Good morning. Good to be with you all this morning on this Lord's Day. What a great privilege we have to hear from the Lord today throughout the day, and we rejoice in that privilege. But we come together again this morning to continue our study on the law of God. This is the second week, and we'll be discussing the question today, what is the law of God, as you see on the screen there? But before we do that, I just wanted to open our time with the reading of Scripture. We'll read Psalm 19, beginning in verse seven, if you wanna follow along. Hear the word of the Lord. The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making 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. Sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned, and keeping them there is great reward. Before we begin our time together, let's go to the Lord in prayer. Father, we must confess with a psalmist how glorious and righteous and wonderful is your law, because it is the expression of your perfect character. And as we hold it before our eyes and ears this morning, we ask that you would bless the teaching from your word. Keep me, the one who is expounding it, from error on the right hand and the left. And may it come with edification to the people of God for your great glory, that it might prepare us and be a fit preparation for the worship of this day. And we ask this in Jesus' name and for your glory. Amen. Well, I want to say before we jump into this particular lesson that these next two lessons are just a bit technical. So I want to give you a fair warning of that. They are important though and critical for the purpose of our understanding and rightly applying the practical stuff, you know, technical things, technical doctrines. are very important, actually. And they lay the foundation for our understanding of practical matters. And so this is the case this morning. I think it's helpful to think of this as kind of like studying a tool before you prepare to wield it. Perhaps you use complex tools at work, and it takes you several days, perhaps, or at least hours to understand how that machine works. So you don't kill yourself, so you don't chop your hand off, so you don't hurt someone else. Think of a soldier. You've seen movies, perhaps, where soldiers in training, what do they do? They take their weapon apart, and they put it back together again. They take it apart, they put it back together again, almost to the point of just ridiculousness that they do it so many times. But why do they do that? They do that because they need to know how their firearm works. Because one little mistake in that firearm, one little jam, if they don't have this sort of reflex to immediately fix it, could cost them precious seconds, which could cost their own life or the life of their fellow soldiers. It's important to know our tools. And in this way, it's important for us to know technical doctrines in the Bible because they undergird all of our approach to practical aspects of the Christian faith. And this is the case. So bear with me this morning and next week as we talk about some technical matters concerning the law of God. I promise you won't regret it in the least bit. So I just want to remind you where we're going and where we are. We're in week two of our study. Last week we began with just a general introduction of the Christian orientation to the law, which is to love the law. That was just an introduction to kind of whet our appetites for the week ahead, or the eight times together. But then today I want to turn to the question of what do we mean when we say the law of God? What does the confession mean when it talks about the law of God? And then next week, as I said, we'll also be somewhat technical as we discuss the threefold division of the law, which is really important as well. Now, the first question we want to ask is what law are we talking about? What is the law that we're talking about in chapter 19? Or when I'm doing a series here on the law of God, what law am I talking about? Are we talking about scripture? Because sometimes the word law is used to talk about scripture in general. Are we talking about the Pentateuch or the first five books, the books of Moses? Sometimes the word law is used to talk about the books of Moses as a whole. Are we talking about the entire Old Testament? the Old Covenant? Are we talking about the Ten Commandments, or the ceremonial law, or the judicial laws? What do we mean when we say the law of God? Scripture uses the word law, of course, to talk about all of these things, but when we talk about the law of God together in our series, we are specifically talking about the moral law, the moral law. And my goal for today is to demonstrate to you from scripture that the moral law which was written on the heart of Adam is the same law that was written on stone tablets by the finger of God for Moses on Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments. The same law given to Adam is the same law given to Moses. And it is the same in substance as what is called the law of Christ in the New Testament. That is our main objective this morning, is to show that that moral law is the same throughout all of these dispensations here. There are two types of law, moral and positive. That's the other thing we're gonna see this morning. The moral law alone, summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments, continues forever as a perpetual standard of righteousness as it flows out of the nature and character of God, which we discussed last week. And our confession says, the moral law does forever bind all. And I will be using paragraph 1 and 2 of chapter 19 of our Second London Confession of Faith. as a guide to unpacking this biblical doctrine. So you can see the chart there. The moral law forever binds