Good morning. Hey, it's a little stuffy in here. Glasses are fogging up. Okay, we'll be continuing in our study of covenant theology this morning, lesson 11 on the Mosaic Law. But before we begin, let's go to Lord in prayer. O merciful and gracious Heavenly Father, we bless you and thank you for once again granting us this day to set aside our earthly cares and labors, to gather together as your saints and to worship you. We pray that your spirit would open our eyes and liven our minds, that we might understand and obey your word. And you pray that you would keep us from error on the left hand and on the right. In Christ's name we pray, amen. So this is actually our lesson 11. And the course is divided. We're going at it through kingdoms. So we began with the kingdom of creation, looking at the covenant of works and the Noahic covenant. Those govern all creation. And then we moved on to the kingdom of Israel, and we saw that the Abrahamic covenant established the kingdom of Israel, and the Mosaic covenant governs the kingdom of Israel. We looked at six keys from John Owen on how to best understand the Mosaic covenant. We need to recognize the centrality of the promised seed. God's wisdom, holiness, and sovereignty. We saw that it placed a heavy yoke on a stiff-necked people, and God brought them into this state by a solemn covenant confirmed by mutual consent between him and them. And this was not a covenant by which they were saved, but this covenant both raised and ruined the nation of Israel. And then I just wanna look again at our summary from last week. Last week we looked at the institution of the Mosaic Covenant and recognized that it is a covenant of works for life in the land. It was never a means for anyone to be made right with God as far as what we look at as salvation. From Renahan, based on the laws, the promises, and the threats of the covenant, The Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works for life in the land. The summary states that whether the Israelites enjoy the land sworn to their fathers depends on whether they keep the commandments. And so far as Israel obeys the Mosaic law, they will enjoy the guaranteed blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. And so far as Israel disobeys the Mosaic law, they will experience the guaranteed curses of the covenant. God is sovereign Lord over everything, the maker of all things. Given that fundamental reality, any covenant that God makes with man that provides a reward for work, a do this and I will grant that arrangement, is a kind and gracious action on God's part. God was not obligated to deal with Israel in this way, going all the way back to Abraham. For God to place blessed life in Canaan before Israel was a kind and gracious gift from God. It was a blessing. And for God to make it available through civic obedience is likewise gracious. The obedience demanded was an obedience an unbeliever could render. And there is a kindness in the Mosaic covenant in light of God's absolute dominion and God's promises to Abraham. It was not an all or nothing arrangement, where in the day you broke the covenant, you would surely die. God will fulfill his promises despite Israel's unfaithfulness, and he did fulfill his promises despite Israel's unfaithfulness. So we're gonna move on to today. Did anyone have any questions on that before I move on? Okay. Today we're going to look at the law. in the Mosaic Covenant, the Mosaic law. And we're gonna see there's three distinct forms of law in the Mosaic economy. Moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. And this idea is denied by dispensationalism. This idea is denied by New Covenant theology. I'm not sure about all of progressive covenantalism. I don't know how much of them. They keep morphing, so I'm not sure. And then theonomy also denies this distinction, but I think it's a thoroughly biblical distinction. That's what we're going to look at. It's not a man-made distinction imposed in the word of God. This categorizing of the law is fully biblical. So first of all, what do we mean by moral law? A lot of times when I see people arguing against this distinction, it's because they don't understand what we mean by the three categories. So we need to be very careful about how we explain this. First of all, what do we mean by the moral law? It is a universal law for all mankind. It determines right from wrong. and it is based on the character of God. It's you be holy for I am holy. The moral law is since we are created in the image of God, this is how we should live, think, behave, et cetera, because it's based on his character. We are to be faithful images of God It never changes. It doesn't change from age to age, from covenant to covenant. The moral law does not. What we're calling moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are not exhaustive commandments. They are summary commandments, summarizing what we call the moral law. And those are further summarized in the two great commandments. Two great commandments, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, the summary of the first four commandments, and love your neighbor as yourself is a summary of the second table. The first table of the moral law has to do with how we relate to God, and the second table is how we relate to our fellow men. It is written