Gooding, David: 6 - Arguments 6 and 7

When we broke off our study, we were considering the challenge in verse nineteen of chapter three. What then is the law? A challenge that Paul would often have met in his conversations and arguments with his fellow Jews and others. If Paul is going to say that justification, the covenant, the promises, the inheritance, the blessings come to us through faith and not by the works of the law, then he will have to face the, uh, objection, well, what then is the law? God gave it. So what, what is it then? Are you just going to discard it and take no notice of it, or say somehow it was bad? What then is the law? Now we shall come back to that, uh, presently. But let's go back now for a moment to the earlier verses, to pick up another detail in the covenant. Verse sixteen: Now to Abram were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, and to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. Now people have found fault with his argument or found it difficult to follow. On linguistic grounds, the word seed, even in English, im- can imply a plurality. If I say to you what's in that packet you have in your hand? You say it's seed for my garden. Oh, onions? No, you say, flower seed. You will not, uh, I would not suppose you meant you just got one seed in the packet. Eh, seed is a term that you can use of a thousand seeds in one packet. It is seed. Mm-hmm. But of course, it could also be used of one particular seed. You took out one seed out of the packet, and I said, what is that? You said, seed. The Hebrew word, likewise, can mean one of two things. And Paul is arguing here that it's meant to be singular. And when God said he was going to give it to Abraham and to his seed, the seed was Christ. Now you want to disput, may want to dispute it, or at least to question it. I'm going to leave it there for the moment. To come to the prior point, that in a covenant, you cannot change the terms. You must keep to them, and the terms as strictly intended and defined. And Paul's argument is that the seed God had in mind was Christ. If then it was to Christ that these things were promised, the inheritance in particular, the great promises, then surely we are ruled out. Can't alter the covenant, can you? Uh... Once it's signed, sealed, and settled, can't add anything. Do you remember I talked to you about your rich uncle who died? Was it in America or somewhere he died? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Uh, uh, uh, you say I've got some tremendous news today. Our uncle, you know, has died. He's left us in his will. So I accompany you, and the solicitor reads us all out, and uh, and the beneficiary under the will, and of course it's you, Tom, you see, left it all to Tom. And when the solicitor is finished, I say, but, um, you haven't mentioned me yet. Who are you? Well, I'm David, of course. Well, you're not mentioned. Oh, I said, that's impossible. I know my uncle, he, I mean, I was just as his favorite, perhaps more than Tom here, do you see? I know he really meant to include me. Sorry, says the solicitor. Uh, can I add that to it? Well, you just add it in, I say, old man. No, you can't do it. And if the inheritance is promised to Christ, that's that, isn't it? Can't say, oh, but what he really meant was to Christ and to David Gooding. Nonsense. How on earth would we ever come into it? You will see Paul dealing with that question. Uh, you'll see. At the end of chapter three. let's take up at verse twenty seven. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. Metaphorical language, like put man puts on a robe, covers him from head to foot. It obliterates, does this robe, all other distinctions. There can be neither Jew nor Greek. There can be neither bond nor free. There can be no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Pray, gentlemen, keep it in the context. He's talking about the terms of this covenant, which are the terms of salvation, the terms upon which we shall inherit. He's not talking about order in the church, gentlemen. Uh, but within its own strict contents, context, therefore, salvation has done this for us. We've been baptized into Christ. We have put on Christ. That obliterates all other distinctions. But look at verse twenty nine. If you are Christ's, then you are Abram's seed. How not? One can't deny that Christ was Abram's seed, surely. And he shall inherit all that God intended. But if you are in Christ, gentlemen, if you are Christ's, then you too are Abram's seed and heirs according to the promise. Shout a private hallelujah, for you are infinitely wealthy. There is one thing a testator of a will could do if he managed to survive. He could add benefits. He mustn't add conditions. If the promises were made to Abram and to his seed, and God's covenant guaranteed these explicit benefits, then Christ shall inherit everything. But more than that, if you are in Christ, if you are Christ, you are Abram's seed, heirs according to the promise. We come back to this notion of inheritance, a big basic term in scripture in the New Testament for the blessings that come to us through Christ. That is how the argument is going to end up. But we come back now to