all. This means it was on the heart of Adam, written on the heart of all of Adam's, the work of the law being written on the heart of all of Adam's posterity, his children. It is handed to Moses, written by the finger of God on tablets of stone in the Ten Commandments. And it is the same law which Christ teaches to his disciples and the apostles teach to the church. what we'll be seeing today. Now this chart also serves here as a three-part outline for our discussion as we'll be unpacking this according to this outline here as we consider the moral law in each of these eras. First let's consider the law as given to Adam and the Theologians call this the moral law. This is what our confession calls the moral law, the law given to Adam. And you see this here in the Second Lenten Confession, 19, paragraph 1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience. written in his heart. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written on his heart. And by this signifies that Adam was not a neutral being. He was not made neutral and he could fall or he could do good. He was made as having natural righteousness, original righteousness as having the law of God written on his heart. And there are a few scriptures that particularly illustrate this that show where the confession is getting this language. And the first of those, of course, is Genesis 127, which says, God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them. And so this verse obviously teaches that men are not just a blank check, so to speak. They are made in the image of God. What does that mean? The best description we have in the New Testament of, I think, what this means is from the Apostle Paul in the book of Ephesians, chapter four, verses 22 to 24, where he talks about sanctification as being renewed in the likeness of God. We talked about this verse last week, but to read it again. To put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self created after the likeness of God. in true righteousness and holiness. And when Paul says this of sanctification, this is what Adam had inherently. He had original righteousness and original holiness. Ecclesiastes speaks to this as well. God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. God made man upright, but they have sought out many sins. They have transgressed. So these verses teach that man was created as oriented toward God. It's very important that we see that Adam was not made neutral, where he could do good or he could do bad. He was made good. So Adam was made as oriented toward God, which was displayed in perfect obedience, true righteousness, and holiness for the enjoyment of natural religious fellowship with God. That's what Adam had, natural religious fellowship with God, just by virtue of his being created in the image of God. Adam was made upright with original righteousness. He was not neutral or a blank slate. How could it be that a man could have religious fellowship with God without a positive righteousness? That's impossible now, and it was impossible then. How could he have a fellowship with God without a true holiness? And these things do not consist in the mere refraining from sin, but in doing righteousness, in being righteous. in doing what God commands. So let's think a little bit more. What does it mean that Adam was upright, truly righteous, and holy? What does that mean? Well, I think some folks really imagine that Adam and Eve were just neutral beings who didn't really do anything until they sinned in the fall. They just were made, and they could sin, and they did sin. But the testimony of Scripture is that they were made righteous. So what does that mean? That Adam and Eve were neutral is not the picture that Scripture gives. God made them upright. And this means that they were righteous. And again, that's not just refraining from sin, but they walked, whether it was for hours, the text doesn't say, it could have been hours between when they were created and when they fell. We don't know. It could be days, weeks, months. We don't know exactly. But they walked originally for however long in righteous love to God and to one another." Perfect holiness. And I think we could illustrate this with several questions, perhaps in the negative. Now what would you say to these questions, I wonder? Would it be okay for Adam and Eve to break any of the Ten Commandments? Raise your hand if you think yes. but they didn't have the written code yet, did they? But it would be wrong for them to break any of the Ten Commandments, wouldn't it? It would be wrong. Would it not be wrong for Adam to fail to worship God with all of his heart, mind, soul, and strength? Would it be okay for Adam to make idols, images of God? Would it be okay for Adam to take the Lord's name in vain? Would it be okay for Adam to profane the seventh day, which God had made holy? Would it have been okay for him to, if he had had children in this pre-fall state, would it be okay for him to provoke them to wrath? Which is a teaching of the fifth commandment. Derivative teaching of the fifth commandment, as we'll see. Would it have been okay for him to murder? Or to to despise or abuse his wife. Would that be okay for Adam to do? Would it be okay for him to steal the possession of others, to bear a false witness against others, against his wife? Would it be okay for him to covet or to be discontent with the things that God had given him? And we need to answer all those questions. No, it would not be okay for him to do that. And he did them to perfection. He loved his wife to perfection prior to the fall, doing all the things that he was supposed to do. He loved his God and worshiped him with all of his heart, mind, soul, and strength prior to the fall. And so, though Adam doesn't have the written code, he yet obeys the