on men's hearts. Now, this is what's very important. By referring to this law as moral law and as a distinction from civil and ceremonial law, we are not saying that it was not immoral to break the civil or ceremonial law. We're not saying, when we call this the moral law, we're not saying it's not immoral to break a law that's not in here. That's not what we mean at all. And a lot of people, a lot of the arguments against this, well, how can you say that all law is moral law? Yes, in a sense, all law has to do with morality, but this is a distinct form of law based on the character of God. It never changes. It's written on men's hearts. What do we mean by civil law? It's also sometimes referred to as judicial law. Civil law, judicial law, same distinction. It's how the nation through which the Messiah was to come ought to be governed in light of the moral law. it passed away with the civil state of Israel. It was the civil law for the nation state of Israel. God established this nation through whom the Messiah would come. By the time they had become a numerous people that he redeemed out of Egypt, he said that they need to be governed. And so it established rules of civil government. And our confession of faith speaks of it this way. to them, that is the nation of Israel. Also, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution, their general equity only being of moral use. And we'll discuss that a little bit more when we move along what we mean by that. And what do we mean by ceremonial law? It was how the people of God were to worship under the Mosaic economy. It existed only until the time of the Reformation of all things, Hebrews 9, 9 and 10. Speaking of this, it was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience, concerned only with foods and drinks and various washings and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of Reformation. They were never to be eternal. It's not that God's moved to plan B so he's not using that anymore. They were always meant to be imposed until Christ had come and completed his work. And clearly worship changes when the Messiah comes. The book of Hebrews is all about that. A couple of qualifying statements though. A single law can have moral, civil, and ceremonial ramifications. For instance, Exodus 21, 16. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. So this is a civil law for the nation of Israel. Anyone guilty of kidnapping, the right justice that the government should impose on someone caught for kidnapping, was to be put to death. That's the civil aspect of this law. And yet, remember, the moral law is the Ten Commandments are given in summary. And so they're further expounded often, especially through the civil law. So here we see kidnapping would be a very heinous means of breaking the commandment, thou shalt not steal. as well as, if we rightly understand, the commandment, thou shalt murder, means you do good to your fellow man and not harm them. So it's breaking two commandments. So you see, there's a moral aspect of this, even though the civil aspect, the punishment due, is civil law. The fourth commandment also has a positive law aspect. God says, one day in seven, you set aside to worship me. That's moral law. It's written on every man's heart. What day that is, was positive law. And under this covenant, it was the last day of the week. Under the new covenant, it's the first day of the week. So when we talk, this is a real distinction, and yet we need to make these kind of qualifications. or Deuteronomy 22.8, when you build a new house, you shall make a parapet up for your roof that you may not be guilty of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it. So here we have, this is a good example for how the civil law is still of moral use. Does this mean we should make our government, every house that's built needs a parapet on the roof? Well, people don't, in the houses we build, hang out on roofs. So it's not really a necessary law. But it ought to be, okay, if you put a swimming pool in your backyard, it ought to be fenced so a child can't accidentally stumble into your pool and no one's watching them. So there's that moral aspect, even though that itself was part of the civil law. And the civil law and ceremonial law often expound and apply the moral law. So these are real distinction, and yet they can be very closely related. So what evidence do we have for this distinction between the moral, civil, and the ceremonial law? And I begin with the order in which the law was originally given. The moral law is given Exodus 20. Exodus 21 through 23 is civil law, followed by Exodus 25 through 30, ceremonial law. The original giving of the law, it's clear. You move moral, then you move on to civil, then you move on to ceremonial. Leviticus and Numbers obviously mix these things together, but this distinction is clear in the original giving of the law. But secondly, the manner in which the law was given, specifically how the moral law was given, distinguishes it very clearly from the civil and ceremonial law. The moral law, first of all, was spoken by the voice of God. Deuteronomy 522, these words, the Lord spoke to all the assembly in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness with a loud voice. And he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me. That's Moses