verse nineteen. what then is the law? Its true function was this. It was added because of transgressions. To cope with transgressions. It was a temporary measure until the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made. Who was that seed? Well, Christ, of course. Let's repeat that. What then is the law? Its function was to deal with transgressions. To repress them, of course. It was a temporary measure until the seed should come, to whom the promise hath been made. Mm-hmm. And thirdly, it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. God made that covenant with Israel through a mediator, namely Moses, and a lot of angels as well. Now, a mediator is not of one, but God is one. That's a verse capable of many interpretations. For time's sake, I give you mine, for what it's worth. The law was not a one-party covenant. It was a two-party covenant. God proposed the terms. Moses brought them to the people. Moses read the terms and spoke them in the hearing of the people, and the people agreed to keep all the terms. Moses went back to God, and the covenant was ratified. So Moses, a human being, was a mediator. It was a two-party covenant. Not a one-party covenant. You may well think of an objection at that point. Was not the New Covenant mediated by Christ? He is the mediator of the New Covenant, says Hebrews. He's the surety of it as well, but he's the mediator of it. Ah yes, but pray consider who Christ was. He was not just a successor to Moses. He was certainly human, but not a m- only human. This was God incarnate. And the covenant he sealed and signed with his blood. Was the new covenant. And he was the sacrifice. That guaranteed the fulfillment of the covenant. So the law was temporary then, for transgressions. Let's read what Paul says elsewhere about the law. This is one Timothy, chapter one. And he complains to Timothy, in verse seven of chapter one of First Timothy, about people who desire to be teachers of law, though they an- understand neither what they say nor whereof they confidently affirm. And now look, note what we're talking about. We're talking about law as a principle. The law of God in the Old Testament, summed up in the Ten Commandments, was not just advice. It wasn't just guidelines. It was command plus penalty. It was prohibition plus penalty. Do this, says the law, or else I curse you. Not just advice. Do this or you'll pay the penalty. That is law as a principle. That's why it is so serious to make law, uh, uh, uh, the principle of the gospel. You must keep the law, else you get the penalty of eternal death. You try and get salvation on those terms. And Paul adds, therefore, in First Timothy, we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully, as knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for unholy and profane, for murders, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for men stealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. That was what the law was for, to discourage, to repress transgressions. And let Paul tell you that, for he was the best tryer to keep the law in all the ancient world. That never did convert him. Never did prove, uh, produce true love for God, and certainly not true love for his fellow men. The law was added on account of transgressions, to deal with transgressions and to repress them. Verse twenty one: Is the law then against the promises of God? In other words, this, God made these promises to Abram on the terms of God, the covenant that God had made with him, that all these blessings would be Abram's and his seed through faith. Did God subsequently give a law to alter those conditions, to cancel that covenant? Was the law against the promises of God. In other words, did God first promise this as a gift, then add the law as a unexpected condition, a condition that ruled out the gift completely? Well, of course not. What then is the law? Well, now you will see the law has a definite limit to it. It has an inadequacy. For if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. Let's go back as an illustration to Abraham. While Abraham was yet childless, God said to Abraham, I'm going to give you a son. Yeah? And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. What did God say next? Now, Abram, listen to me. I'm going to give you a son, but this is what you'll have to do to get this son. Um, if you practice yoga every day and go for exercise and run at least five miles a day and abstain from eating too much fat and all these other things, you see, don't drink too much tea, Abram, you possibly would become a father. Afraid not. None of those conditions could have produced new life. Nor could God's law produce life. It could tell you how to live once you've got it. The law couldn't produce life. And the issue over which Abram believed God initially, and it was counted to him for righteousness, highlights that very point. God was going to give Abram a son and eventually left him until not only Sarah was barren, she'd been that all the time, but until Abram was now decrepit and old. And no health regime or gymnastics or anything of the sort could have killed him. God gave him the gift of a new life. The law could never do it