written code in his pre-fall state because he had that law written on his heart. How else could the text say that he is in the image of God in righteousness and true holiness, but that he walked in the moral law of God, holy and righteous? And this is the moral law of God, which is written on his heart. And theologians call this law, they call this the natural law, as it was written originally on the heart of Adam. Of course, natural law has taken on a different meaning in more recent centuries, but the original meaning here for our purposes is that law that was written on Adam's heart in the garden. Now we're not told that Adam was given this law externally, which is a stumbling block for some theologians today. Well, we're not told that Adam was given a law. Well, it's not given externally, but the scripture indicates by necessity that this law was written internally upon his heart. And Adam's heart before the fall was completely upright. And there's no way that we could say this of Adam if he did not inherently possess the law of God. And this is what our confession says in chapter four, paragraph two. God created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created. This is being oriented toward God. Being made after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, having the law of God written in their hearts. But at this point, as we consider the moral law, we also need to consider something called positive law. And this is a very important term that will come up later in our study that we need to have a good handle on, a good definition for. So this word positive law, what does it mean? And our confession speaks of this positive law in the next clause of chapter 19, paragraph 1. God gave to Adam a moral law and a particular precept, our confession calls it, a particular precept, what other theologians call a positive command. A particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now when we use the word positive, what's the first thing that comes to our mind? We think of positive as the opposite of negative, so it must be good as opposed to the rest of the law. That's kind of the connotation of the word that we use today. But that is not what the word positive connotes here. We're not using it in the sense that this is a positive law and the other ones are negative. Positive here is derived from the Latin word positivus, which means settled by arbitrary appointment or agreement. Settled by arbitrary appointment or agreement. That word arbitrary means it's not inherently good or bad. This is opposed to natural law, which is the moral law that forever binds all. This is a positive command that is not inherently part of God's moral law, that is an eternal law, but it is something that God commands and so thereby, by virtue of the moral law, becomes obligatory for all who are commanded by that law. So where does this come from? Genesis 2, verse 16 and 17. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, you may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat. For in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. And I think that the definition here that Arthur Jackson gives is very helpful. And he says, besides the moral law, the law of nature written in Adam's heart, whereby he knew exactly all things wherein he was bound to obey his creator. The Lord gave him also this positive and particular commandment concerning a thing of itself indifferent. That's very important. Positive law is a thing of itself indifferent. Because it's not part of the moral law, it's of itself indifferent. But by God's command, it's made unlawful. that the Lord's absolute dominion over him might be hereby made known." So it's of itself indifferent, but by virtue of God's making it unlawful for a particular people in time. And Dr. James Renahan, from where I got this quote actually, his exposition of the 1689, he says, this particular precept, speaking of Genesis 2, 16, focused the testing of Adam's obedience to the whole law into one specific prohibition, do not eat from this tree, which is, of course, a thing in itself indifferent, eating from a particular tree. Although the positive precept is not rooted in the moral, disobedience to the positive is a violation of the moral. God's lordship and Adam and Eve's wholehearted love for him was the object of the probationary test. Perhaps I hesitate whether to give an example here, but this may break down. It may not be a great illustration, but I think it may help some of you. Having your kids to put their toys on this particular shelf is not part of the moral law of God. It's not. It is a house rule. And so that is something of a positive law. It's something, now that the kids have been told to do it, this is where you put this toy. If they disobey, now it's a matter of the Fifth Commandment. It is part of the moral law. So that perhaps breaks down at some level, but I think that's a helpful way to distinguish between the types of laws here. So God gave Adam a law in order to test whether he would remain faithful to the moral law. And positive law is distinct from moral law in that it does not flow out of the nature of God. Positive laws are made in the context of covenant. That's very important. We'll talk about that in a lot more detail next week. Positive laws are made in the context of covenant and for those who are subject to that covenant. It's very important. They were laws established for particular times or situations defined by those covenants. And I'm going to share this chart now. I'm not going to talk about it a whole lot. We'll spend a little bit more time on this this week. But I think this helps illustrate positive law. If you see the plus there at the bottom, that's a positive law. Fill in the blank there. But you see there the moral law. through all the