speaking. So God spoke the moral law with an audible voice. That's not true of the civil or ceremonial law, only the moral law. He's making a distinction here when he does this. Deuteronomy 9.10. Then the Lord delivered me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire and the day of the assembly. The manner in which God gave the moral law, first of all, was with an audible voice. Deuteronomy 10.4, he wrote on the tablets according to the first writing of the Ten Commandments, which the Lord had spoken to you in the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. But secondly, not only were they spoken, but audibly by the voice of God. The moral law was written on tablets of stone by the finger of God. The rest of the law was spoken to Moses and he wrote it down and gave it to the people. The moral law is clearly distinguished from the rest of the law. It's written on tablets of stone by the finger of God. And when they break the covenant and Moses smashes the tablets and he needs new ones, he writes it again on tablets of stone by his own finger. Michael, you wanna read Deuteronomy 4, 13 and 14? So he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess. Then again, Deuteronomy 9.10, they're written on tablets of stone by the finger of God. Thirdly, The moral law stands as a summary of the entire covenant. The moral law, the Ten Commandments, stands as a summary of the entire covenant. That distinguishes it from the civil and ceremonial law. Deuteronomy 4.13, he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform the Ten Commandments. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone. use the Ten Commandments, the moral law, as a summary of the entirety of the covenant. Go ahead, Michael, read Exodus 34, 27 to 28. Then the Lord said to Moses, write these words for according to the tenor of these words, I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. So he was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments." Again, here, Moses uses the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments, as an expression of speaking of the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant can be summarized in the Ten Commandments. Fourthly, we look at the special placement of the moral law. Exodus 25, 16, and you shall put it into the ark of the testimony, which I will give you. God had them create the ark of the testimony with the cherubim overshadowing it. And the moral law, the 10 commandments, is put within that ark. The rest of the law that God spoke to Moses and he gave to the people orally and writing, that was not put in the ark of the testimony. Only the moral law was. You shall put a mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark put the testimony which I will give you. And in Hebrews 9, 4, speaking of this, which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot which had manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. So the special placement of the moral law clearly distinguishes it from the civil and ceremonial law. Fifthly, the manner in which God speaks of the ceremonial law clearly distinguishes it from moral law. The manner in which God speaks of the ceremonial law. Psalm 40 verse 6, he says, sacrifice an offering you did not desire. Now, what does he mean by that? He commanded them to give sacrifices and offerings. Did he command them to do something that he didn't want them to do? No. He said the people were guilty of thinking they could live any way they want and then offer these ceremonial sacrifices and be made right with God while they continued to depart with him with their lives. And when he says, sacrifice an offering you did not desire, that's not the primary thing. It's not that he didn't actually want them to make the sacrifices, but he can say that. Sacrifice an offering you did not desire. But can we imagine him speaking this way of the moral law? Could you imagine God saying, faithfulness to your spouses I do not desire. or obedience to your parents, I do not desire. Of course, there's a clear distinction between the way he can speak of the ceremonial law. Yeah, I commanded you to give those sacrifices, but they are worthless if you're not living according to the moral law. He would never say, obeying your parents is worthless. That's another clear distinction between this moral and the ceremonial law. And sixthly, as we've mentioned, the moral law is based on the character of God. 1 Peter 1, 15 and 16. As he who has called you is holy, so also be holy in all your conduct. Because it is written, be holy for I am holy. And that was written in Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 19 and Leviticus 20. Peter says, be holy for I am holy. And he says, because it is written, you need to obey this law because it is written. Peter's not reinstating this law. The dispensationalist idea is that the only law that we have in the New Testament in the New Covenant is whatever, if the only law from the Old Testament that applies in the New Testament is that which is specifically repeated. Being repeated in the New Testament is what makes it authoritative to us. Peter isn't saying, be holy for I am holy because I'm saying this now in the New Testament. He's saying it is written back there, therefore do it now. The moral law is distinct in that manner. And that's