the promise of 1 John 1:9 that if we confess our sins You\u2019re faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.\u00a0 And we ask that You\u2019ll be with us this morning as we open up Your Word.\u00a0 We ask these things in Jesus\u2019 name, and God\u2019s people said Amen.\n\nAs usual if you need a handout put your hand up and let\u2019s open our Bible if we could to the Book of Galatians, chapter 6, verse 16.\u00a0 Just go to 2 Corinthians and then go to G<\/u>od\u2019s E<\/u>lectric P<\/u>ower C<\/u>ompany, or G<\/u>o E<\/u>at P<\/u>op C<\/u>orn---G<\/u>alatians, E<\/u>phesians, P<\/u>hilippians, C<\/u>olossians.\n\nAnd we are going to focus today on a real problem verse in this area of the church, the doctrine of the Church.\u00a0 And just to help us remember where we left off last time, we were talking about the church as an intercalation.\u00a0 Anybody remember that at all?\u00a0 Okay.\u00a0 There\u2019s Lewis Sperry Chafer in this quote, and the quote goes over into the next slide, talking about the church really as an inter\u00adcalation which basically, as we have talked about, the church is an interruption in God\u2019s past and future program with Israel.\u00a0 We believe that that\u2019s where the church is, it\u2019s in between the past sixty-nine weeks of Daniel, which incidentally were literally fulfilled.\u00a0 On which Sunday, anybody recall?\u00a0 Palm Sunday, which is the Sunday we\u2019re celebrating today.\u00a0 Amen.\u00a0 So Jesus arrived on schedule, showed up, and He fulfilled the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel\u2019s prophecy to a T.\u00a0 And tragically the nation of Israel turned down His offer.\n\nSo God turns lemons into what?\u00a0 Lemonade, and He used Israel\u2019s rejection of their own Messiah to pay the sin debt (through Christ\u2019s crucifixion) of the whole world and consequently He ushered in the church age, beginning in Acts 2, which is where we are today.\u00a0 And yet there\u2019s a seventieth week of Daniel, isn\u2019t there, yet future?\u00a0\u00a0 So that\u2019s where we are, we\u2019re this intercalation or this hiatus or this interruption in between the last sixty-nine weeks, historical, sixty-nine weeks and the future seventieth week.\u00a0 So we\u2019ve covered a little bit of that already, haven\u2019t we.\u00a0 Someone say yes [several say yes], if nothing more than just to give me my little security blanket up here. [laughter]\n\nAnd what I just articulated is one of the key differences between dispensational theology and sometimes called Reformed or Replacement theology.\u00a0 So we believe in postponement theology; Israel\u2019s program has not been cancelled but has been postponed as God is doing a different work through a different people, the church.\u00a0 But in competition with that view is what is called replacement theology which is this idea that the church has permanently replaced Israel in the plan and program of God.\u00a0 So Israel\u2019s promises have been spiritually transferred to the church.\n\nI\u2019ve used this quote before, where R. C. Sproul says, \u201cWe deny that the church is God\u2019s plan B.\u00a0 We deny that we are living in God\u2019s redemptive parenthesis.\u201d\u00a0 And then he says at the bottom there, \u201cThere we are altogether the Israel of God,\u201d\u00a0 so replacement theology holds to the idea that we are called the Israel of God or the New Israel, having permanently eclipsed Old Testament Israel, replacement theology.\u00a0 Very different than the intercalation model I\u2019ve been teaching.\n\nAnd of course I shared this quote last time, but Arnold Fruchtenbaum says, \u201cIt\u2019s a good thing they were not declaring this on the streets of Berlin, Germany around 1941!\u2019\u201d \u00a0I thought that was a pretty good comeback.\u00a0 But what you\u2019ll discover is this is kind of the new trend.\u00a0 Everybody today is calling the church the new Israel.\u00a0 Even at my alma mater, Dallas Seminary, there\u2019s the advent now of progressive dispensationalism, where they\u2019re getting real fuzzy on this particular issue.\n\nSo progressive dispensationalist, David Turner, days this in an academic article:\u00a0 \u201cIt is clear that all the above\u201d he\u2019s talking there about the 144,000 Jews and the twelve tribes, \u201care connected with the number twelve (cf. Rev. 7:5-8; 12:1, 12). This number is perhaps the most familiar number of the Bible, most frequently associated with the sons of Jacob, the twelve tribes of Israel, and the twelve apostles of the \u2018new Israel,\u2019 the church<\/u>.\u201d\u00a0 [\u201cThe New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:1-22:5; Consummation of a Biblical Continuum,\u201d Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church, ed., Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 288.<\/em>]\n\nSee that.\u00a0 That\u2019s Dallas Seminary letting in a mindset that says the church is the new Israel.\u00a0 Now when you raise this issue they say well, we haven\u2019t gone all the way over the edge yet, we still believe in some kind of role for Israel yet future.\u00a0 But you can see tremendous slippage just in the language that\u2019s used there.\u00a0 They\u2019re not trending at all in the right direction.\n\nAnd this prompted my professor, who I loved dearly, he\u2019s with the Lord now, Stanley Toussaint, a traditional dispensationalist responded to Turner\u2019s comment by saying this: \u201cOf this designation, normative dispensationalist Stanley Toussaint appropriately comments, \u2018This is precariously close to replacement theology.\u201d\u2019\u00a0 [Stanley D. Toussaint, \u201cIsrael and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist,\u201d in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, ed. Herbert W. Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 259.]\n\nSo it\u2019s not just me up here running my mouth off, I\u2019m quoting actual people that have been at Dallas Seminary for years and years and\u00a0 years, taught there, given their whole lives to the institution, sounding the alarm that look, this progressive dispensationalism sounds a lot more like replacement theology when you look at some of the language these people actually use.