biblical covenants is the same. This is what our confession teaches. This is what the scriptures teach, that the moral law forever binds all. Through all the covenants, the moral law is the same. However, in these distinct covenants, there are positive laws that are given in addition to the moral law, sometimes expounding the moral law, sometimes penalties for disobeying the moral law. sometimes completely just isolated to that covenant alone for specific purposes. And once that covenant is fulfilled or terminated, those positive laws are no longer binding upon the people of God. I think the best example of this, and we'll talk about this more next week, is that Paul says that the Gentiles don't need to be circumcised. And that's not a huge problem. Why is that not a huge problem? Because the apostles recognized that that was a positive law for the nation of Israel. Why is it a big problem that Gentiles can eat pork now? It's not a problem. And that is because that was a positive law for the nation of Israel. And this is not a problem, because that is not part of the moral law. It is a thing of itself indifferent. It was given to the nation of Israel for a specific purpose, and now its purpose has been fulfilled and terminated as the Gentiles have come in through Jesus Christ. So we'll consider this chart in a little bit more detail. It's very important when we think about the threefold distinction of the law. And I think this helps clarify a lot of questions concerning that. But we'll get into more detail about that next week. Now, I just want to talk very briefly about the covenant of works, because that is basically what theologians call what I've just said to you, the moral law given to Adam and the positive precept given to Adam. What's to Adam? A covenant of works. And our confession speaks of this, although it doesn't use the word here, it uses it elsewhere, but this is certainly the concept behind it. By which, the moral law and the positive precept, by which he bound him in all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it." That is a covenant of works. The Adam, if he had obeyed this precept, if he had obeyed the moral law, he would bring many sons to glory. But if he disobeyed it, it would bring death upon the breaking of it. And God endued him with power and ability to keep it. This is what theologians call the covenant of works. So let's just briefly speak about this. The moral law and the positive precept were for Adam a covenant of works. This is what the moral law required, and we see this in the Westminster Larger Catechism, which is very similar to our own confession here. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto. In the frame and disposition of the whole man, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, how is that? Soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man. And we must say, Wow, that is a very, very strict requirement. In the whole man, in the whole person, whole person, whole man, whole soul, obedience to God and thought word and deed. Promising life upon the fulfilling and threatening death upon the breach of it. And we see this. Galatians 3 10 the Apostle comments on those who seek to be justified by the law and he's saying this this is impossible and he says for all who rely on works of the law are under a curse for it is written cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law and do them Anyone who seeks to be justified, certainly after the fall, is obligated to keep the whole law with this whole man, and he is cursed. So again, if Adam would have obeyed the precept, if he would have obeyed, he would have led many sons to glory. But he failed, which resulted in death. And that is the basic structure and teaching of the covenant of works. which we'll talk about a lot later on in contrast to how the law comes to believers and how the law comes to unbelievers because the law still comes to unbelievers as a broken covenant of works. And Paul says here, you can't keep it anymore because it's broken. But they still try to keep it. They still try because that work of that law is still written on their hearts. But they cannot. So unbelievers have the law to themselves as a covenant of works, but believers as a rule of life, no longer as a covenant of works. And we look forward to talking more about that. So that's the moral law that was written on the heart of Adam. Let's talk briefly here about the law of Moses. Specifically, we want to show how the law that was written on the heart of Adam is the same as the moral law that is written on stone tablets by the finger of God on Mount Sinai. But before we actually consider the Ten Commandments as codified at Sinai, it's written down, we have to recognize that the work of the moral law continued as a perfect rule of righteousness from the fall all the way until Sinai. Scripture teaches this very clearly. And our confession says here, the same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall. So here the confession asserts that though the covenant of works was broken, as I said before, the work of the law continues as a perfect rule of righteousness in the hearts of all of Adam's children. And the scriptures teach that this work of the law is found in the hearts of sinners who do not have the written law of the Ten Commandments. We see this in Romans 5 verse 12. For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no written law. Sin is not seen. Yet, or nevertheless, as some translations have it, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one to come. And so death continues from Adam to Moses, and so that is the culpability of the law, the work of the law written on their hearts. And this is by virtue of man's being created in the image of God and still retaining to that image of God in