Before I start my lecture this evening, I wanted to answer a question that we had the last time that I taught. When the question was asked, I thought I'd be answering it two weeks later in between weather and everything else. It's been, I don't even know how long, five or six weeks, I think, since we were last on this topic. I'll refresh your memories. The last time we were considering this topic, we were talking about ethics, how we decide what's right and what's wrong, and things of that nature. We were talking about how the law of God had not been abrogated. It hadn't been done away with. We don't say, well, that was just the Old Testament, we don't have to worry about that anymore, because God didn't abrogate, He didn't do away, with the law, and I said we need to be careful even about saying that the ceremonial law has been abrogated, as if the God of the Old Testament was interested in ceremony, and the God of the New Testament is interested in morality. And that's not the case. God's always been interested in morality, and He's never cared about empty external ceremony. And so, Brother Nagradi was here last time, and he asked the question, he said, what do we do then with... Oh, they're here, good. I'll wait till they come in to finish answering the question then. So, paragraph 3 of chapter 19 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is the particular confession that I hold to personally, this is what's written. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give the people of Israel ceremonial laws. containing several typical ordinances." And when he says typical, he's not meaning common, he's meaning there's types, there's shadows, there are pictures of that which is to come. "...partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits, and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties." All which ceremonial laws, being appointed only to the time of Reformation, are by Jesus Christ, the true Messiah and only Lawgiver, who is furnished with power from the Father for that end, abrogated and taken away." So they use two words, particularly, that I was kind of hammering, it might seem like the last time that we were here, and that would be the ceremonial law, and that it was abrogated or taken away by the Father through Jesus Christ. I hope that I didn't say anything five or six weeks ago that made you think that I was saying that these guys were wrong. They didn't know what they were talking about. Obviously, they're much wiser and more studied than I am. I fully agree with that paragraph. There's a couple of points in that paragraph that I think cause it to be in line with what I was teaching and hopefully I can clarify that in a more clear way than I did the last time that we were together. The first is that he talks about the moral laws being part of the ceremony. And that was my point, that when we say ceremonial laws, I don't want you to think God was just interested in the ceremony of it. He was just interested in going through the motions. But the point of what we call in conversation the ceremonial law was that of a heart issue, which is what we're going to be dealing with in our lecture tonight. It had a moral aspect to it. And then, secondly, that word typical. Typical ordinances. They were types. And that was also my point that I probably wasn't very clear on, was that these ceremonial laws were typifying actions, or they were shadowing, they were picturing something that is still in effect. So, yes, while taking a bull to the temple Sacrificing it, killing it as a way to have your sins carried over to the next year. Those external actions have been abrogated. They have been done away with. There's no place anymore for a bull to be taken to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and be sacrificed. Jesus Christ abrogated that. He did away with it entirely. However, the moral precept behind that has not been abrogated. Which is, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. And Jesus was that perfect lamb. He was that which the lambs were typifying, were picturing. So, there is a place, and maybe I worded it too strongly, there is a place for saying that the ceremonial law has been abrogated. I just want to be sure that when we make that statement, we mean the right things by it. which is that the outward external ceremonies have been done away with, because the real moral principles behind it are still in effect. And that's why the old has been done away with. Because the new, true, has done away with the shadowy type. Sam Waldron wrote, in my opinion, the exhaustive commentary on the London Baptist Confession of Faith. And this is what he says on that point. With the finished work of Jesus Christ, the state of Israel as God's specific chosen people was finished or abrogated. Its function as the means by which the Messiah would be brought into the world had been realized. So why did God create a seed in Abraham. The scriptures tell us that seed was Christ. That was the primary purpose for the state of Israel, was to bring the Messiah into the world. So it had been finished or abrogated because that function had been realized. with the disillusion of the state. So when the state of Israel was dissolved in 70 AD, when Rome completely overthrew Jerusalem and there was no more state of Israel in a physical external form, with the dissolution of the state logically precedes the dissolution of its laws, economy, culture, etc. So