\n\nNow here is a quote from a book called The Church<\/em>, the author is Edmund Clowney, and this is a book that I had to read when I was there and I\u2019ve talked to students that are there or have been there subsequently and they\u2019ve affirmed this, and they\u2019re still using this book and this is what this particular book says: \u201cThe story of the church begins with Israel<\/u>,\u201d whoops!!!\u00a0 I thought Jesus said \u201cI will build My church\u201d and the church is what, it starts with \u201cm\u201d and ends with \u201cstery,\u201d mystery, so that statement right there at the beginning, the church did not begin with Israel; Israel began with Israel.\u00a0 \u201cThe story of the church begins with Israel, the Old Testament people of God; the identity of the church is necessary for the mission of the church.\u201d\u00a0 I totally agree with that second sentence.\u00a0 You can\u2019t understand your identity unless you understand who we are.\u00a0 \u201cOnly as a holy nation,\u201d whoops, are we in a nation? \u201ccalled out of the darkness into the light of God\u2018s presence, can the church discharge it\u2019s mission\u2026Peter affirms that the church\u2019s right to the titles of Israel<\/u>, then describes the church\u2019s witness of praise (1st Peter 2:9\u201310)\u201d\u00a0 Now I think they\u2019re completely mis\u00ad-reading 1 Peter because Peter, as a Jew, was writing to Hebrew Christians.\u00a0 When\u00a0 Paul begins every letter by saying \u201cTo the church of Philippi,\u201d \u201cTo the church of Ephesus\u201d\u00a0 you don\u2019t find that in Peter\u2019s writing.\u00a0 He\u2019s writing to\u2026 he uses the specific word \u201cthe diaspora,\u201d the scattered.\u00a0 1 Peter 1:1-2.\u00a0 [1 Peter 1:1-2, \u201cPeter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen [2] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.\u201d]\n\nSo Peter is not addressing the church as a whole; he\u2019s addressing Hebrew Christians.\u00a0 1 Peter is one of\u2026 I would say about six books in the New Testament that are written to Hebrew Christians.\u00a0 And I didn\u2019t plan on getting into all that but you can see what they\u2019re doing here, they\u2019re taking a state\u00adment that Peter makes to Hebrew Christians and applying it to the whole church.\u00a0 But that\u2019s not even the worst part of this; it says there in that last sentence that I have quoted, \u201c...This understand\u00ading of the church as the new and true\u201d<\/u> what? \u201cIsrael<\/u> of Christ must inspire our mission in the contemporary world.\u201d\u00a0 So you see what they\u2019re doing here is they\u2019re connecting the church with Israel and in a roundabout way arguing for replacement theology.\u00a0\u00a0 Anytime someone calls the church Israel or the new Israel or the true Israel that immediately should send up warning signals to you because\u00a0 you\u2019re dealing with someone that doesn\u2019t really understand the nature of the church as an intercalation, which we\u2019ve tried to carefully explain.\n\nSo probably the greatest passage in the whole Bible that\u2019s right in the middle of this battle between the intercalation model on one end of the stick and replacement theology on the other end of the stick is Galatians 6:16. \u00a0[Galatians 6:16, \u201cAnd those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.\u201d]\u00a0 Anytime you get into a discussion with somebody about this subject, at some point someone will raise Galatians 6:16.\u00a0 So that\u2019s where we\u2019re going to spend our time this morning, dealing with the Galatians 6:16 issue.\n\nIf you were to read this in the NIV, some of you might be NIV positive, do we all understand the NIV is a paraphrase? I\u2019m not necessarily against paraphrases but the NIV never claims to be a word for word translation from the original Greek, like you have in the New King James Version or the New American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible.\u00a0 So it\u2019s kind of okay to read the NIV to get kind of the warm fuzzy for the day if that\u2019s what you need to do as you\u2019re bolting out of the house to get to work but doing the sort of in-depth study that we\u2019re doing here the NIV is not going to work because it never claims to be an accurate word for word translation from the original New Testament Koine Greek.\n\nSo here\u2019s how the NIV translates Galatians 6:16 and this is why people are very confused on this subject because their Bible translations are saying different things.\u00a0 \u201cPeace and mercy to all who follow this rule even<\/u> to the Israel of God.\u00a0\u00a0 Now the word I have underlined there is the Greek conjunction kai<\/em>, k-a-i, and you notice what the NIV translators have done; they have translated the kai<\/em> not as \u201cand\u201d but as \u201ceven.\u201d\u00a0 See that?\u00a0\u00a0 And so the NIV would give you the impression that the church is the Israel of God.\u00a0 The NIV gives you this impression.\u00a0 And what these replacement theologians do is they come along and they build a whole house on this one verse.\u00a0 And I\u2019m not kidding when I say this.\n\nKenneth Gentry whose writings I\u2019ve been tracking for a long time, I wrote both my Doctoral dissertation and my Master\u2019s thesis against the views of Ken Gentry.\u00a0 Ken Gentry says, \u201cThat is, we believe in the unfolding plan of God in history, the Christian Church is the very fruition of the redemptive purpose of God.\u00a0 As such, the multi-racial, international Church of Jesus Christ supersedes\u201d now that word \u201csupersedes\u201d should raise some red flags because what he is arguing here is what is called supersessionism.\u00a0 Supersessionism is another name for replacement theology.\u00a0 What Gentry believes is that the church has permanently superseded Israel.\u00a0 \u201cAs such, the multi-racial, international Church of Jesus Christ supersedes racial, national Israel as the focus of the kingdom of God.\u201d\u00a0 So he thinks we\u2019re in the kingdom.\u00a0 \u201cIndeed, we believe that the church becomes \u2018the Israel of God<\/em>\u2019 Gal. 6:16\u201d and what verse is he quoting here?\u00a0 Galatians 6:16, the NIV understanding of it. \u00a0[\u201cThe Iceman Cometh!