some sense. And John Gill gives a helpful comment here. Though the law of Moses was not yet given, the written law, death exerted itself and extended its dominion over all the sons and daughters of Adam during the interval between Adam and Moses, which clearly shows that sin was in the world and that there must be a law in being. There was still a law in function. And we clearly see in scripture that before the moral law was written on stone tablets, the work of the law was written on the hearts of Adam's children. What are some examples of this? Well, the fourth commandment. Were there people that broke the fourth commandment before the law was given on Sinai? We have to say yes. Exodus 16. The Lord rebukes Israel for attempting to gather manna on the seventh day. And he appeals to it as though it is a binding moral law before it was given on Sinai. They should know it by virtue of their creation. Sixth commandment, Cain knows it's wrong to kill Abel. Genesis four, God judges men in the flood, particularly for what? For violence and bloodshed. How are they supposed to know that's wrong if it's in the days before Sinai? But they do know. Seventh commandment, Pharaoh knows it would be wrong to take a man's wife. Now how does this Gentile man know that it's wrong to take a man's wife for himself and that this will be a curse to him. Jacob's sons say such a thing must not be done in Israel concerning Dinah's rape. Genesis 34, Judah wants to burn Tamar when it's revealed that she's pregnant by harlotry and he is put to shame when his fornication with Tamar is revealed. Genesis 38, now why is that? There's no law yet. Moses, how can they be held accountable for that? How can they know that's wrong? Joseph and Potiphar's wife. Joseph says, how could I sin in such a way against my God by taking this man's wife? How can I sin against my God in this way? How does Joseph know that if the law is not given yet at Sinai? The eighth commandment. Laban is upset that his household gods have been stolen. Why is that a big deal, Laban, that something's been stolen from you? Jacob's upset that his wages have been changed 10 times. Why should he be upset about that? That's not been said yet from the mountain. And Jacob knows it's wrong to deceive his father, and that it will bring a curse down upon him. And his mother says, that's OK. Let it fall upon me. She acknowledges that it's wrong, and we're going to do it anyway. So how is it that all these things are understood to be wrong when this has not been delivered from Sinai yet? Well, we see that before the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai, the moral law of God, the work of that law, is written on the hearts of these men throughout the pre-Sinai days. So let's consider now specifically the Ten Commandments. And our confession says, the same law that was first written in the heart of man was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in Ten Commandments and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God and the other six our duty And here the confession asserts plainly that the moral law which was written on the heart of Adam was given to Israel through Moses in the Ten Commandments written by the very finger of God. Just a few comments about this. The Lord, this we read in Deuteronomy 9, and the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God. And on them were all the words that the Lord had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of assembly." Here I just want you to simply notice that the law of God and the Ten Commandments were given here twice, in the sense of they were announced to Israel on the mountain, and you remember that scene where the mountain is consumed in smoke? And there's thunder, and it terrifies the people of Israel when God speaks to them from Mount Sinai. But then it's also written with the finger of God on tablets of stone. So this speaks of its importance. And I think it's abiding continuance to the people of God of all times, which we'll discuss later on in our study. And the Confession asserts that this law is the same moral law that was written on the heart of Adam and which continued to be a rule of righteousness And we see this testified by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2, 14 to 15, for when Gentiles who do not have the written law, as he's speaking about in Romans, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. This is the argument of the Apostle Paul. Basically to say that Jews that have the law, that have the written law, but yet don't obey it, are no better off than the Gentiles who don't have the written law, yet could do what it commands themselves. They perhaps, in some sense, could be more righteous than the Pharisees that have the law written, in this sense. And Paul teaches here that the Ten Commandments were not unique to the Jews, just because they had it written, because it was the same in substance as the work of the law that was written on the heart of Adam and passed down to all his descendants, though marred by sin. And the point of the apostle, again, is even though the Gentiles did not have the written law, they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. And this assumes that the moral law is the same. that is written on the heart of the Gentiles, the work of it, and what is in the written code. The apostle just assumes that here, that it's the very same law. And I think that clearly shows to us that this is the very same thing here. And then lastly, our Baptist catechism says the moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. I think it's important and we'll discuss this later as well when we get to the spirituality of the law in week four. The moral law is not... contained comprehensively or extensively in the Ten Commandments. But it is