anyway. Oh, well then God did- did give the law. We know that. Whatever for? It had another function. Look at verse twenty two. Albeit the scripture has shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Now Paul is not wasting words. Notice the phrase ex- first ex- uh, expression, by faith, and then at the end of that verse, that believe. The promise is by faith in Jesus Christ. That is what God says. If you want the fulfillment of this promise, you have to, uh, uh, it is by faith in Christ. That's all the terms are. Yes, but it only applies to those who actually believe that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given and fulfilled, so to speak, to those that actually believe. What is the function of the law in this regard? The law is given to shut you up to the point where you see that it has to be simply by faith. There's no other way. Why isn't there other way? Well, the law properly understood and applied will bring us to our knees and prove us to be sinners and show to us that we couldn't possibly ever overcome that. The law shuts us up unto sin. To the point where... it dawns on us that if ever I'm to be justified, saved, and an inheritor. I couldn't do it by the keeping of the law. The only way is through faith in Christ. And Paul then uses an illustration, an analogy, a metaphor. Verse twenty three following, but before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. He's talking about the coming of Christ. And how Christ, through his death upon the cross, made possible the fulfillment of the covenants of grace, and made it evident that the inheritance according to that covenant would be simply by faith in him. Before that came, before, in that sense, the new gift of the Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ, with a new power to live lives pleasing to God, then God put Israel under the law. The law has been our pedagogue until Christ should come, that we might be justified by faith. Pedagogue in the ancient world was not a pedagogue in the modern sense. Pedagogy, the teaching of children in schools and all this kind of thing requires great qual- qualification. The Greek word pedagogos simply refers to a slave, humble slave with not much education either, I suspect, but was put in charge of the of s- of the children and uh ha- had to look after them in the sense of seeing they didn't uh uh play football or attempt golf in too close to the house and smash all the windows in the house or things like that, you see. Uh, and uh, restrain them from uh, playing football on the lawn and and ruining the grass or having a pot shot at the policeman's helmet or anything like that, you see. He uh, largely restraining uh, was the pedagogue, uh, you see. Uh, and fathers who, despairing of any other means of keeping early teenagers in order, you see, would appoint them a pedagogue, a slave, to look after them. And the more muscled the the pedagogue was, the better, of course. There to restrain from undue excesses and to motivate the child. One day the child would grow up. I remember in my house as a kid, that my brothers, I- I- I'm sure it was they, it could have been me, but I don't know about that, but, uh, you see, had to be restrained from running in from the garden with mud on our boots across the carpets. The restraint was a threat of six of the best. If we ran in without cleaning our shoes or taking the shoes off and running right across the carpet, you see. Desperate. Do you know what? Now I'm grown up, or more or less grown up. I don't come in with my shoes all squashy with mud and run across the carpet. You say, why don't you do that, old boy? Well, not because there's somebody standing behind the door with a six of the best waiting to inflict them. Grown up. I now share the principles that my parents had, that you shouldn't ruin carpets by silly behavior. So with God. Until faith came, until salvation through the sacrifice and death of Christ was made known, until the coming of the Holy Spirit within the heart to be the new power, the Spirit of God our Father. God provided Israel with a pedagogue, the threat of six of the best, to restrain their transgressions and to bring them to the point where that law brought Paul, if that is his own confession in Romans chapter seven. Desperately tried to keep the law, thought he had attained it and could attain it. But one of the commandments defeated him. Thou shalt not covet. He found he couldn't overcome it. Faith in Christ was the only option. So then, for the, uh, legal arguments. They are detailed, necessarily detailed. This is the legal side of the gospel, not to be disparaged. The gospel tells us of the love of God, yes, but the gospel tells us of the righteousness of God, and the way God saves us is righteous. Moreover, God is a father. He knew what to do with the race in its infancy, with Israel in its childhood, and in its early teenage years. But now he's going to make the point that the treatment of teenagers or infants is one thing, the treatment of grown-up sons is another. So verse chapter four verses one uh, to see to seven are now another argument from analogy. And the analogy is there to show the difference of treatment that a father