if there wasn't any state of Israel, then there weren't any laws of the state of Israel anymore. If there was no state of Israel, then there was no culture of the state of Israel, because it was gone. There wasn't any of those aspects about it anymore. However, the inspired law of God preserves in its general equity That's the term that's used both in the confessions and that Sam Waldron used. And general equity, the idea of general equity is, let's say, the scriptures tell us that If a man sheds another man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." That's a principle in Genesis, even before the Law of Moses. Now, the Law of Moses might have said, "...then ye shall take him without the gates of the city, and all the elders of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Does that mean that stoning, in all ages and all cultures, is the only method of execution allowed? No. But the general equity is there, that murder is a capital crime, that deserves death. So that's what we mean when we say general equity. He says, so the inspired law of God preserves the general equity in its general equity relevance not only to modern states, this is the words of Sam Waldron, but also to modern churches and Christians. He says we can go back to the preserved law of God and we can say states, churches, and Christians are all held to the standard of the general equity of God's law, God's preserved law. So in this context, the ceremonies associated with the specific tabernacle and temple worship. have been in their specificity and physical action been abrogated in Christ, but their general equity remains. That is, as I said, the sacrifice of bull and goats has been abrogated, but the general equity of without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins has not been abrogated, but very much lives on in Christ. So is that clearer? I didn't want to leave anyone with the misunderstanding that I was in any way casting off what we clearly confess in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. So that's the answer to that question. So now, on to our lecture for this evening, which is Phariseeism reproved. This is the other side of the coin. Last time I was really hounding on the fact of We haven't abrogated the law, we haven't done away with the morality of God's law and its general equity. But on the other side of that, there have always been those in all ages who take the law and externalize it, make it so outward and physical and showy, that it's lawless. It actually goes against what God commanded. And that's what we're going to look at tonight. I don't know how many of you have ever heard something along the lines of, and it's usually not stated quite this explicitly, but I think sometimes we get the idea that the Pharisees were wrong because they loved the law too much. And that's false. The Pharisees were wrong because they loved themselves so much and were willing to exploit the goodness of God's law for their own purposes and their own ends. And that's what I really want to focus on this evening. Go ahead and turn in your Bibles with me to the book of Matthew chapter 5. This is where we were when we left off last time. And last time we were looking at verses 17-20, where Jesus says, I'm not come to destroy the law or the prophets, I'm not come to destroy but to fulfill. Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle, shall no wise pastor in the law, till all be fulfilled. And He's just strengthening the law. He's just focusing on the importance and the vitality and the eternality of God's law. And verse 20 then kind of gives us an interesting twist on that. For I say unto you that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now a point is made here that Jesus is telling us, between the lines as it were, That the scribes and the Pharisees were twisting the law of God for their own ends, for their own selfish purposes, because He, in a sense, directly attacks them. He says, you have to be more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom of heaven." Now, I think many times our reaction to that is, how could anyone be more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees? I mean, they tithed mustard seed. They did the most exact obedience of the law. No one can be more righteous than the Pharisees were. But I don't think that was the point Jesus was making. I think he was saying, your righteousness has to go farther than the shell of externalism that the Pharisees has. It needs to go to the heart, which is where it was always intended to have its place. If he was simply saying, the Pharisees have done everything they know to do and it's still not good enough, you need something more. You need grace. You need mercy. And as some have insinuated that this was Jesus' message here, then Jesus wouldn't have called them whitewashed sepulchers full of dead man's bones. He would have said, these are the men who've done the best they knew how with what was given to them. But that's not what He said. He said, they're only interested in washing the outside of the cup and they don't care about the inside. His whole attack against the scribes and the Pharisees was that they didn't love the Law of God with their hearts. They loved the appearance. They loved to sit in the right places. They loved to be called by the right names. They loved to be seen in the right actions. So the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees mentioned here is not a strict, careful obedience of the law, but a self-righteous, twisted, distorted, redefined following of many men's interpretations of the law. And this is what he goes on to say for the rest of the chapter. He goes on to explain that when he says, "...ye have heard that it was said by them of old time." The problem with the Pharisees is not that they loved the Law too much, but that they did not love God's Law. They were in love with their own idea of the Law. And we see this played out around us all the time. People who claim to love God, but you can tell, in all of their words and their actions, they don't love God. They love their idea of God. Well, my God wouldn't. Well, you're right, that's a little g, that's your idol. You've created a God in your imagination that fits all of your feelings and experiences. But what does the God of the Bible say? This is exactly what the Pharisees had done. This law makes us look good, it makes us sound good, it makes people think that we're very righteous, and we love that. Before we move into verses 21 and onward, let me look back quickly once more at verses 17-19 in this context. Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." So what is Jesus talking about here when He strengthens the law? He's talking clearly about the written law. Do you remember what I said a jot and a tittle was? They were just the smallest accent marks, the smallest lines in the written law. You can't have a jot or a tittle audibly. Jots and tittles are written. It's the only way that they can be seen and explained and understood. So Jesus is talking about that perfectly inspired Word of God that God had preserved through all of the ages, and you could go back and read what God said when He speaks in verses 17-19. Contrast that with everything that He says from verses 21 and onward. ye have heard that it was said by them of old time." See, many people have taken these verses and have said, the Old Testament law said this, but Jesus is giving a new law. But that's not what Jesus is saying at all. He's saying them of old time, the old rabbis, the old scribes, all of these people that would write their own rabbinical interpretations of the law. the Talmud, and things of this nature, and all of these Pharisees would go back and say, well, Rabbi Jarchi said, And so, this was called the oral tradition of the Jews. It was passed on more so orally. It was written down in many ways, but you would learn it, most of the time, orally, verbally. And so, Jesus is saying, these old traditions that you've heard are in contrast with the Law of God, which is written, which is forever settled in heaven. This is a very important clue to the context that Jesus is using. Jesus is not saying, God said this in the Old Testament, but I'm saying something new now that we're in the New Testament. Jesus is God. The God of Mount Sinai who gave the law to Moses was in perfect harmony with the Son of God, Jesus. The triune God doesn't have its beginning in the New Testament. It was the Son, the Father, the Holy Spirit there in perfect triune harmony who gave the Law to Moses. So don't think that Jesus is saying, let me explain to you something that God wasn't very clear about back in the Old Covenant, back in the Old Testament. I have to do that. I have to go back and say, I wasn't very clear about something. God never has to do that. God's Word is perfect. So, Jesus doesn't take issue with what was written of old, but with the persons of old. You have heard that it was said by them of old time. And this is what you've heard. You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. Now, did God say, Thou shalt not kill? Yes, He did. That's one of the Ten Commandments. But when you see the context that Jesus is using here, He's saying, you took that, thou shalt not kill, and you created a whole subset of interpretations and laws around that, that didn't compute with the rest of Scripture, but that fit your lifestyle very well. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raka, shall be in danger of the counsel, but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath fought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way. First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, that thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the utmost farthing." So the rabbis had taught Well, the law says, thou shalt not kill, so anyone who kills, this is what should happen to them, and it created this vast interpretation around it. But what Jesus tells them here isn't something new. Jesus' interpretation of this isn't something that no one had ever heard or read before. Pastor, would you look up Zechariah 7, verse 10, Sister Ida, would you look up Zechariah chapter 8 and verse 17? And Landon, would you look up Proverbs chapter 6 and verses 16 through 18? Sister Gladys, would you look up Leviticus chapter 19 and verse 18? Oh, you have one too? Okay, I'll let you do the next one. Pastor, would you read Zechariah chapter 7 and verse 10? and oppress not the widow nor the fatherless, the stranger nor the poor. Let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart." Let none of you imagine evil against your brother in your heart. That was in the Old Testament. So these rabbis who created this whole system around physical murder were ignoring the fullness of the Six Commandment, which prohibited hatred against your brother." Sister Ida, would you read