really a summary of the whole moral law. Be holy because the God in whose image we're made is holy. He says, because it is written, that's why you must obey it. So again, the civil law was given to govern a nation. Ceremonial law is given to point to Christ. But the moral law is based on the character of God. Seventhly, the moral law was enforced before Sinai. The moral law has never changed. It was the same written on Adam's heart before the fall. It's the same law that all mankind has always been bound to because we're made in the image of God. So recognize it did not begin at Mount Sinai. It was enforced before Mount Sinai. Was it Was it not wrong for Cain to murder his brother Abel because God had not yet said on Mount Sinai, thou shalt not murder? No, clearly Cain was guilty of the bloodshed of his brother because the moral law was in force long before Mount Sinai. Why did God judge the entire world for their pre-flood violence? before he had said thou shalt murder on Mount Sinai. Sodom and Gomorrah are judged for their sexual immorality long before the moral law is given on Mount Sinai. And even the Sabbath is seen before the law is given on Mount Sinai in the giving of the manna. So the moral law was enforced before Mount Sinai. Eighthly, if we really understand this, this is the strongest way in which we see this distinction. The New Testament treats the Ten Commandments as an organic unit that remains in force, not as various commandments that need to be or have been reinstated. Michael, you wanna go ahead and read Romans 13, eight through 10. Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he 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 bear false witness, you shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. So here we have Paul. listing out the second table of the Ten Commandments as an organic unity and says they, those commandments are summarized by you shall love your neighbor as yourself. How do we love our neighbor as ourselves? By not committing adultery, not murdering, not stealing, not coveting. The law and love are not at odds. We love our neighbor by obeying the law with regard to them. But we see this, it's given as an organic unit that remains in force. There's nowhere in the New Testament where any of the apostles appear to be saying, hey, that law back there is still in force because I say so. It's just, it doesn't work. but also Matthew 22, 36 through 40. Go ahead, Michael. Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. We see it again. These two summary commandments, summarizing the entire law, Christ sees as an organic unit that's still in force. And then James 2, 8 through 12. This is honestly my favorite argument. Just understanding James 2, 8 through 12. Go ahead, Michael, and read it. If you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For he who said, do not commit adultery, also said, do not murder. Now, if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. Okay, so James here is telling his readers, this is how you should speak, and this is how you should live, as those who will be judged by the law of liberty, which he had earlier referred to as the royal law. Now, what law is he talking about when he says the royal law and the law of liberty? It's pretty important to understand. He's telling us this is a law that you should live as those who will be judged by it. What law are you talking about? Well, he's talking about some group of commandments that are so closely tied together that if you break one, you've broken them all. And one of them is you shall not commit adultery. And another one is you shall not murder. Is there any question? What law are you talking about, James? He's talking about the 10 commandments. It couldn't be any clearer. And he's saying, if you break one, you've broken them all. So the idea that the fourth commandment has been ripped right out of the middle and just doesn't matter anymore in a law that's so closely tied together that if you break one, you've broken them all, it's ludicrous. When I've brought this argument, I don't argue much on social media anymore when I used to. The only response I've ever had to this, because people will just refuse to deal with it, was Matthew Henry doesn't say in his commentary that James is talking about the moral law. I don't know how else you get around this. The moral law, clearly the Ten Commandments, so closely tied together that if you break one, you've broken them all. So the idea that one's just been ripped out is just beyond the pale. And then we have this question, okay. After Christ's work was finished, remember he said it is finished, and the veil of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. So when that happened, God is signifying that the ceremonial and the civil law, those laws are coming to an end. Now, there was a generation over which this happened, but the symbolism was there. Christ has finished his work. We are no longer to worship him in the same manner that we were before. So after that happened, Was it then okay to commit murder and adultery until one of the apostles wrote, do not murder and do not commit adultery in an epistle or gospel account? Obviously not. But if you take the dispensationalist view, it's only moral law for us. If it's repeated in the New Testament, what do you do with that? So the New Testament treats the Ten Commandments as an organic unit that remains in force. Ninthly, the moral law is written on man's heart. The moral law is written on man's heart. I could go ahead and read Romans 128 to 32. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind to do those things which are not fitting, being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness. They are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful, who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them. So here Paul gives us this long list of various sins that are all various ways of breaking the moral law. Every one of these sins listed is a manner in which men break one or more of the Ten Commandments. And what does he say? That they know the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things deserve death. Men, because they're made in the image of God, have the work of the moral law written on their hearts such that not only do they know that it is sinful to break the moral law, but they know that they actually deserve death. And I can never move on with this list without bringing out disobedient to parents. Your children at some level know that disobeying you deserves death. Now, it doesn't mean they think you should kill them, but the work of the law is on their hearts. They actually know. Now, every time they disobey you and don't die, that work gets a little bit, how shall we say, Blurred but that that's that's in their hearts The moral law is written on the heart go ahead and read Romans 2 14 15 Michael For when Gentiles who do not have the law by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness and between themselves, their thoughts accusing or else excusing them. So here it talks about the work of the law is written on their hearts. Go ahead and read verse 21 to 23. You therefore who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say do not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boasts in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? Paul has said, the work of the law is written on their hearts. Well, what law are you talking about that's written on their hearts, Paul? Well, it includes you shall not steal, you shall not commit adultery, and you should have more idols. Clearly, the moral law is that which was the work of which is written on men's hearts. Now, we need to make the distinction. of between the work of the law written on men's hearts and the law written on our hearts the way we are promised in the New Testament, the new covenant. The new covenant promises that everyone who repents and trusts in Christ, God writes his law on their heart. And again, what law is that? It's the same law. It's the moral law. But there's a huge difference between the work of the law written on every man's heart and the law being written on the Christian's heart. When God writes his law fresh on the heart of the Christian, I do think it gives them a refreshed, a clearer remembrance of what they really, the law, they knew what was right and wrong. before, so the moral law is written and they understand it more, but the difference when God writes his law on the heart of a believer, well that's talking about he gives the believer not just the knowledge of what's right and wrong, but the desire to obey it. When we'll get to this more when we look at the new covenant, the promise that God will write his law on our hearts is the promise, not only that we will know the law, but that we will seek to obey it. It will be our desire. It is our desire for Christians to obey the moral law. We're talking about the work of the law written on man's hearts. It's every man knows because he's made in the image of God. He's got the work of the moral law written on his heart. He knows, even if his parents never said, hey, don't kill anyone, he already knows murder is a sin. Every thief thinks it's wrong to steal from him. It's not a mystery. Every murderer thinks it'd be wrong to kill him. So the work is there, it's just the desire in the unbeliever to keep it is not there. So the point here is it's not the civil or the ceremonial laws written on men's hearts, it's the moral law. And then 10thly, the hermeneutic that requires the repetition of commandment in the New Testament cannot stand. It's got too many problems. First, what they really mean when they say it needs to be repeated in the New Testament is that it requires a complete repetition. The problem is none of the first table of the law, none of the first four commandments are recited verbatim in the New Testament. that nowhere in the New Testament do you read, you shall have no other gods before me, or you shall not make a carved image and bow down to it, or you shall not take the name of your Lord your God in vain. None of those are repeated verbatim in the New Testament. But they would say, oh, but they're alluded to. That's what we know they're still, they don't have to repeat, they just have to be alluded to. Well, the fourth commandment is alluded to as well. Luke 6, 5, and he said to them, the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. Honestly, I don't understand how anyone can read that. Jesus Christ saying, I am Lord of the Sabbath, and come to the conclusion that means there's no Sabbath. Jesus Christ said, this day is mine, and we say, oh, then it must