will give to, on the one hand, a child, and on the other to a grown-up son. But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a slave, though he is lord of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the term appointed of the father. So far, the analogy. Paul is citing what would have happened in a wealthy home, particularly a Roman home, where the father, the paterfamilias, was a very wealthy man with houses and lands and so forth, riches, uh, under his, uh, uh, in his possession, under his control. And a s- a child is born to him. Under the Roman law, the father would wait a while, and then would come a s- a ceremony in which a father would take that child up and own it as his child. Greek term, weo thesia, placing it as a son. Of course, if the child was a genuine child of the father, even though it were but a few months old, it would in one sense be a son, wouldn't it? For inheritance depended on sonship. The child, as soon as it was born and it was established it was a genuine child of his father, was by that definition heir to his father. As in the English monarchical system, the sovereign's first male child, the moment he's born, is heir to the throne. But in a great Roman household, even though the father acknowledged this infant as his son legally, and he was therefore heir to everything, the father wouldn't give everything to him to administer while he was still an infant, but would wait until the child had grown up. Until then, the child would be put under guardians and stewards. In a Roman household, those guardians and stewards would mostly be slaves anyway. In Roman households, your secretary, in charge of all your affairs, was probably a slave. Your doctor was a slave, and so forth and so on. The manager of your fields, of your farms, would be a slave. Do you see? Some of them were of a high, uh, position, of course. The Roman emperors, head of their civil servants, were slaves. Do you see? Very superior people they were. And if you were an ordinary Roman, true born Roman, but you'd fallen on hard times and hadn't got the wherewithal to feed yourself, you went along to your patron, who was a very wealthy citizen, you see, and he expected you to vote for him when it came. Talk about, you know, peerage for money, but he expected you to vote for him when the elections took place. You were therefore his client. You were a freeborn Roman, and because you were his client, you could turn up at his door every morning for the dole out, the necessary bread or money to buy bread and money to go to the circus. It was galling when you went for it, because the chap who dished it out was a high-powered slave, you see. And you were a Roman citizen? Oh! And have to go to a slave to get your money through pence to buy bread at Tesco's or something. It was, it was a bit galling. And if you were a kid, noble, and really owned the estate, had to go to him, uh, to get your portable telephone or something, the money to s- you had to go to a slave. But that's how it was. Until the lad grew up. And that time would be appointed by the father. So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world. Referring to Judaism, of course. The rudiments, the Greek word is stoicheia. As applied to language, it would mean the basic ABC of the language, the basic elementary principles of the language. Why does Paul describe the law as the stoicheia, the rudiments of the world? Well, because, uh, uh, well, let's re- listen to what the writer to the Hebrews says. Under the law, they had a sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world, says Hebrews, does it not? Chapter nine. Meaning it was a made of material, wood, stone, gold, silver, linen, copper. It was a sanctuary of this world, of this material world, as distinct from the true sanctuary, which is in heaven, of course. It's a spiritual thing. So the law was the ABC of behavior, but it dealt with, uh, the things of this world. When the fullness of the time came, God sent forth. Now notice the exactitude of the terms, gentlemen. Sent forth not his child, his son. Cool. Get the majesty of it, pray do, in this context. Sent forth his son. With all the dignity of the Father. The full expression of the Father. Express image of his person. He sent forth his son, then notice the next term, born of a woman, Truly human. To share our humanity. Born under the law. Phew. Do you mind if I use the term? God sent him to the same school as Israel had been under. He was circumcised as a child. Taught the law. Ah, but... he kept it. And kept it fully. And God sent him, put him under the law, a human being born under the law, that he might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Notice that? Paul is talking we, we, we all the way through, isn't he? He's talking about we Jews were under the law. Yes. And God sent forth his son, put him under the law too. What for? That he might redeem them which were under the law. You see, when it came to the New Testament gospel, God could not say, well, now the gospel has come, Christ has died and, uh, risen, and so now it doesn't matter, you Jews, whether you kept the law or not. The law is now scrapped, you know, from that point of