summarily comprehended, which means the Ten Commandments is something of a summary of the moral law of God, which flows out of all of these bare commandments that we see there. They have implications. What they forbid, they also require the opposite. And they also condemn like sins as well. So we'll see this in just a few weeks. But for our purpose now, the moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. It is a summary of that moral law that was written on the heart of Adam. So before we move on to this next point, I wonder if there's someone that has a question. We can have a brief moment for a question if somebody has one. If I'm not making sense about something, does anybody need something clarified or have a clarifying question? Mr. Bratton. I have a question for the last one. OK. You may be able to help clarify my own question. There are people regarding the fourth commandment that would say, as long as it's not repeated in the New Testament, it's a law that we don't have to obey. Yes. Yeah, actually, I'm about to touch on that. So yes, yes, thank you. That is exactly what I'm about to talk about. So when talking about the positive law versus the moral law, when you're saying indifferent, you mean the thing in and of itself is not necessarily good or evil. The fact that a command was given concerning it can make whatever happens to it good or evil. Yes. That's exactly right. Just like that analogy. It wouldn't be wrong of itself if the child would put their toy on this shelf versus this shelf. But if the parent has given him a clear command concerning which shelf that toy belongs on, then it becomes now a law to the child to obey by virtue of it being commanded by the authority. Yes, last one. So how can you display, in other aspects of life, how else can you apply Let's do a redo. I'll keep this brief. In all other aspects of life, how else could we apply the positive law to each and every situation? I'm not sure if I can fully answer your question, but I think I'm understanding maybe the heart of it there. It really depends, and that's why we have to understand these distinctions, because we need to understand what positive commands apply to us, because there are positive commands in the New Covenant. I think the two most obvious are the Lord's Supper and Baptism. Those are not in and of themselves moral, but they're commanded by the Lord Jesus as a part of obedience to Him, following Him in faith. And so they are to be observed and obeyed by the church in the way that He appointed. So it really depends what covenant you're in. And we're in the covenant of grace, and so we need to understand what positive laws in the old covenant are no longer binding, which we'll talk about next week. That's a big part of what we'll talk about next week. Did I answer your question? OK. All right. Thank you all. OK, let's talk now about the law of Christ. This is not specifically in our confession. I'm just extending this a little bit farther because I think it's a contemporary problem. I don't know that this would have been a problem or be foreseen by the writers of the confession, although perhaps it was. Perhaps there were people already saying it. But in our day, it's certainly common for people to draw a very sharp distinction between the law of Christ and the law of Moses in the sense of the Ten Commandments. and specifically in our minds when you think about the Ten Commandments, as we'll talk about the civil and ceremonial laws next week. Obviously those are abrogated. But they say Christ abrogated the moral law too, and now he's really brought about a new And in what sense is this true? So we want to examine that claim, look at some of the scriptures where people seem to get that idea from, and see if we can establish what I think is the correct answer, that Jesus did not abrogate the moral law, but he actually fulfilled it and strengthened it, and strengthened our ability to keep it and to love it. So that's an important question that most people today probably by assumption will assume something to the effect of, well, that old law is not really binding on me, but now there's a new law, which is all it is is this nebulous love your neighbor. That's it. Where do people get that idea? Well, the term law of Christ comes in two places in scripture. The first is 1 Corinthians 9.21, to those outside the law, I became as one outside the law, not being outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ. And the other place it occurs in scriptures, the Apostle Paul says to the church in Galatians, bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. So what does he mean by this? Well, this I think Christ also testifies to his own law and some of the things that he says as well because he specifically says in John 14, 15, if you love me, you will keep my commandments. So it's his own commandments that he gives to the disciples. Then he says in Matthew 28, the Great Commission passage, go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Then there is this passage which I think is perhaps the very center of the confusion, John 13, 34. A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another. Some people take this new commandment and they run with it in places that they shouldn't. Let's consider how John, who wrote this gospel, who wrote this term, he later writes something that I think helps us make more sense of what the Lord Jesus said here. He says in 1 John 2, verses 7 and following, Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. It's an old commandment that you've had from the beginning, from the beginning creation. Is he contradicting the Lord Jesus here? Has he come to a different opinion later, years after he wrote his gospel? No. So here he clarifies that at the same time it is a new commandment. It's