Zechariah 8.17 to us? "...and that none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbor. And love no false oath, for all these are things that I hate." God says, imaginations of evil against your neighbor are things that I hate. Imaginations, not just the physical killing, but the heart attitude behind it. What does Proverbs 6, 16-18 say? Proverbs 6, 16-18 Is that Proverbs 6? Oh, finally. Proverbs 6, 16-18. Go to the ant, thou slithered container. I'm still in the wrong place. Oh, sorry. Chapter 6, verses 16-18. These six things saith the Lord Cain. Ye seven are an abomination unto him. O crowd, look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, and heart that devises wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to me. Okay, so these six things that the Lord hate, seven are abomination to Him. Hands that shed innocent blood is one of them, right? The physical, external action of murder. But what is that immediately followed by? A heart that devises wicked imaginations. So in the Old Testament, in the Proverbs, we're told God hates not just the hands that shed innocent blood, but the heart that devises it, that imagines it. Sister Gladys, what does Leviticus 19.18 tell us? Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of the people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the Lord, Okay, so they're in the law. Leviticus is part of the... The Law is part of those first five books of Moses. And don't bear a grudge against your neighbor, but love your neighbor. I am the Lord. So it's the heart of the matter that has always been what God is after. Always been what He's interested in. Jesus isn't creating some new paradigm here, but He's pointing them back to what the Scriptures have always taught. that the sixth commandment doesn't only prohibit the physical murder, the shedding of blood, but it prohibits hatred toward your brother without a cause, and positively it commands love toward him. That you're to love your brother. So often I think we see this explained as this is New Testament Christianity as opposed to that Old, external, mean, Old Testament. But when you really begin digging into the Old Testament, you find out, no, this is what God's always been after. This is what He's always taught us to do. Phariseeism pretended to be pious in the areas where it was easy, Generally, it's easy not to kill someone. Sometimes you feel like killing someone. Obviously, men have been killing each other since Cain and Abel, so it's important to say don't kill someone. But generally speaking, in your day-to-day life, you don't run into too many murderers. But how many of us have had to deal with the wickedness of our own heart, in both hatred toward our brother or just not loving him as we ought to? Phariseeism ignored the difficult issues that every man has to deal with in the depravity of his own heart, and instead focused on them versus us. It's always, we'll make laws that make sure they're taken care of, the really bad ones, but we'll just pretend like there's nothing wrong with our own hearts. From there, In Matthew chapter 5, He goes on to deal with the sin of adultery. In verse 27, We have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Now, does the law of God command us not to commit adultery? Yes, absolutely. However, we know that it goes beyond the physical But I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Sister Debbie, would you look up Proverbs 6.25? Brother Chris, would you look up Job 31.1? And Pastor, would you look up Exodus 20.17? So similar to murder, although even more insidiously, Adultery and the sin of adultery, the Pharisees and the Rabbis had created this elaborate method of interpretation that provided not just loopholes for their lusting adulterous hearts, but even loopholes for the adulterous act. You remember the woman who was brought before Jesus, and they said, we have here this woman who was caught in adultery in the very act. The law says we should stone her. What do you say?" Well, if she had been caught in the very act, then that means they caught the woman and the man. That's the way adultery works. If you're caught in the act, both are caught. Where was the man? They had created this system that would let the men off the hook and only hold the women. accountable for the crime. And many commentators have said, and this is open for interpretation, I don't know if this is explicit in the text, but many commentators have said, when Jesus said, let him that is without sin cast the first stone, He was not only talking about sin in a general sense, but He was talking about the sin of adultery, and every man there walked away because they'd been guilty of it. That was the kind of rampant sexual immorality that was going on. Jesus called them a generation of adulterers and adulteresses. Right? So they created this whole elaborate loophole that not only allowed them to get away with lusting in their heart, but even to get away with it physically, for one reason or another. And Jesus is bringing them back to task on this. Sister Debbie, what does Proverbs chapter 6 and verse 25 say? Let's not ask for her beauty in thy heart, neither let us forfeit thee with her omens. lest not after her beauty in thy heart." So we see here that the command not to commit adultery in its fullness deals with the heart the same way murder did. In both the Old Testament and the New, the heart sin which leads to the external action is