view. It doesn't matter whether you broke it or not. No, no. The law had its penalty. And before Israel could be saved, those penalties of that broken law had to be paid for. Suppose my parents had been well enough off to send me to a special school, to say. Mm-hmm. And, uh, as I got, uh, to early teenage and whatnot, I couldn't, I couldn't stick the professor of chemistry, the the teacher of chemistry, horrible type, forever putting me in detention and delivering six of the best every now and again, and setting impossible homework, and, uh, being sarcastic and all that. I was determined to get my own back on him, and I stole some stuff from the chemistry lab one day and put it on an extended fuse under his desk and blew the whole place up. And Dad came along and said, oh, he's blown the whole place up, but he shouldn't have done that. You naughty boy, you shouldn't have done that. But anyway, he's old enough to leave school now, and I'm taking him out of school, you see. I'm going to set him up as a partner in my firm. What bother the, uh, explosion that blew the, that blew the lab up and the teacher as well? Can't just walk out of it like that. It'll have to be paid for before the lad can be brought out and set upon another course. Before Israel could be saved, their transgressions under the law had to be paid for. And Christ did it. And that he might re- that he might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. But notice now the term. Son. And because you are sons, God sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying, Abba Father, so that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son. And if a son, then an heir through God. God, these are magnificent words, aren't they? Yep. Receive the adoption of sons. Even now, legally, that is. Romans eight will tell us that we are awaiting adoption, the redemption of our bodies. But here it is the legal thing as to our status, uh, we might receive the adoption of sons. And we are sons. And because we are sons, look at the logic of it. This first, because you are sons, legally sons, God sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. A very sentimental story is told of a couple who, uh, had their first child. And they were a good and godly and spiritual couple. And they were determined that the first word this child ever spoke would be Jesus. Do you see? So when they nursed it, they said, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. They did this for months. And one day, the babe spoke. Dada, he said. Ah yes, of course so. Nature will have its way. Dada. Because you were sons, and God has put the spirit of his son in you, natural to you, sir. You say, dada. Mm-hmm. With all the intimacy, though reverence, that that shows. Abba is the Aramaic word. And the New Testament leaves it untranslated, but adds the Greek translation, pater in Greek. Abba pater. Abba is Aramaic, pater is Greek. And the early Christians have left the Abba untranslated. They heard the way Christ himself prayed. Abba. Some people say it's daddy. Well, daddy is, no, it's too much a childish word. Maybe dad in English. It is a word of intimacy from a child to its father. Yes. It would be an almost an affront of God for us to use it unless God had given us the spirit of his son, grown up son, legally acknowledged, ah, but more than that, given the Holy Spirit. Not on the grounds of our keeping the law, but on the grounds of our salvation through Christ, for the new birth and the new life given us by his spirit. Marvelous, isn't it? That status and that intimacy. Let me pass by ba- ba- uh, in passing, with five minutes before lunch. I interpreted the word in, uh, verse three of chapter four. we are under the rudiments of the world, as applying to the law of Israel in its broader sense. Many commentators are unhappy with this interpretation of the word, the Greek word stoicheia. They admit that this is its meaning in Hebrews five twelve. So let's look at Hebrews five twelve. Hebrews five twelve says, for when by reason of the time you ought to be teachers, you have need again that someone teach you the rudiments, there's the word stoicheia, the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God. It is applied to the Old Testament law and laws. Why object to it, that interpretation here in four three of Galatians, because Paul says not just rudiments, but the rudiments of the world. And secondly, they object to it. Certainly God gave this teaching to Israel, certainly it was elementary and physical, but if it came from God, how could Paul say that the Israelites were held in bondage, in slavery, under this God-given education? Now, there has been enormous movement in theological circles, gentlemen. Let it not give you indigestion before lunch, but there's been an enormous movement these last twenty years in theological circles, saying that when Paul talks about the works of the law, he doesn't mean the moral commandments of the law. He simply means things like food, the food laws and the ceremonial washings. And that when he says he was under bondage to the law, that is simply Paul speaking. Very few other Jews would ever admitted, have admitted that the law was a slavery, a