an old commandment, but at the same time, it's a new commandment that I'm writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining. I think here John is really commenting, perhaps, on what he said in John, and the language is so similar. And he's clarifying that Jesus was not referencing a completely new commandment, new in substance, but that it was an old commandment that was now being written on new covenant believers who are now able to keep it. He also says something similar in 2 John 5, and now I ask you dear lady, writing to the church as our brother Ryan said, not as though I were writing you a new commandment but the one we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And here, he actually says what that commandment is, which lines up back with what the Lord Jesus said in John 13 here. That we love one another is that command which we had from the beginning. So how do we make sense of this, that the Lord Jesus says this is a new commandment, the Apostle John says it's really an old commandment, but it is a new commandment. How do we make sense of this? Gil is helpful here. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, he's commenting on this verse, which is the same with the former, considered in different respects. The command of brotherly love is a new one, that is, it is an excellent one, as a new name is an excellent name. He's saying the substance is the same, but the name is different. And a new song is an excellent one. It is renewed by Christ under the gospel dispensation. That's a very important language. It's renewed by Christ under the gospel dispensation. It is newly explained. It's not dispensationalism, by the way, I need to say, when the older writers use that word. It is newly explained by him and purged from the false glosses of the scribes and Pharisees and enforced by him with a new argument and by a new example of his own, even his own love to his people and which is observed by them in a new manner. they being made new creatures, and this law being anew written in their hearts under the renewing work of the Spirit of God as a branch of the new covenant of grace." So it is an old law, but it's anew. It has a new name. It comes to believers differently in the new covenant, but it is the same substance as the old law. I think this is what the Apostle John is saying here. The moral law is the same, but how could it be a new law? How can we make sense of this? I think one helpful illustration that occurs to me here is thinking of a policeman whose adult son has sinned. So imagine a father who's also a policeman, and his son has sinned. And he calls him. The son calls him, and he confesses his sin to his father. He's grieved about it. And the father says, I'm coming over. I'm coming over right now. Now, the same man, his father, how different is it if he shows up in his police uniform with handcuffs? from him showing up in regular clothes and throwing a big hug around his son and helping him to now be reconciled and to obey the law. That's the distinction here. It's different clothes, even as John Gill said here. It's the same law, but it comes differently to believers. It's no longer a covenant of works, but it comes to them in the covenant of grace as a rule of life that actually energizes them to now keep this law, no longer condemning them. a policeman with handcuffs to Christians, but it comes as a loving father who forgives his children and helps them to now repent and press on and put that sin to death. That is the distinction. In this sense, it is a new law. These believers here that are hearing, the disciples hearing this from the Lord Jesus, they aren't hearing the law of God and being burdened by its impossible demands upon them. Perpetual, whole-souled obedience that they can't do. It's coming to them as a loving father who is helping them now by the Holy Spirit to obey this law. And so I think it is in this sense the same law but in new and different clothing. I think that accounts for the fact that the Lord Jesus and the Apostle John can say this is a new commandment and it's also an old commandment. Show me by a head nod, does that make sense? Yeah, okay, all right. Now, I want to show other texts which I think clearly demand that the Lord Jesus has in view the same law as the law of God. And this has to do with the fact that the will of Christ and the will of the Father are one and the same, because they are one. And how is it, we would ask these folks, how is it that the Lord Jesus can will something morally different than the Father? How is that possible? Let's read these verses. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love. just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. Of course, some want to read this and say, see, they're two distinct laws, but no, that's not the case. I and the Father are one, he says in John 10 30, and I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not my own will, and that includes his moral will, but the will of him who sent me. How is it that the law of Christ could be different, anything different morally than the law of God? Do not think that I've come to abolish the law of prophets. I've not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them, to bring them to completion. Neither, our confession says in chapter 19, verse 5, or paragraph 5, neither does Christ and the gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation to the moral law. It is the eternal will of God, and it is the perfect will of Jesus Christ. He introduces no new law. Now, this is not all that we have. We could go through countless New Testament examples of how the apostles are saying, this is your salvation. You're in Christ. And then they spend the rest of the letter talking about, how do you live in a way that's pleasing to Jesus