forbidden by God. Brother Chris, what does Job 31.1 tell us? So Job tells us, many people believe that Job was maybe even a contemporary with Abraham. We're not told explicitly, but one of the oldest books in the Bible from the way that we understand it. He said, I just made a covenant with my eyes. With my eyes! Not with anything to do with the physical members that are used in committing adultery physically, but where it starts at. The eye gate is looking and then thinking on a maid. Job said, I made a covenant not to do that. Not to look on a maid, not to think on a maid in my heart. And even right there, in the text alongside of, Thou shalt not commit adultery, in Exodus chapter 20 and verse 17, Verse 14 tells us, "...thou shalt not commit adultery." Verse 17 says, "...thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." Right? So this is one of the Ten Commandments not to lust. Not to covet. And one of the things he explicitly mentions not coveting is your neighbor's wife. So this just proves to us that it's not like the Pharisees only looked at the Ten Commandments and they never thought to compare them to Proverbs and Zechariah and these other passages we've been reading, and they were just mistaken. No, they had it right there, in the context, right alongside, Thou shalt not commit adulteries, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. But once again, that was one of those issues that came home for them. And they didn't want to deal with the sin that was in their own hearts. Christ brought no radically new teaching here, but forcefully brought them back to the old. Here is what the Scriptures say, "...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Starting in verse 31, he deals with the issues of divorce and fornication. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery. And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commiteth adultery. Now Jesus, in the New Testament, all throughout the New Testament, in His life here on this earth, and the Scriptures, both from the Old to the New, place the greatest emphasis, and when I say the greatest emphasis, I don't mean the greatest emphasis of the Bible is this, but I'm saying they put a strong, strong emphasis on the sanctity of marriage. When Jesus was confronted with the issue, may a man put away his wife for any reason, He said, for the hardness of your heart, Moses gave you a bill of divorcement, but from the beginning it was not so. So what did He do? He went back to, what is the emphasis of the Scriptures? The emphasis of the Scriptures is on how holy and important the bonds of matrimony are. The scribes and the Pharisees placed the greatest emphasis on the Bill of Divorcement, which takes up four verses in the Law. So again, and again, and again, and again, all through the Scriptures, the Scriptures talk about the sanctity of marriage, the love that a husband ought to have for his wife, the wife of your youth dwelling with her, and all of these phrases and contexts that are used to explain the sanctity and the holiness of marriage. And all the scribes and the Pharisees wanted to talk about was this Bill of Divorcement. that Moses gave. Have you ever met people like that? All they want to talk about is, well, what can I do and not sin? I mean, how far is too far? How much can I do without actually fornicating? How much pleasure and work can I do on the Lord's Day without actually breaking it? How much can I actually stretch the truth before it really becomes a lie? And all they want to do is say, well, how far can I go instead of what does the Scriptures place the greatest emphasis on doing? And that's exactly what the scribes and the Pharisees had done here with the idea of divorce. Divorce in the law, in Deuteronomy chapter 24 and verses 1 through 4, let's read that. Every jot and tittle of the law is important, right? Every word of God is pure, is given by inspiration, is profitable. So I don't mean to be diminutive of these verses. But when you consider the scope of the law, that only four verses are given to one topic, tells us that there's not a whole lot written about it. We'll just put it like that, right? When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, that's a key phrase, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife, her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife. After that she is defiled. For that is an abomination before the Lord, and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for inheritance. Now, we had a family in this church sometime back, and some of you may know who I'm talking about, it doesn't really matter, but they had fallen into this understanding that because God hates divorce, everyone who had been divorced and remarried need to divorce their current spouse and go back to their previous spouse. Well, that's really, more emphasis in these four verses is on the fact that you're not allowed to do that. then really, even on what the Bill of Divorcement is. He doesn't really spend a whole lot of time telling us about the Bill of Divorcement, but he says, here's the thing, if you've been divorced and remarried, you can't go back to your previous spouse. That's an abomination. That causes the land to be defiled. So that's the emphasis in these verses. The second important thing that I think is important to see in these verses is that phrase in verse 1. He's married her and it comes to pass that you