\u00a0 Mormonism Reigneth!,\u201d<\/em> Dispensationalism in Transition<\/u>, Vol 6, No.1; Jan. 1993 p. 1. Italics mine\u2019]\n\nHere\u2019s another replacement theologian, this gentleman says, \u201c\u201cPaul\u2019s benediction in Galatians 6:16 becomes, then, the\u201d what witness? \u201cthe chief witness in the New Testament declaring that the universal church is the Israel of God, the seed of Abraham, the heir to Israel\u2019s covenant promise [Hans K. LaRondelle, \u00a0The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation<\/em> (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University U., 1983), pp. 110-11. Italics mine\n\nIn other words, in their thinking Galatians 6:16 is exhibit A.\u00a0 Fortunately there is another interpreta\u00adtion of Galatians 6:16.\u00a0 If you move away from the NIV and you go back to the NASB, which is a more, I believe, less of a periphrastic English translation, the verse reads as follows: \u201cAnd to those\u201d that would be the church\u2019s that Paul has planted there in Southern Galatia on missionary journey one, \u201cto those who walk by this rule\u201d what rule? Faith alone in Christ alone, \u201cto those who walk by this rule peace and mercy be upon them\u201d watch this, \u201cand<\/u> upon the Israel of God.\u201d\u00a0 That is the exact same conjunction or connective kai<\/em>, which the NIV translated as \u201ceven\u201d and the NASV translates it as \u201cand.\u201d\u00a0 Well, that changes everything, doesn\u2019t it?\u00a0 That creates misunderstanding, that the Israel of God is a group within the church.\u00a0 See the difference?\n\nIn other words, if you were to read the NASB\u00a0 you would understand that \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d is a group within the church; if you were to read the NIV\u00a0 you would have the understanding that \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d equals the church.\u00a0 So I put together this chart which helps you see the battle line here, the Galatians 6:16 kai<\/em> controversy.\u00a0 \u00a0One group wants that verse, that kai<\/em> translated \u201ceven.\u201d\u00a0 The other group wants it translated as \u201cand.\u201d\u00a0 The first group, if you want a technical name for this, treats the kai<\/em> as an appositional kai<\/em>; the second group translates the kai<\/em> as a continuative kai<\/em>.\u00a0 The NIV follows the first approach; the NASB follows the second approach.\u00a0 If the first approach is right then \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d equals the church. \u00a0If the second group is right then Hebrew Christians within the church are \u201cthe Israel of God.\u201d\u00a0 Under the first approach Israel and the church are equated.\u00a0 Under the second approach \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d is a subset within the church.\u00a0 The first approach favors replacement theology; the latter approach favors what we\u2019re promoting here, dispensational theology, the intercalation model.\u00a0 Do you see the battleground there?\n\nDo you see why people are confused on this?\u00a0 Because their Bible versions are saying two different things.\u00a0 So who\u2019s right?\u00a0 Well, as you probably guessed I think the NASB has it right; I think our understanding of \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d not as a synonym for the whole church but Jewish believers within the church is the correct interpretation.\u00a0\u00a0 And I have ten reasons for that which I want to share with you.\u00a0 Can I do that?\u00a0 It\u2019s a matter of not just believing something is true; I don\u2019t want to just answer the what question.\u00a0 I want to answer the why question; why would we reject replacement theologians interpretation of Galatians 6:16, so here we go!\n\nNumber one, the continuative kai<\/em>, that\u2019s translating the kai<\/em> as \u201cand,\u201d as a continuative, not as \u201ceven,\u201d not as an apposition, is the most common New Testament use of the word.\u00a0 That\u2019s reason number one.\u00a0 Reason number two, the appositional kai<\/em>, translating it not as \u201cand\u201d but as \u201ceven,\u201d which would favor replacement theology, is the rarest New Testament form.\u00a0 Now I want to draw\u00a0 your attention to the very Best, with a capital \u201cB\u201d article that\u2019s ever been written on this subject.\u00a0 It\u2019s an article by longtime Greek professor at Dallas Seminary, who\u2019s now with the Lord.\u00a0 He dealt with this a long time ago, named S. Lewis Johnson.\u00a0 I never had the chance to study under S. Lewis Johnson but everybody that I\u2019ve talked to that studied under him said this guy was like the quintessential scholar.\u00a0 In fact, Dr. Toussaint, who I quoted earlier, was mentored in Greek by S. Lewis Johnson.\n\nAnd S. Lewis Johnson, in what is called the Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, sometimes called a festschrift,<\/em> I think festschrift<\/em> is German.\u00a0 It\u2019s basically when you get old and\u00a0 you\u2019ve been there for a long time, a bunch of teachers get together and they put together a book for you that they\u2019ve all contributed to, called a festschrift<\/em>.\u00a0 And there\u2019s a festschrift<\/em> out there and you can find this on Amazon, it\u2019s called Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, and S. Lewis Johnson contributed a chapter in that book on the controversy of Galatians 6:16.\n
    \n \t