Christ? And guess what they exposit and expound? Somebody call it out. the moral law of God. And it's the same as the Ten Commandments. And here's just a couple examples. There are so many of them. Owe no one anything except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and any other commandment are summed up in this word, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. By no means abolishing this law, but saying it's greatly strengthened and now we can walk in that love of our neighbor. And here's the distinct commandments that we can now, by the power of the spirit, walk in. Now we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners. for the unholy and profane. And here, for the ungodly and sinners. Many theologians believe these are all references to the Ten Commandments. And I won't go through and show each one of these, but just listen to them. Some of them are very obvious when you think about it. For the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, that's very clear, five. For murderers, that's six. for the sexually immoral, seven, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, eight, man-stealers, liars, the ninth commandment, and perjurers, the ninth commandment. And whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been addressed. The other one that comes to my mind is the apostle saying, let the thief who steals steal no longer, but rather let him work with his hands and share with those who are in need. There are just so many examples of this where the apostles never understand that the moral law of God is abrogated, but much strengthened. And they actually exposit it and expound it and show the ways that we break it, not just according to the letter, but according to the Spirit. So there are so many examples of this that show that Christ in no way changed the moral law of God, but much strengthened it. Now I want to close with a quote from the Mirror of Modern Divinity, because I think this is extremely, extremely helpful, and I encourage you just to meditate on this, these couple of paragraphs that I'm gonna show you. This is a very helpful book, by the way. It's an older book, so the language is a little bit older, but it's tremendously helpful because it is written as a dialogue between four dialogue partners. Now, you need to read it with discernment because there perhaps might be some small distinctions where there are things we would say differently, but on the main, he's expounding, I think, the law of God according to the Westminster Standards and the Lenebatz Confession of Faith. But in a very pastoral way, there's four characters. There's the neophytis, who's a new believer, and he's very confused. And along come his two friends, nomista, who is the legalist, and antinomista, who's the antinomian. And they say, well, just like Job's friends, we're going to help you out. They're not much help to him. They just confuse him a lot more. So in comes the evangelist, who's a pastor. And he explains and shows how all of these men and all of these distinct areas are in error. And he walks through each. It's not this. It's this. It's not this. It's this. It's not that. It's this. It's extremely helpful. I encourage you, if you feel up for a good read, it is excellent. You won't regret reading that book. It's very excellent and helpful. But here you see just a sample of it. This is the words of the evangelist. Here, he says, the law of Christ in regard of substance and matter is all one with the law of works, or covenant of works. That's very important, the language there. The law of Christ in regard of substance and matter is all one with the law of works. covenant of works, which matter is scattered through the whole Bible and summed up in the Decalogue or Ten Commandments, commonly called the moral law, containing such things as are agreeable to the mind and will of God, that is, piety towards God, charity towards our neighbor, and sobriety towards ourselves. And therefore was it given of God to be a true and eternal rule of righteousness for all men of all nations and at all times." This is what we've been saying, that moral law is the same for all eternity. And then he says, but there's a distinction. They're the same in substance and matter, but there is a very important distinction between the law of Christ and the laws of covenant works. Both these laws agree in saying, do this, but here is the difference. The one saith, do this and live, and the other saith, live and do this. This is beautiful. The one saith, do this for life, The other saith, Do this from life. The one saith, If thou do it not, thou shalt die. The other saith, If thou do it not, I will chastise thee with a rod." Correction, discipline, like we discipline our children, lovingly. The one is to be delivered by God as he is creator out of Christ. Only to such as are out of Christ. The other is to be delivered by God as he is Redeemer in Christ. Only to such as are in Christ. And this gets back to the illustration I was giving earlier. It's the same law, same person, but in different clothing. Here it comes as a loving father to believers. So the law of Christ is the same in substance as the law of Moses. So I hope today it's been made clear to you Why we say, why our confession says that the moral law forever binds all, and despite the fact that it came in different eras to Adam, to Moses, and through Christ and the apostles, it is the same united law of God, same moral standard of God. Thank you all for your attention. Next week, we will turn to the very important subject of the threefold division of the law. This gets to Brother Elyse's question and also Brother Blake's as well. We look forward to that. But for now, we are dismissed and we will return in here at 1030 for our time of worship this morning.