All right, well, good morning, everyone. If you could turn in whatever copy of God's Word you have handy. We'll flip around a little bit more today, maybe. But let's turn back again to Exodus 19, which we spent a good deal of time looking at. And of course, particularly those first six verses, but we're gonna springboard off of this. On the third new moon, after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day, they came into the wilderness of Sinai. They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai and they encamped in the wilderness. There Israel and camp before the mountain while Moses went up to God. The Lord called to him out of the mountain saying, thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the people of Israel, you yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you on the eagle's wings and brought you to myself. Now, therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples. For all the earth is mine and you shall be to me a kingdom of praise and a holy nation. These are the words you shall speak to the people of Israel. Now, you may recall last week, which I realized was an eternity away, that we were looking at this text, particularly to show how this is really the passage that you start with when you're discussing a Mosaic covenant, not so much Exodus 20 with the Ten Commandments. But the other aspect to remember and to keep in mind throughout all of this, and this is something I tend to harp on quite a bit because it's important, especially because we have this natural tendency to fall into a dispensational mindset, even if not being a dispensational. but that the Mosaic Covenant is given in the context of an already redeemed people. The very structure of Exodus, redemption, then law, shows this. That's the structure. It's really hard to avoid it. But particularly it seems when you look at especially verse five into verse six. If you'll indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasure and possession among all peoples. For all the earth is mine and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Now right there, it sounds an awful lot like Well, obviously this covenant is all about law, not really about grace. Well, what I really hope to do next week with this, and today we'll sort of begin to express this, but next week is show the connection of law really to all the covenants. not just mosaic. So if you look at verses five and six in isolation from everything else, that could be a problem. Now, what I want to do today is really start to stress, even from the Old Testament, even from Moses, the gracious character of the Mosaic Covenant. And it's, of course, connection to the law. How does it coincide? So you can kind of think of this as two parts. What we talk about today and also what we talk about next week as well. But you can just look over at chapter 20, see now we get to chapter 20, the preface to the 10 commandments. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Now, One of the things that does help when you do look at other ancient Near Eastern cultures is that they do show certain similarities to the covenants that we find in the Bible. Unfortunately, many biblical scholars reverse it and say Israel does it the way they do because that's what everybody else around them did. It never comes across anybody's mind that maybe everybody else does it the way Israel did it because that's how God established things. Just, this is a bit of a tangent. But it's the mindset that is really what I'm getting at this point. You know how it's said that, well, Noah and the ark and the flood and all that fun stuff, all the cultures have some sort of flood story, especially there in the ancient Near East and even in the land of Canaan, right? So that's where Israel got their flood story. They just adapted it to their religion. There's a disconnect, major disconnect. Why would the land of Canaan have a flood story? There's a certain aspect where this is, it's like an almost a duh moment. What's that? Well, okay, because of flooding. And that's true, that's not wrong. They're descendants of the survivor, particularly which one? No, Canaan, not Israel. Ham, and who was Ham's son? Come on, who was Ham's son? What? Canaan. Maybe, just maybe, The people in the land of Canaan learned their version from Noah's actual grandson. Okay, so that's just one example, but see, we have this same issue when it comes to the covenants more generally speaking. Biblical scholars, and some are good, some are not so good, have this tendency to base everything that Israel did on what all the ancient Near East cultures did. It's not possible, it seems, that it could ever go in the reverse. But be that as it may, they are helpful and seeing certain similarities. And what we see here in Exodus 20 is one of those similarities. A lot of these covenants with suzerain vassals and all of that fun stuff usually begin with some sort of a preface. They usually begin with who the people are and start to unfold what is happening, and then everything that follows is the details. Well, that's what you see here in the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. So you got the parties, I'm the Lord, Jehovah, your God, well, who's the your? Nation of Israel. And it expresses what God did. Now it's fascinating that in the preface, it doesn't say what God will do, but what he did. The Mosaic Covenant, in this sense anyway, connected to the Abrahamic Covenant, does have