not matter. It doesn't exist. He is the Lord of a particular day in a special way. What day is that? It's the Lord's day. So the idea that it's not in place unless it's repeated in the New Testament, if they demanded of the other three commandments of the first table exactly what they demand of the fourth commandment, the whole first table law would be gone. But there's also other moral law that is not repeated in the New Testament. Michael, read Leviticus 18, six to nine. None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him to uncover his nakedness. I am the Lord. The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover. It is your father's nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover. I don't know any dispensationalists who want to say, this isn't something we need to obey anymore. It's not repeated in the New Testament anywhere. This is also one of the places where you see where the civil law expounds the moral law. The commandment against adultery doesn't just mean you can't have sexual relations with anyone besides your spouse. It's a law against, it's a summary law against all sexual immorality. And this spells, this in the civil law, it spells out different manners in which the expounding what forms of sexuality are immoral. Leviticus 18.23, nor shall you mate with any animal to defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. It's not repeated in the New Testament. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. It's not repeated in the New Testament. And it is moral law because it is manners of violation of the commandment against adultery. So the idea that it has to be repeated in the New Testament in order to be valid causes all sorts of problems if you're actually consistent with it. Okay, so what about Colossians 2.16? I once spent a good deal of time with a very dear friend of mine, dear Christian man, I love him to death, He wanted to understand what I've just, and basically I went through all the arguments that I just gave you. And he was like, well, okay, where does it say that writing it on tablets of stone with his own finger means that it's different from the rest? Okay, I can't give it. Why are you hung up like that? Well, it's because Colossians 2.16. He said Colossians 2.16 clearly abolishes the Sabbath and therefore none of what you said convinces me of anything. So I just want to take a moment to look at Colossians 2.16 and 17. Paul writes, let no one judge you in food or in drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths. which are a shadow of things to come, the substance is of Christ. So what are we looking at here? Paul says, let no one bind your conscience in these areas. What areas are they? Food or drink, festivals, new moons, Sabbaths. Notice it is Sabbaths, plural. And all these things, are ceremonial law that we know has been done away with. They were things that we know were in place until the time of the Reformation of all things. The Bible tells us those things have been done away with. And, in fact, the triplet, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths, is used as shorthand for the ceremonial system in places like 1 Chronicles 23, 2 Chronicles 2, 2 Corinthians 31, Nehemiah 10, Isaiah 1, Hosea 2, and Ezekiel 45. The Old Testament uses it, and Paul is following that manner when he says, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths. He's speaking of the ceremonial law. The ceremonial system included Sabbaths in addition to the weekly Sabbath. For instance, the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16.31 says, it is a Sabbath of solemn rest for you. You shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever. So that's not speaking of the weekly Sabbath, that's speaking of the Day of Atonement, a ceremonial Sabbath. Then their Feast of Tabernacles, same thing, Leviticus 23, 39. Also on the 15th day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruit of the land, you shall keep the Feast of the Lord for seven days. On the first day, there shall be a Sabbath rest. On the eighth day, there shall be a Sabbath rest. So the ceremonial system had multiple Sabbaths that were not the weekly Sabbath. And Hebrews 9 again tells us these things were only imposed until the time of the Reformation. So, last I would close, listen to Albert Barnes on Colossians 2.16, it's really good. Speaking of the Sabbath days. Greek of Sabbaths. The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is doubtless reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there is no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the Ten Commandments has ceased to be binding on mankind. If he had used the word in the singular number, the Sabbath, it would then, of course, have been clear that he meant to teach that the commandment had ceased to be binding and that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural and the connection show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not the moral law or the Ten Commandments. No part of the moral law, not one of the Ten Commandments, could be spoken of as a shadow of good things to come. These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation. When we look at the law given under the Mosaic Covenant, there is a clear distinction. The moral law is made utterly distinct from the civil and ceremonial