  1. Lewis Johnson says in that article, \u201cIt is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a basic but often neglected hermeneutic principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological consideration we should avoid the rare grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense.\u201d Johnson goes on, of replacement theology and he says, \u201cAn extremely rare use has been made to replace the common usage, even in spite of the fact that the common and frequent usage makes perfectly good sense in Galatians 6:16.\u201d \u00a0[Paul and the 'Israel of God': An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,\u201d in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost<\/em>, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 187.]\u00a0 \u00a0And what he\u2019s saying is this: the replacement theologians have built their whole theological system on an interpretation of kai<\/em>, translating it as even, appositionally, which is very, very, very, very, very rare.\u00a0 Sometimes kai<\/em> is\u00a0 used that way but not very frequently, where as we have put our interpretation of Scripture on the most common use of the word kai,<\/em> translating it as and, as a continuative.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nIn fact, one person who I was reading says, his name is Ellicott, \u201cIt is doubtful Paul ever used kai<\/em> as an apposition.\u00a0 And so you always avoid the rare usages when the common ones make good sense.\u201d\u00a0 [Paul and the 'Israel of God': An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,\u201d in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost<\/em>, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 187.]\n\nThat\u2019s what we\u2019ve done in our intercalation model; the other side hasn\u2019t done that at all. I mean, not only did they get this from the NIV, which is one problem, but another problem is they build their whole house on a use of kai<\/em> which is extremely rare.\n\nThat takes me to number 3, if Paul wanted to make the point that the church equals the Israel of God, you know what Paul could have done?\u00a0 He could have just dropped the kai<\/em> out completely, couldn\u2019t he?\u00a0 The NIV translates the kai<\/em> as \u201ceven.\u201d\u00a0 The NASB translates the kai <\/em>as \u201cand.\u201d\u00a0 If Paul wanted to say the church is now Israel you know how the verse could have been read?\u00a0 Just drop the kai<\/em> out.\u00a0 Then it would be unambiguous, right.\u00a0 It would read as follows: And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, upon the Israel of God.\u201d\u00a0 There it is, sealed deal, the church is Israel.\u00a0 The problem is Paul included the kai<\/em> and based on our doctrine of verbal inspiration we believe, as Christ says here, every word is put there by divine design.\u00a0 It\u2019s not just the words that are put there by divine design, it\u2019s the smallest letter or strokes of the pen are put there in the original by divine design.\n\nThe fact of the matter is kai<\/em> is there.\u00a0 So whatever your theology\u00a0 is you\u2019ve got to wrestle with every single word and yet Paul could have made this completely unambiguous, he could have dropped the kai<\/em> as the Spirit led him to write the Book of Galatians.\u00a0 That way it would be a sealed deal; the church is now Israel.\n\nWhich takes me to reason number four in this Galatians 6:16 passage which makes this expression, \u201cIsrael of God\u201d and here\u2019s the point I\u2019m making here on number four.\u00a0 Guess what the word \u201cIsrael\u201d means every other place it\u2019s used?\u00a0 Israel!\u00a0 Israel means Israel.\u00a0 I mean, you spent all that money on tuition to learn that?\u00a0 I guess I had to!\u00a0 Israel is a technical word.\u00a0 What does that mean?\u00a0 It\u2019s a word that always means the same thing everywhere you see it.\u00a0 No exceptions!\u00a0 Now most words aren\u2019t that way but Israel is.\u00a0 Whenever you see the word \u201cIsrael\u201d in the Bible it will always, 100% of the time, refer to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.\u00a0 It will NEVER mean the Gentiles.\u00a0 It will never even mean a mixed group between Jews and Gentiles.\u00a0 It always means Israel!\n\nNow sometimes it\u2019s Israel in faith and sometimes it\u2019s Israel in unbelief, but you can take this to the bank, every time you see the word Israel in the Bible it always means Israel.\u00a0 Paul uses the word fifteen times in his writings, and it always means Israel.\u00a0 The word \u201cIsrael\u201d is used a total of 73 times in the New Testament and guess what it means 72 other times?\u00a0 Israel!\u00a0 The word \u201cIsrael\u201d is used 1800 times in the Old Testament and guess what it always means in the Old Testament?\u00a0 Israel!\n\nNow let\u2019s just kind of up the ante a little bit.\u00a0 Sometimes the word Israelite is used.\u00a0 So if you toss into the mix the word \u201cIsraelite\u201d to the word \u201cIsrael\u201d you\u2019ve got 2500 usages of the term either Israel or Israelite; it will always mean Israel, it will never mean the church, it will never mean the Gentiles, it will never mean a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles.\u00a0 And your replacement theologian is saying this; well, that may be true but that\u2019s not what it means here in Galatians 6:16.\u00a0 That\u2019s their argument.\u00a0 That\u2019s why this whole replacement theology doctrine is such a house of cards and it\u2019s shocking to me how many Christians have bought into it.\u00a0 And largely they bought into it because they hear persuasive voices arguing for it and in some of their Bible translations it kind of reads that way as well, particularly the NIV.\n\nIf you ever doubt that Israel and the church are different entities never to be confused, all\u00a0 you have to do is read the Book of Acts because the church is going to start in Acts 2 and Israel is continuing to function in the Book of Acts in unbelief, right up until A. D. 70.\u00a0 In fact, the book closes before A.D. 70 even happened.\u00a0 So if there ever was a book that would tell you that Israel was now the church or the church is now Israel, it would be the Book of Acts.\u00a0 And you go right through the Book of Acts and what do you see?\u00a0 They\u2019re always separate.\n\nArnold Fruchtenbaum writes, \u201cIn the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel<\/em> is used twenty times and ekklesia<\/em> (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.\u201d [Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, \u201cIsrael and the Church,\u201d in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 118.]\u00a0 And your replacement theologian says well, that may be true but that\u2019s not what it means here in Galatians 6:16, there it refers to the Gentiles.\u00a0 You see how untenable their position is.