a focus on the promised land. That's without a doubt, can't deny it. But the preface to the Ten Commandments doesn't really look forward, it looks back. And what does it look back to? Redemption. So far so good? Comments, thoughts? Brian? Since nobody else is going to have their suggestions. There is a sense in which there's a pattern that mimics what happened in ancient Eurasian treaties, where the history is repeated. I very much appreciated the point that you repeated to make about how it wasn't merely that God spoke the lingo of the people, but he also was doing something which was teaching the people about that language and usage. So we can't say that the people of Israel And the second thing is that point that, again, I appreciate you continuing to make about redemption. That shades the whole thing about what you're thinking about when you come to the commandments. It's a redeemed people. This is the way of life of those who are the redeemed. And the character is the redeemer. Yeah. And that's really what it boils down to. If you look at this in a little more detail with respect to the fourth commandment in particular, in Exodus 20, and I brought this out before, in Exodus 20, you've got creation as the basis, and then in Deuteronomy 5, you end up with redemption as the basis, showing the connection between the two. So that's often what you see. And that's really the important point. And unfortunately, those that have, and again, I'm using this term broadly because it fits, have a somewhat dispensational mindset, see this particular covenant as something very different. Now, each successive covenant is going to be somewhat different. That's inevitable. But the very substance and the heart of each of those covenants is the same. That's the point that we need to remember. But those that have some kind of a dispensational mindset, even if they're not actually dispensational, see with the Mosaic Covenant something that in substance is different. I read for you, kind of, I paraphrased one thing and read for you something else. I paraphrased what the original Scofield Reference Bible had to say with respect to this Mosaic Covenant. that Israel rashly accepted this covenant. They substituted for grace, law. Would it be that you were only speaking hyperbolically? They didn't really say this, but they did. Scofield actually says that. Yeah, no, I know he does. But the problem is, it's not just Schofield and dispensationalists who say this. We have those and I read from an excerpt of one essay from the book, the law is not a faith. All of the contributors are confessional reformed folks. And the piece that I read, it sounds like it came right out of the Schofield reference Bible. And he talked about, this author talked about, T. David Gordon, I mentioned it last week. He talked about, man, that's a raw deal. If I was there, I wouldn't have wanted to accept that. I don't think so. They've got a very different approach. You may find some within it. I would look and see where did the pastor train? So. And I'm thinking too about, we sing psalms about loving God's law, the light. And someone saying, I wouldn't accept that, tells me that they're still confused about what it means for Christians to obey, and we touched on that last week as well. Since we're moving a bit in this direction, rather than, just to reemphasize this point, look again at Psalm 19. Psalm 19 is a wonderful passage that speaks of God's revelation, revelation in creation, and then revelation in his word. But when you get to the special revelation of his word, beginning at verse seven, this is David under the old covenant. Notice what David says. Wow, the law is rough. It's just, it's too burdensome. That's not what he says. Look, the law of the Lord is perfect. It revives the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure. It makes wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever. The rules of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold, and sweeter also than honey from the comb. This is David before Christ, before the new covenant. What's he saying about the law? I don't see anything negative there. Now amplify that, how many times in Psalm 119? 176 verses with the exception of maybe one or two that do not speak to the law. There's only one or two verses in that whole Psalm. But somehow we come to the Mosaic Covenant and law all of a sudden is burdensome. Well, what I want to do is just show from just a couple of passages that even the law, first of all, its connection to the covenant, and let's start there. Let's look at Deuteronomy 4. And we'll jump down to verse 13. This is Moses to the people, and it's really God through Moses to the people, and he declared to you his covenant, which he, what's it say? Commanded you to perform, that is, the 10 commandments, and he wrote them onto tablets of stone. So notice, clearly, a very, a clear connection between the 10 commandments and the covenant. He identifies the one. And even those within our reform circles that kind of buy into the whole republication of the covenant of works, they have to admit that the 10 commandments are a summary of the moral law, because if they don't, they're going to have some problems. But that's the connection, the covenant with the Ten Commandments. Remember what the preface to the Ten Commandments tells us. That God redeemed his people. Law in the context of grace. That's the key. Now how do we know this? Even from a