laws, and the civil law passed away with the state of Israel. The ceremonial law passed away when Christ had come to finish his work. And when you're looking at the book of Hebrews, you see how that had to be. There were many things in the sacrificial system that were meant to convey that the Messiah had not yet come. They had to come to an end or they'd all be lies after he had come. I guess we have one minute. Wait, no, we have no hymn of the month, so we got six minutes, questions. And it doesn't have to be about the law. If you want to ask about something else we've covered, that's fine. Those who oppose this view of tripartite distinction will frequently say that it's not an exegetical construct, but a theological construction. And I think you've made some clear arguments for exegetical construction as well, but how would you respond to that argument? I mean, I guess I'd start out, we're being very exegetical when we're pointing out God spoke it with his own voice. God wrote it on tablets of some. God wrote it with his own finger. And even it's amazing after the first tablets were crushed and Moses brought more tablets and he didn't say, you've already seen it, you write them on there. No, he wrote it again with his own finger. That's exegesis. Now, I mean, often what they really want is us to provide an an exegetical argument, provide a verse that says, I wrote it with my finger because it's different from the rest. Obviously, there is no verse that says that. But is the alternative, oh, he did it for nothing? I did this, but it doesn't mean anything. It means something. And I think it's clear what it means. So I think what we looked at here in Colossians 2.16, that's exegetical. It doesn't say the Sabbath, it says Sabbaths plural. And in the context, exegetically, Sabbaths, new moons, feast days, food and drink. He's talking about the ceremonial system. Do you think that would also cause other challenges in systematic theology from a development of systematic theology, let's say, almost like a biblicism that doesn't allow other theological terms and concepts that aren't specifically prescribed or made clear directly in Scripture using the terminology, that term in Scripture? Oh yeah, it could definitely, yeah, I mean, any time Okay, when we go back, we say it's a theological, they would accuse it, you're making a theological argument, not an exegetical argument. While I say there is exegetical argumentation here, it is also theological. We are meant to systematize. God didn't give us a systematic theology, but he gave us a Bible that tells us, just take one, well, that's what he did, you take one subject, And in systematic theology, you say, what does the Bible say in each one of these places? And how was he developing? And you put it all together, and you want to understand it as a whole. And that's absolutely necessary. I mean, you know, if you insist, no, I have to have every single thing spelled out, well, that's not how God wrote the Bible. He didn't give us a systematic theology. He gave us a Bible that has many things that are difficult to understand because He wants us to dig into it and depend on Him to understand it. to what you were talking about when you were quoting Sam Renahan, and we talked a little bit about this last week, that the obedience that is rendered under the Mosaic economy is an obedience that the natural unregenerate man can carry out because the blessings of that covenant are not eternal blessings or whatever. God was satisfied with this natural obedience within that covenant. Well, if the ceremonial and judicial law are no longer in force, then we could also say that The difference between the ceremonial and the judicial and the moral is that the judicial and the ceremonial can render an obedience that within that covenant is acceptable to God, but that's never said of the moral law. He that sins against the moral law, it's death. He had to have a propitiation. He had to have a substitution. And that's always been the difference between the moral law and the other commands that are given and are supposed to be rendered obedience in other covenants. Only the new covenant requires evangelical obedience, and so does the moral law. Yeah, the moral law is the same. And yet, yeah, the Mosaic Law demanded an obedience that an unconverted man has the capacity to fulfill. And God told them, I will reward you with a blessed life in the land if you do that. Now, the fact that unconverted men are capable of fulfilling it They don't always fulfill. I mean, you look at the nation of Israel through the rest of the old covenant, the majority of them are failing continuously until God finally casts them out of the land like he promised to do in his judgment. But the only way any of them were ever actually made right with God was by trusting the Messiah to come. And that's what we're going to focus on next week before we move on to the Davidic covenant is the ceremonial system. It's all. pointing men to Christ. It's to remind them of how sinful they are, remind them of how righteous God is, remind them that they need a substitute. All these things are pointing to the Messiah in which they are to trust if they're to truly be made right with God and to be the true children of Abraham. All right, we're out of time. More questions, feel free to