\n\nWhich takes me to reason number four, Israel was never equated with the church by any church father of which we have any knowledge of until the writings of Justin Martyr, A. D. 160.\u00a0 A.D. 160 Justin Martyr is the first guy that we know of that called the church Israel.\u00a0 And I\u2019ve got that whole quote for you there, you can find this easily, it\u2019s his dialogue with Trypho.\u00a0 And he makes the statement, \u201cwe, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race.\u201d [\u201cDialogue with Trypho\u201d 123, 135]\n\nBefore this statement you have nobody ever hinting that the church is now Israel.\u00a0 And keep in mind when Justin Martyr said that, A.D. 160\u2026 when is the Book of Galatians written exactly?\u00a0 A. D. 49 .\u00a0 How do we know that?\u00a0 Because it\u2019s on the screen.\u00a0 Most people today believe that Galatians was the earliest letter Paul wrote of thirteen.\u00a0 He went into Southern Galatia on missionary journey one, and he came back to Syrian Antioch and he addressed the churches he had planted who were succumbing to legalism.\u00a0 He even wrote this before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.\n\nSo here is my point\u2014isn\u2019t it kind of strange that if Paul was going to say the church is the new Israel, if that\u2019s what he\u2019s saying in Galatians 6:16, not a single church father ever picked up on Paul\u2019s point until a full century had passed.\u00a0 I mean, a hundred years is a long time to be in the dark.\u00a0 And I think if Paul had said the church is the new Israel somebody would have picked up on it long before Justin Martyr.\u00a0 You wouldn\u2019t have a full hundred years, a full century.\n\nWhich takes me to number six, if Paul is trying to say that the church is the new Israel, if he\u2019s going to say something that radical in Galatians 6:16, why in the world would he wait until the conclusion of a letter to make the point?\u00a0 I mean, this is basically what we\u2019re expected to believe about this replacement theology.\u00a0 Paul was writing, he writes this beautiful treatment, spans six chapters, he signs off at the end and then he says oh, by the way, the church is the new Israel, see you later, have a nice day.\u00a0 I mean, it\u2019s crazy that people would base their whole theological system on something he says off the cuff at the conclusion of a letter.\u00a0 It\u2019s sort of like what you get from the prosperity gospel movement, where they go to the introductory verse of 1 John, where John basically makes this statement that I hope you all are well and in good health.\u00a0 And people gravitate towards that verse and they say there it is, God wants us to all be rich and healthy.\u00a0 And they quote the verse over and over again and they repeat it over and over again and people think it\u2019s true because it\u2019s in the Bible after all, when in reality what is John saying?\u00a0 He\u2019s saying the same thing that you would say in a letter to someone you loved\u2026 hey, hope you\u2019re doing well, things are going great!\u00a0 And they take a little salutation that John gives and they turn it into a doctrine at the introduction of the letter.\u00a0 I mean, it\u2019s crazy.\u00a0 And yet that\u2019s what this replacement theology crowd is doing with Galatians 6:16.\n\nThe Book of Galatians has three parts to it.\u00a0 You have the autobiographical section where Paul is defending his apostleship, Paul, not one of the original twelve would have to defend that he\u2019s really an apostle to get people to listen to him so he does that in chapters 1 and 2.\u00a0 Then comes the meat of the letter, the doctrinal section where he lays out doctrine.\u00a0 And then, as Paul does, he says the word \u201ctherefore,\u201d right? Galatians 5:1.\u00a0 So we always ask, what is the there there for what?\u00a0 Therefore, it\u2019s to swing the audience away from doctrine into application.\n\nSo my point is pretty simple. I mean if Paul wanted to make this radical, if he wanted to reverse the word Israel that had been used 2,500 time and infuse it with a new meaning and teach a doctrine that God has chopped off Israel and has replaced Israel with the church I don\u2019t think he would have made the point at a conclusion of a letter as he\u2019s signing off and saying have a nice day.\u00a0 If he wanted to make the point it would have been made very boldly in the middle section of the book.\n\nAnd by the way, this is how Paul uses all of his letters, this same format, maybe not all of them but many of them, the main ones where we get doctrine from, like Ephesians, Romans, Galatians, and so forth.\u00a0 Of course we get doctrine from all of Paul\u2019s letters, I\u2019m talking about the ones where he\u2019s really stressing doctrine.\n\nAnd in Ephesians 1-3 how many commands are there for us to follow?\u00a0 Anybody know off the top of their head?\u00a0 Be bold.\u00a0 Zero!\u00a0 Not one command.\u00a0 So Paul obviously hadn\u2019t graduated from a very good seminary because the doctrine of homiletics or preaching says every sermon should have an point and an application, right?\u00a0 Why would Paul apply truth to people\u2019s lives if they didn\u2019t know what the truth is.\u00a0 What do you get in chapters 1-3?\u00a0 Truth, truth, truth, truth, truth, truth!\u00a0 The point of it is you\u2019re rich spiritually.\u00a0 Then you have the word \u201ctherefore,\u201d chapter 4, verse 1.\u00a0 Then he moves from doctrine to practice, chapters 4-6 and in chapters 4-6 how many commands do you have?\u00a0 Thirty-eight!\u00a0 The same kind of thing with Romans.\u00a0 Romans 1-11, doctrine; then you see the famous word \u201cTherefore,\u201d Romans 12:1, \u201cTherefore\u201d Paul says, in light of these mercies\u2026.\u201d What mercies?\u00a0 The mercies I just got finished talking to you about for eleven chapters, those mercies.\u00a0 In light of these mercies present your body as an acceptable sacrifice to Jesus Christ. \u00a0\u00a0[Romans 12:1, \u201cTherefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.\u201d\n\nPractice or application doesn\u2019t begin in Paul\u2019s thinking until doctrine is established.\u00a0 So Romans and Ephesians would be devastating books to read if you didn\u2019t understand the power that you have to live out those applications which are spelled out in Romans 1-11 and then Ephesians 1-3.