theological standpoint. Let's jump to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Back of the Psalter Hymnal, these are our doctrinal standards. And you go to question 44. What doth the preface to the Ten Commandments teach us? The preface to the Ten Commandments teaches us that because God is the Lord and our God and our Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments. What are fundamentally the two reasons the Westminster divines give us that we need to obey the Ten Commandments? the fact that it's for us today. What are the two primary reasons that the divines here give? That because the Lord is God. Now that should be enough, right? God is God, that should be sufficient. But what's the other reason? Redeemer. That's why, therefore, we are bound to keep all his commandments. were bounded to, I can't tell you. A few years back, I posted on Twitter just that line, Christians are bound to keep all God's commandments. And those that are very sympathetic to this idea of republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant started having hissy fits. And they're trying to say they're confessional. And I'm like, guys, I just literally quote quoted our confessional standards. So what's your issue? Jonathan? Honestly, the place that I would go is just from the Old Testament itself. And you read that first portion of Exodus. You have where Moses is told to and actually does go to Pharaoh. What's the reason given to Pharaoh why he should let God's people go? So that they may worship him and that they may obey him and serve him. That's what it boils down to. And the whole point of the Exodus, as real and as true as it is historically, points to something greater. It was a type of redemption through Christ. Freedom from slavery to sin. So they're set free, that's the structure of Exodus. And you could show them in those passages leading, you know, the first nine or 10 chapters. It doesn't take long to spot them. You see it in chapter three and chapter four when God says it to Moses, and then a couple of times when Moses goes to Pharaoh. The very structure of the book of Ephesians, right down the middle. the wealth in Christ that Christians have in the first three chapters, and then the walk that Christians have. And right there at chapter four, verse one, a key word, therefore. Here's all the wealth we have in Christ. Therefore, this is what you're supposed to do. That's the structure. That's exactly it. You delight and desire to obey, not to be saved, but because you have been saved. You could. Aside from the whole legality side of things, but yeah. Chase? How do we understand that? In delighting in God's law, knowing that Paul himself says, the law is good, the law is spiritual. I delight in it in my inner man. Christ came that the righteous requirement of God might be filled in us. And those who are spiritual can and do obey the law, but those who are of the flesh cannot and will not. How do we parse that distinction? Well, I think really the distinction comes, what's the purpose that you're using the law for? For what purpose are you using the Ten Commandments? For what purpose are you using the law? Is it so that I can be right with God? Or is it because God made me right with Him through Christ, therefore I'm gonna serve Him? If you use it the one way, it's a ministry of death. because no one will be righteous before God for his own obedience to the law. Correct. That's that's and I'm thinking also of Galatians, which will unpack particularly when we start looking at really start honing in and criticizing this doctrine of republication, because they love to turn to Galatians. because Galatians quotes Leviticus 18.5. He who does these things will live by them. It'll get recorded, even if you're not barring any technical issues. All right, so I've made the connection using Deuteronomy 4.13. You could also just flip a couple pages to chapter nine of Deuteronomy. and verses four through six. Notice, and this right here, I honestly don't know what these guys who hold the republication do with these verses. Do not say in your heart after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, it is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess the land. Whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you, not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart, are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God is driving them out from before you that, and that he may confirm the word that the Lord swore to your fathers, Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob. So there's a twofold reason. the wickedness of the people that are there, but also to confirm the promise that he gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Notice what's not mentioned here. You're being brought into the land because these 40 years in the wilderness, you finally lived up to the obligations of the covenant. See, one of the major premises of those who hold to this modern republication of a covenant of works in Moses is that it's there typologically as a nation that that's how they get into the land and how they stay in the land. Well, why did God just stay here just before they enter the land? It's not because you're righteous. It's because of his promise, it's covenant, it's grace. That's the gracious character. Now, if you need a little bit more, now this is one of my favorite passages to turn to for this. Galatians, not Galatians, Exodus. I told you I was