bondage. They would say, oh, how blessed are your commandments. And you should remember it if you're talking to modern Jews. For the Orthodox will not necessarily admit to you that they f- feel the law is a big slavery. They pride themselves on the law. So then what is the answer to it? Well, reply, we can say a number of things. Paul is saying that as long as the child was under the care and authority of the guardians and stewards, he differed nothing from a slave. We should remember also that Peter, in the context similar to that which Paul is discussing here in Galatians, describes circumcision and the law of Moses as a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. Though, of course, Peter would have admitted that that yoke was given by God. Now I'm quoting Acts fifteen verse sixteen. To those who wanted to teach that you cannot be saved unless you keep the law of Moses and are circumcised. Paul says, verse ten, now therefore, why tempt ye God that you should set, you should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? And Paul himself repeats the phrase in our Galatians chapter five verse one. Describes circumcision as a yoke of slavery. Now, those who are unhappy to interpret this Greek word stoicheia in chapter four three as the elementary teaching which God gave Israel in the Old Testament, suggest an alternative translation. Refers to the elementary spirits of this world, that is evil spirits and demons. These are said to have perverted God's law in the minds of Israel, deceiving them into thinking that they had to keep the law to be saved, and so plunging them into slavery. But this translation won't fit the facts in general, nor what Paul is talking about in this context. In the Old Testament times, all Israel, the godly as well as the ungodly, believers as well as apostates, were under the law. But it surely would be grotesque to think that even godly believers like David and Isaiah were deceived by evil spirits into thinking that salvation was by keeping the law. The guardians and stewards who treated the infant like a slave and insisted on his submitting to his elementary training were not malicious deceivers, they were appointed by the Father. Moreover, it is clear that even people like David, who knew forgiveness of sins, Paul quotes him as such in Romans four— David, like many another, found forgiveness from God, which was outside the law and its provisions, as he tells us in Psalm 51. But though forgiven, he would not have been allowed to enter into the most holy place in the tabernacle of this world, would he? Not even David. He had no boldness and freedom to enter the presence of God as we have today. He was an heir of all the promises made to Abram, and a good many more besides. But he was still an infant. He was not yet a full-grown son. He still had to offer physical sacrifices. His conscience was not yet made perfect, as Hebrews ten verses one to three would say. It would not be correct to say that when David discovered forgiveness through faith, as he says in Psalm thirty two, He ceased to be under the guardianship and steward of, uh, stewardship of the law. This state of being under guardians and stewards was ordained by the Father to last until God sent forth his Son to redeem those who were under the law. We should notice that, and let me in particular say it. Because I do not believe what some say I teach. I do not believe that the Israel is the same thing as the church. Do not believe that. What has made the difference? Not only the sacrifice of Christ, but the coming of the Spirit of God, of course, on the day of Pentecost. To form of the two, Jew and Gentile, one new man. It is not that the church has just been added on to Israel. What some call the replacement theory. It is that God has done a new thing at Pentecost, such as was never before. He has taken godly Jews who believe in Christ and only Christ for salvation, and he's taken Gentiles who have put their faith in Christ and only Christ for salvation. And made them both one by giving them his spirit, baptizing both in one spirit into one body. This is a major difference. That said, we shall observe that according to this passage, chapter three of Romans, the law was a temporary institution, given after the time of Abraham, and given until the coming of Christ. Temporary. Because the law was temporary, it doesn't add anything to the promises made under covenant by God to Abraham. And we are said, therefore, to be children of Abraham, the seed of Abraham, through faith in Christ. Abraham, you know, was never part of Israel. You know that, don't you? The very name Israel was not given until Jacob. Abraham is never called an Israelite. One final thing. Others who say, but in chapter four of Galatians, when talk- Paul talks about being under bondage, he's not merely talking about Jews, but about Gentiles. As he begins to say in chapter four verse eight, how be it at that time, not knowing God, you were in bondage to them which by nature are no gods. There he turns to talk to Gentiles. It is simply my contention that in the first paragraph, four, one to seven, he is still talking about Jews. But it's time here to break off for lunch.