\u00a0 In our preaching methodology today it\u2019s completely foreign anything that Paul would do.\u00a0 Paul didn\u2019t gather a bunch of people together, get them saved and say okay, here\u2019s all the applications to your lives.\u00a0 He was trying to get them to understand who they are in Christ.\u00a0 In fact, there\u2019s two prayers in the Book of Ephesians where he prays that their eyes might be opened and they might see the height, the width, the depth, of the love of God for the saints.\n\nOnce you get all that taken care of now you can move into application.\u00a0 So some people are wanting so badly to apply the Bible to their lives when they don\u2019t even know what the Bible says.\u00a0 Other people just want truth, truth, truth and no application.\u00a0 There\u2019s always a balance and I think we ought to be getting our ministry philosophy from Paul.\n\nWhy go into all of this?\u00a0 Because if Paul wanted to say the church is the new Israel he wouldn\u2019t have said it in the doctrinal section of Galatians.\u00a0 He wouldn\u2019t have made the point in a conclusion.\u00a0 Which takes me to number seven, the two-fold repetition of \u201cupon\u201d which is the Greek preposition epi<\/em> in Galatians 6:16. Take another fast look back to the passage, Galatians chapter 6 and verse 16.\u00a0 Notice what it says:\u00a0 \u201cAnd to those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon\u201d that\u2019s the preposition number 1, epi number 1, \u201cpeace and mercy be upon them,\u201d who\u2019s the \u201cthem\u201d?\u00a0 All these Gentiles that he just won to Christ on missionary journey one, \u201cand\u201d that\u2019s our kai<\/em>, \u201cupon\u201d epi<\/em>, now is that the first use of epi <\/em>there or the second?\u00a0 The second, \u201cand upon\u201d epi<\/em>, \u201cthe Israel of God.\u201d\n\nYou don\u2019t have one preposition in Galatians 6:16, you\u2019ve got two.\u00a0 Why do you have two?\u00a0 Because Paul is dealing with two groups.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 If he was dealing with one group there wouldn\u2019t be a double epi <\/em>in the passage.\u00a0 So Paul deliberately is shifting the focus to a separate group.\u00a0 Who is the separate group?\u00a0 It\u2019s the believing Jews within the flock, that\u2019s who he\u2019s talking to.\u00a0 And I\u2019ll tell you why he\u2019s addressing them specifically in just a minute.\n\nYou say well does Paul really do this a lot?\u00a0 I mean, does he designate two groups like that?\u00a0 Does he make a point to group A and then switch to group B.\u00a0 The fact of the matter is he does it all the time.\u00a0 In fact, isn\u2019t Galatians 6:15 followed by verse what?\u00a0 It\u2019s not a trick question.\u00a0 Verse 16.\u00a0 You all agree with that, verse 15 comes before verse 16; you guys with me?\u00a0 Do we need to bring in some coffee?\n\nAnd what does he say in the immediate prior verse?\u00a0 \u201cFor neither is circumcision\u201d group one, \u201canything nor uncircumcision\u201d group two, \u201cbut a new creation.\u201d\u00a0 I mean Paul is really good at distinguishing groups, isn\u2019t he.\u00a0 Right there in the prior verse he distinguishes between the uncircumcised and the circumcised.\u00a0 Now didn\u2019t he do this in Galatians 2:7-8 concerning the ministries of Paul and Peter?\u00a0 Did Paul and Peter preach the same gospel?\u00a0 I believe they did.\u00a0 Did Paul and Peter have different target audiences?\u00a0 Yes they did.\u00a0 Paul says that in Galatians 2:7-8, \u201cBut on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised,\u201d that\u2019s the Gentiles, Paul\u2019s target audience was the Gentiles, \u201cjust as Peter had been<\/em> entrusted to the\u201d what? \u201ccircumcised\u201d\u00a0 Paul says I\u2019ll tell you what Peter, I\u2019m going to go, I\u2019m going to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, you\u2019re going to go,\u00a0 you\u2019re going to preach this gospel to the Jews.\u00a0 So what did Paul do there?\u00a0 He just distinguished between two groups, didn\u2019t he?\n\nThat\u2019s why in 1 Peter 5:13 Peter concludes his letter by saying \u201cShe who is in Babylon\u201d greets you.\u00a0 [1 Peter 5:13, \u201cShe who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.\u201d]\u00a0 And everybody is trying to figure out what Babylon means; in fact, I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Babylon, and I wanted to subtitle it Babbling on about Babylon but they wouldn\u2019t let me subtitle it like that.\n\nSo people say well what does Babylon mean?\u00a0 Well that means Rome or it means this or it means that.\u00a0 Hold the phone here, folks, where were most of the Jews located?\u00a0 Babylon.\u00a0 In fact, the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, all tell us that you have to return from the exile, some came back into the land and the majority stayed in Babylon. So why is it so hard to believe Peter went to Babylon?\u00a0 It\u2019s not hard to believe that at all because Peter is the apostle to the who?\u00a0 The circumcised, for the Jews Babylon would be a very logical place for him to go to.\u00a0 Right.\n\nSo Paul went to the Gentiles, Peter went to the Jews. What is my point?\u00a0 My point is Paul is really good at distinguishing two groups and I\u2019m saying that\u2019s exactly what he\u2019s doing in Galatians 6:16.\u00a0 He talks about the \u201cthem,\u201d who are they?\u00a0 Gentile Christians that he\u2019s won to Christ.\u00a0 And then he talks, not about \u201cthem\u201d anymore, he talks about a group within them.\u00a0 Who would those be?\u00a0 The tiny group of Jews that are now \u201cin Christ\u201d because the majority of people that get saved in Paul\u2019s missionary journeys, and you can see this over and over again in the Book of Acts, are Gentile Christians.\u00a0 He goes to the synagogue, he gets kicked out of the synagogue.\u00a0 He goes to the Gentiles and bears fruit amongst the Gentiles.\u00a0 And I told my students anytime I ask you on a test what did Paul do on X location just this and you\u2019ve got about a 90% chance of getting the question right.