staying in the Old Testament for this. to demonstrate it, Exodus 34. Now this is an area where there really should not have been a chapter break. In Exodus 23, or 33, excuse me, Moses intercedes. Because what happened in chapter 32? You can look at the headings and you'll see it. What happened in chapter 32? What did Israel do while Moses was up on the mountain? Oh yeah, what did they do? The golden calf. And of course, you know, Aaron, in his way of trying to deal with it, he started talking about a festival to Jehovah, even as he had this calf. Okay. Moses intercedes, showing himself to be a type of Christ. God responds, Moses asks, Moses asks, show me your glory. That's basically how chapter 33 ends. You see that in verse 18, Moses said, please show me your glory. And then you get the description of what God will do to show his glory. Now you come to chapter 34. The Lord said to Moses, cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke. Be ready by morning and come up to the mountain, to Mount Sinai, and present yourself there to me on the top of the mountain. No one shall come up with you, and let no one be seen throughout all the mountain. Let no flocks or herds graze opposite that mountain. So Moses cut the two tablets of stone, like the first. And he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hands the two tablets of stone. The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there and proclaimed the name of the Lord. The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious. slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation. Now, jump down a little bit further, verse 10. And he said, behold, I am making a covenant. Oh, so now we have another covenant, right? Oh, it's the same one. You read the rest of chapter 34, it's ultimately the same thing. But God prefaces all of this in a critical point in Israel's history, Moses intercedes, And it's not as though God, well, I'm gonna create new commandments, ones that are easier for you to keep. No, he begins by saying he's merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love. This is the crux, the nature, the characteristic of the covenant with Moses. It is gracious. above all else. As we've already looked at the second portion of Psalm 19, we've made reference to Psalm 119. There's been allusions to what Paul says in Romans chapter seven, that the law is spiritual and good. That's the apostle Paul, you know, justification by faith. And he's saying the law is spiritual and good. All to say that the law given to Israel was unquestionably a gracious thing. God's commands are good. It's gracious that he enters into this covenant fellowship, that he reveals to his people, savingly, what it looks like to be God-like. This is obedience to the law, and that's not a bad thing, unless I'm gonna obey God's law so that he'll have to let me into heaven. I'll be righteous in his sight if I, yeah, you're gonna have problems. Thoughts, comments? So we've got the gracious character of the law. That's really what this boils down to. I'm thinking about people who use that term, that term republication. God's saying again what he said before. But I'm gathering that that's not really all that's at stake in that terminology. They mean something more than that. It's not really God repeating himself. That's actually it. And when we start looking at that into more detail, the essence of what they're saying is that the covenant of works is being republished in some sense, that's the language they use, in some sense. That's their favorite three words. And it's being republished so that the people will see they can't do it, God has to do it. You can't, because you've got to be able to get into the land, obey the stipulation. That's the fundamental ground of you coming into the promised land as a nation. And that's sometimes also how they kind of wiggle their way in and out of it, is that they're talking about the nation, as opposed to individuals. And it's like, yeah, I could show examples of individuals that suffer the consequences of breaking the Mosaic Covenant, what do they do with that? So it's the idea that typologically, it's the covenant of works in order to be enter into eternal rest, you have to have that obedience to the covenant of works. Now there's a certain sense, it sounds like salvation by works. Well, I know we're sort of veering off into this. I have made the observation, and man, did I get all kinds of flack from those who hold to it. I have made the comment, and some of you will get this, if you're familiar with this other area, that this modern view of republication is nothing more than Old Testament federal vision. And those guys, especially that come out of Escondido that hold to this, They are vehemently opposed to federal vision. I mean, vehemently, so much so than any speaking of doing good works, that's federal vision. And yet in the Old Testament, that's what they're doing. There's an individual that a number of you know, that basically calls this view of republication, dispensationalism 2.0. And you think back of what I said last week about the Scofield Reference Bible and that portion of the contribution that T. David Gordon gave, they say the same thing. What a rash decision. They traded grace for law, that's terrible. No wonder the Psalms are all lamentable. So, yeah. Now, I get it. And two quick things about this. And when we start dedicating time just to this concept of republication, the first