find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her. Then let him write her a bill of divorcement." So, once again, these evil conniving rabbis and Pharisees and scribes had taken the most liberal, progressive possible definition of uncleanness and applied it to mean if there's anything he doesn't like. He doesn't think she's pretty anymore, that's uncleanness. He didn't like the food she made, that's uncleanness. He made her angry by talking back to him, that's uncleanness. But God gives us here in the law, in Deuteronomy chapter 24, He gives us the particular clause that allows for this will of divorcement, even then, Jesus says, for the hardness of their hearts. But it's this, If it be because he hath found some uncleanness in her. Do you remember the story of Mary and Joseph? When Joseph found that Mary was with child, he was minded to put her away privily. He wasn't going to make an open spectacle of it. Legally, he could have. He could have made her drink the bitter water and see if she'd actually fornicated with another man. There were actually modes that he could have taken to find that out. But he didn't. He was minded to put her away privily. Had he done that, he would have had to give her a bill of divorcement. It's the way that Israel worked. Even though they hadn't consummated their marriage yet, a betrothal was binding. And he would have had to give her a bill of divorcement. And so Jesus tells us here, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication." So he defines for us here what that uncleanness was that allowed for the Bill of Divorcement under the Mosaic Law, under the Law of God that he gave to Moses. It was that when he came into her, he found that she had been unfaithful, that she had committed fornication. And so the rabbis and the Pharisees had completely twisted this and made it to be, anything you don't like, just say that's unclean, and that's a good enough reason for divorce. So first, this text, we need to remember that Jesus and the Scriptures place the greatest emphasis on the sanctity of marriage. That needs to be our emphasis. It shouldn't be about, well, what can I get a divorce for? It should be, God says marriage is holy. From the beginning, it was one man and one woman. This is our emphasis. Secondly, the phrase that's used in Matthew chapter 5 and verse 31, "...whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement." That's not what the law said. The law said, if he finds some uncleanness in her, let him give her the word divorcement. And thirdly, the whole thrust, really, we might say the main emphasis of Deuteronomy 24, 1-4, was not even about the first divorce, but about the fact that if there had been a divorce, you couldn't go back. if there had been a divorce and a remarriage. You needed to refrain from ever doing that again. The hard-heartedness of a people who need legislation on divorce was made evident in the Scripture. Think about that. Here's a people who are so hard-hearted that it has to be regulated for them how they can be covenant breakers. It has to be legislated for them. Well, here's the one way you can lie about that oath. When you really break it down to the nitty-gritty, these were people whose hearts had not been changed. All I have is 1016 written down here. I'm guessing maybe that's Deuteronomy 1016. Can you tell me what Deuteronomy 1016 says? Sister Ida, would you look up Ezekiel chapter 3 and verse 7? Sister Debbie, would you look up Proverbs chapter 17 and verse 20? And Sister Gladys, would you look up Jeremiah chapter 4 and verse 4? Does Deuteronomy 10.16 make any sense in that context? Okay, yeah, that's what we're looking for. Yes. Each of these aren't necessarily dealing within the context of particularly divorce, but he's talking about a people who are rebellious, stiff-necked, hard-hearted. All of these phrases that he uses, which tells us this is a depraved, wicked people who needs legislation. There was legislation in the Bible for what to do with molesters and rapists. That doesn't mean that any of that thing was good. It means God realized He was dealing with such a depraved, wicked people, He was going to have to legislate what to do with all kinds of wickedness, with all kinds of evil. They hadn't had circumcised hearts, even though they might have been circumcised in the flesh. What does Ezekiel 3, verse 7 say? But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee, for they will not hearken unto me. For all the house of Israel are imprudent and hard-hearted. God says, Ezekiel, don't think for a second that the children of Israel are going to listen to you. They won't listen to me. Isn't that what Abraham told the rich man, burning in hell? They have Moses and the prophets. If they don't hear them, they're not going to hear if someone comes from the dead. That's what God's telling Ezekiel here. These are people who refuse to hear the truth. What does Proverbs 17 and verse 20 tell us, Ms. Debbie? He that hath a throwing heart findeth no good, and he that hath a perverse tongue felleth into misery. Okay, so these are the people whose heart was so evil that they couldn't find good. It's like if they went out looking for good, they couldn't find it. That's how evil they were. That's how disinclined their hearts were to do good. Ms. Gladys, what does Jeremiah chapter 4 and verse 4 say? Circumcise yourself to the Lord and take away the foreskin of your heart, you men of Judah, and the inhabitation of Jerusalem. Lest