\u00a0 Just say he went to the synagogue and was rejected in the synagogue, then he went to the Gentiles and bore fruit amongst the Gentiles because that\u2019s almost what happens, there\u2019s a few exceptions, Philippi, other places.\u00a0 That\u2019s what happens over and over and over and over again.\n\nSo the \u201cthem\u201d is the Gentile Christians; that\u2019s the big group.\u00a0 The \u201cIsrael of God\u201d is not a synonym for \u201cthem\u201d the way replacement theologians want this to read; he\u2019s addressing a subset or a smaller group within the large flock.\u00a0 Hebrew Christian, he doesn\u2019t change the definition of Israel and he affectionately dubs them, or refers to them, as \u201cthe Israel of God.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0He singles them out for special attention and recognition for reasons I\u2019ll share with you in just a minute.\n\nNumber nine, if Paul is singling out Jewish Christians within the larger group then does he do that anywhere else?\u00a0 I mean, if Paul is into singling out believing Hebrew Christians within larger groups does he do that elsewhere?\u00a0 And the fact of the matter is he does this quite frequently.\u00a0 What I\u2019m trying to say is the Israel of God is not a synonym for the church.\u00a0 The Israel of God is a special affectionate address to believing Jews within a primarily dominated Gentile church that is now off the ground and running.\n\nDoes Paul do that elsewhere?\u00a0 He does it all the time in fact.\u00a0 Look at what he does in Romans 2:28-29.\u00a0 \u201cFor he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. [29] But he is a Jew who is one\u201d what? \u201cinwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.\u201d\u00a0 What is Paul saying here?\u00a0 It\u2019s not Jews as a whole that God is going to fulfill His covenants through; He\u2019s going to do it through the believing Jew.\u00a0 Paul, all the time, singles out the believing Jew.\u00a0 And I think that\u2019s exactly what he\u2019s doing in Galatians 6:16.\u00a0 Over in Romans 9:6, \u201cBut it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;\u201d yeah, they\u2019re all Israel but I\u2019ll you that the Israel that God has His eye on is the Israel in faith.\u00a0 They become, in the end time, the Israel of God. It\u2019s the events of the tribulation period that awaken them to their new status to believe in Christ and become the Israel of God.\u00a0 And it\u2019s not just through Jews generically that God is going to fulfill His program through, He\u2019s going to fulfill it through believing Jews.\n\nSo if this is such a dominant concept in Paul\u2019s thinking and Paul\u2019s writing, as the Spirit of God is leading him, why is it so hard to imagine that in Galatians 6:16 he\u2019s doing the same thing again.\u00a0 He\u2019s singling out believing Jews within the flock for special attention.\u00a0 He\u2019s not saying the church is now Israel; that is not what Paul is saying.\n\nWhich takes me to number ten, you might ask why Paul, in a benediction, in the conclusion of the letter, why would he do this?\u00a0 And I think the very simple reason is to demonstrate that Paul is not a Jew hater, because the things that Paul says can be construed as pretty harsh in the Book of Galatians.\u00a0 Would you agree with that?\u00a0 For example, in Galatians 1:8-9 he says this: \u201cBut even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed<\/u>!\u201d\u00a0 Verse 9, \u201cAs we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed<\/u>!\u201d\u00a0 The word translated \u201caccursed\u201d twice there that I have underlined is the Greek word anathema<\/em>, which is a reference to condemnation to hell.\u00a0 Not exactly seeker friendly preaching here!\n\nWho is he condemning to hell?\u00a0 He\u2019s condemning to hell, that\u2019s hell as in h-e- double toothpicks, hell, He\u2019s condemning to hell people who take the institutions of Judaism, like the Mosaic Law, and abuse them.\u00a0 The Mosaic Law, when you study it out, was never given to redeem a people, it was given to a redeemed people.\u00a0 The Mosaic Law was never given as an institute for justification, it was given as an instrument for what?\u00a0 Sanctification.\u00a0 And now here come people into Paul\u2019s new flock, less than a year has passed, and they\u2019re bring back the Mosaic Law and they\u2019re telling people, you know, to really get saved justification and in the church age sanctification faith in Christ is nice but you really need to go back to the Law. And that is called legalism, that is NOT why God gave the Mosaic Law to Israel to begin with anyway, and they have just brought into Paul\u2019s flock works salvation through an abuse of the Law and Paul anathematizes these legalists two times.\n\nNow think, if you\u2019re a brand new Jewish Christian reading that?\u00a0 You would probably think to yourself well, this guy Paul, although He\u2019s Jewish himself, must have some kind of problem with Jews.\u00a0 I mean, this guy, Paul, must hate Jews. Maybe this guy, Paul, is anti-Semitic.\u00a0 I mean, his verbiage is so intense here that would be a natural conclusion that you could draw from his writings, particularly as a new Hebrew Christian.\n\nSo to counterbalance alleged antisemitism coming from Paul he concludes the Book of Galatians, chapter 6, verse 16, by referring to the believing Jews within the church with the affectionate titles, \u201cas the Israel of God,\u201d just to demonstrate that yeah, my verbiage has been very rough, it\u2019s been very\u2026 we might even say in today\u2019s vernacular it looks somewhat over the top.\u00a0 But don\u2019t get the idea that I\u2019m a Jew-hater just because I have attacked the abuse of the institutions of Judaism, I love the Jewish people, God loves the Jewish people and to demonstrate that I will take a subset of you within this church that are Hebrews and believers in Christ, or what they called Yeshua, and I will affectionately refer to you as \u201cthe Israel of God.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s why Paul says this.\u00a0 He is not saying guess what, the church is now Israel.\u00a0 That\u2019s the furthest thing from his mind.