thing I wanna know is that when you start reading in various authors, they're not all using the term republication the same way. That's the key thing to remember. So for instance, I have no issue whatsoever and I think it's right to say that at Sinai, the moral law was republished. But that's different than saying that at Sinai, the covenant of works was republished. That's very different. And this was actually brought out on the floor of GA when the study committee came back with their report on republication. Two things, the report tries to appeal to Charles Hodge. Okay, that's fine. But somebody brought out and happened to have a copy with him and just said of Charles Hodge's systematic theology, pointed out the citation that was used, flipped a couple pages and said, this is what he means by it. He doesn't mean this. So, and no doubt you can sense a bit of the frustration in my voice with respect to this. I want to take a step one, just take a quick step back and just say again, these are, you know, they're good men, they are. I'm not ready to kick them out of the kingdom, okay? but because they're closer to home, I tend to react a little bit stronger. You know, just think about protecting your own home, okay? And this is a loose analogy, very loose. You know, it's easy for us to think about crime over there, but if crime gets closer to your house, you're gonna be like, whoa, hey, wait a minute. I'm not saying what they're doing is a crime, I'm speaking of my reaction, because it's closer to home. John MacArthur talks about dispensationalism. It's just like, okay, I shrug my shoulders. Whatever, that's fine. People hold in certain churches to the Scofield reference Bible, New World, whatever. Okay, I think they're wrong. But when you got Presbyterians and Continental Reformed using language that is essentially dispensational, then I start to get a little more concerned because that's closer to home. You know, you guys who are parents, aren't you harder on your own kids when you see them doing something? that they shouldn't as opposed to that kid down the street. Well, that's not my kid. Well, again, that's why, because it's your kid, you get it. Again, no analogy is perfect, but that's the issue, that's kind of the idea. And so when you see me kind of get riled up, that's because it's close to home. It's not because I doubt any of their salvation or anything like that. So that's another clarifying point that I think is important. There was something else, and I can't remember what. I blanked. Imagine that. Roy? I'm going to give you a chance to unblank yourself. Thought for a moment. Dave and I were talking as we were driving over this morning, and we're wrestling with peace, peace, when there is no peace. The kind of concern you're expressing is one that we would tend to just bypass and not be concerned because guess what? It's going to get us in as well as follows. It's going to make people unhappy. Can't we all get along? And thinking about that in terms of what happens over the course of a generation or two, I'm old enough that I've seen it. I've seen it. Yeah, so that's kind of what boils down to me with respect to it. And to me, the simple solution is just look at the structure of Exodus, look at the language of grace with respect to the Mosaic covenant. Look what David, David doesn't consider God's law to be a burden. So I don't understand the idea that that was some rash, bad deal decision that Israel made at Sinai when you read subsequently, God's law is awesome. I just don't get it, I really don't. So yeah. So hopefully I've put forth the idea or emphasize the gracious character of the Mosaic covenant from language in the covenant books, the Torah. That's what you see. Exodus 34 is my favorite one to look at. I pointed you to Deuteronomy chapter four, Deuteronomy chapter nine, there are others as well. But even our confessional standards recognize that the character of the moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, is a gracious thing to sinners like you and me, because God is God and our Redeemer. That's what it boils down to. That's why we obey. First, because He's God. That should be understood. But also, how much more, because He's redeemed us. And in fact, that's part of why he redeemed us, so that we may obey, so that we may worship, so that we may serve him. So next week, what I hope to do, and it's gonna be related to what we talked about, the gracious character, I wanna connect the law with all aspects of each covenant. There's law in all of them. So even with Abraham. All right, well, we're out of time. I gave you lots to think about. And again, just remember, I know I harp on my own team, but it's because they are my own team. So I'm gonna be a bit harsher. And I would expect the same from them with respect to me. So, because they are that close, they ought to be harsher with me. So, all right, let's close in prayer. Our Father and God in heaven, how we do give you thanks that you are gracious, that you are kind, and that you are a God who has given us a summary of your moral law seen in the 10 commandments. How you revealed yourself to Moses, indicating that you are slow to anger, merciful, gracious, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. And so Lord, may that truth motivate us to want to serve you and obey you and worship you. Prepare our hearts and minds as we're about to come into your presence even now. We pray this in Christ's name, amen.