\n\nAnd, you know, I quote people just to show you I\u2019m not up here just making things up.\u00a0 Here is Burton, in his commentary on Galatians and he writes this: \u201cIn view of the apostle's previous strong anti-Judaistic expressions,\u201d like Galatians 1:8-9, \u201che feels impelled by the insertion of \u2018and<\/u><\/em>\u2019,\u201d that\u2019s the kai<\/em>, \u201cto emphasize this expression of his true attitude towards his people\u201d [Ernest DeWitt Burton, Galatians,<\/em> Page 358]\n\nPaul is just giving a counterbalancing statement that he is not a Jew-hater.\u00a0 So when you look at these ten arguments the whole verse that\u2019s exhibit A for replacement theology just disintegrates.\u00a0 The continuative kai<\/em> is the most common; the appositional kai<\/em> is the rarest.\u00a0 Paul could have gotten rid of the word\u00a0 kai <\/em>altogether; Israel always means Israel.\u00a0 No church Father ever picked up on this for a century.\u00a0 Why introduce a new theological concept, like replacement theology, in the conclusion of the letter?\u00a0 You\u2019ve got two epi<\/em>\u2019s there, demonstrating Paul is speaking of two different groups, which he does elsewhere, even in the prior verse.\u00a0 And singles out believing Jews elsewhere.\u00a0 And Paul just throws this little statement in to demonstrate that he\u2019s not anti-Semitic.\n\nSo Robinson, D.W.B, Robinson says, \u201cThe glib citing of Gal. vi: 16 to support the view that \u2018the church is the new Israel\u2019 should be vigorously challenged.\u201d\u00a0 And that\u2019s sort of what I\u2019ve tried to do this morning.\u00a0 \u201cThere is weighty support for a limited interpretation.\u201d\u00a0 [The Distinction Between Jewish and Gentile Believers in Galatians,\u201d Australian Biblical Review 13 (1965): 29-48]\n\nWhat does he mean by \u201climited interpretation\u201d?\u00a0 It\u2019s not interpreting Galatians 6:16 this way, as I have it on the screen, [on the screen: And to those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God<\/u><\/em>.\u201d] not as a synonym for the church but as a subset within the church. That\u2019s the limited interpretation that\u00a0 Paul is promoting here.\n\nAnd yet, the people that use this verse over and over again to promote replacement theology, it reads almost like the Who\u2019s Who of Christianity, for the last two thousand years.\u00a0 Chrysostom, known as \u201cGolden Throat\u201d or mouth because of his oratorical skills, said horrific things against the Jewish people.\u00a0 The book, Our Hands Are Stained With Blood<\/em> by Michael Brown, will give you all those citations.\u00a0 And yet Chrysostom is looked at as a hero and yet he was anti-Semitic and he used Galatians 6:16 to support his antisemitism.\u00a0 You don\u2019t get much better with John Calvin.\u00a0 More modernly you\u2019ve got Lightfoot, Stott, Guthrie, and in the Protestant Reformation series I demonstrated that even Martin Luther himself said things like this, using Galatians 6:16 that were so off the wall and over the top that even the Lutheran denomination itself, a subset of it, in the 1980\u2019s issued a formal apology.\n\nSo a lot of people want to let Luther off the hook.\u00a0 His own denomination wouldn\u2019t let him off the hook and distanced themselves from his comments, Lenski, Hendricksen, and you ask yourself well why do they keep doing it?\u00a0 They do it because of what I have down there at letter B, it\u2019s an amillennial exegetical bias.\u00a0 In other words, they\u2019re looking at the Bible through a prism or a grid that has already been manufactured.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 Which is not how we do theology!\u00a0 We want to get our theology from the text and not take our theology what?\u00a0 To the text. If I believe the church had replaced Israel I would probably use Galatians 6:16 also.\u00a0 The problem is the passage doesn\u2019t say that.\u00a0 It\u2019s like dealing with a really good criminologist or forensics expert when they try to figure out who the bad guy is at a crime scene.\u00a0 If they\u2019re skilled with their craft and their trade what you\u2019ll notice is they don\u2019t develop a theory on the case too fast because the temptation is to make the facts fit your theory because if something gets in the way called what?\u00a0 Pride, when in reality you want to get your theory of who the bad guy is from the facts, not the other way around.\u00a0 Amen!\n\nAnd so I\u2019ll close here with this citation from Cranfield, a very reputable Romans commentary, and I love what he says here because you never find anybody saying this.\u00a0 He says: \u201cThese 3 chapters (Rom 9-11) emphatically forbid us to speak of the church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people\u2026But the assumption<\/u> that the church has simply replaced Israel as the people of God is extremely common\u2026\u201d\u00a0 Look at this last clause.\u00a0 \u201cAnd I confess with shame to having also myself used in print on more than one occasion this language of the replacement of Israel by the Church.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 [C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans p.448<\/em>]\n\nAnd the reason that quote stands out to me is that\u2019s how I want to be.\u00a0 If I mess something up, particularly something bad, and even if I put it in writing I want to have the humility before God and God\u2019s people to just go back and say you know, I was wrong.\u00a0 I mean, think how different this world would be if people would use these three words, think how different marriages would be if you used these three words, \u201cI was wrong!\u201d\u00a0 I mean, the whole world would be different. And the problem is once you go into print on something the human temptation is to defend what you\u2019ve written.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because something gets in the way called pride.\u00a0 And Cranfield, who is one of the best, says you know what, I went down that road myself, I\u2019m sorry, I was wrong.\u00a0 So my respect for Cranfield is off the charts.\n\nSo that\u2019s the intercalation information and next week we\u2019ll get into the purposes of the church.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t