my fury come forth like the fire. Their heart was so hard that they deserved the burning wrath of God on them for their evil devices. These are the descriptions of the type of people. So when we look at... Well, the law says what to do if somebody's been divorced. Okay, yeah, just think of who we're dealing with here. These are hard-hearted, stiff-necked people. And Jesus tells us that it was because of the hardness of their heart that they were given the Bill of Divorcement. All right? Verse 33 deals with oaths, retaliations, and enemies. Again, we have heard that it has been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black, But let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." I'm taking the word of some people who are much better read than me, but apparently, the Babylonian Talmud, which is these writings of the rabbis that were in Babylon and came out of Babylon, and many of the oral traditions that they had created in that time, makes it clear that the Jews had a tradition of using a substitution for God's name in their personal oaths. So he said, you've heard that it's said of old time, don't swear by God's name. And so they said, well that means we can swear by other things except for God's name. So we'll swear by Jerusalem, we'll swear by our head, we'll swear by heaven, we'll swear by the earth, we just won't swear by God's name. And what's the point of that? What's the point of saying, I swear on my mama's grave I'm telling the truth? You're trying to impart to the hearer the gravity and the seriousness of your claim. So they would take these oaths, they would make these commitments, and they would say something that would try to convince the person they were talking to just how serious they were, but they wouldn't actually want to adjure to God Himself. They wouldn't want to be held accountable by God's name. So they would think that if they used some substitute, that they could lie, that they could make a false oath, They could make a false covenant. The person they were dealing with would think, man, they must be serious if they're swearing by Jerusalem. But God won't really hold me accountable because I didn't swear by God. Now Jesus makes it clear that God will hold them accountable for all their words regardless of what they swear by. If you swear by heaven, that's God's throne. If you swear by earth, that's God's footstool. If you swear by Jerusalem, that's God's city. If you swear by your head, that's God's head, who creates every hair, has it numbered, and makes it either white or black. So Jesus is telling them that your oath-taking matters to God. All of your words matter to God. I don't know how many of you have heard this. This is something that even is still to this day going around. The Ten Commandments don't tell us not to lie, they just tell us not to bear false witness against thy neighbor. That's a civil injunction. It's talking about not perjuring yourself, not swearing something under oath in a civil court. But just me to you here, I can lie to you. That's not what the That's not what the Ten Commandments is talking about. Well, it may not be what the Ten Commandments is talking about, but the Bible is replete with commands not to lie. That all liars will have their part in the lake of fire. So lying of all kinds is wrong. And that's what Jesus is saying. You think that as long as you're not doing it in a court of law and swearing by God's name that you're okay. And I'm telling you that every time you don't keep your word, God hears it. God sees it. God will hold you accountable for it. Every idle word, you'll give an answer for. And the judgment is the idea here. Now some have taken this, because he seems to make a pretty sweeping statement, swear not at all. Some people have said they won't swear even in a court of law. when they're called upon to take an oath, they won't make a marriage vow. They won't take anything that causes a vow or a swearing. But, once again, remember the context in which Jesus is speaking here. He's talking about interpersonal communication and trying to get around morality by some external use. Let me just give you these verses rather than trying for us to read them all. You can go back and look at them later to see the context if you'd like to. In Matthew chapter 26 and verses 63 and 64, this is when Jesus is on trial, and you remember, according to prophecy, like a lamb led to the slaughter before her shearers is done, so he opened not his mouth, Jesus was silent. He wouldn't answer him. You know when Jesus finally opened his mouth? When they adjourned him by the name of God. Art thou the king of the Jews? And he says, Thou hast said it. So once again, this is a little bit maybe by inference, but it seems as though Jesus consented to a lawful civil oath. When they told him, by the name of God, is this the case? That's when he answered. When he was bound by that. God made oaths. In Genesis chapter 22 and verse 16, In Psalm 110, in verse 4. In Hebrews chapter 6, in verse 17. Now maybe God's exempt from this because just because we can't take an oath by the name of God doesn't mean God can't take an oath by the name of God. He's not bound by the same laws that we are. But the Apostle Paul regularly took an oath. In Romans chapter 1, in verse 9. In 2 Corinthians 1 and verse 23. In Philippians 1 and verse 8. I have Phil, I guess that's Philippians, not Philemon. 1 Thessalonians 2 and verse 5 and verse 10. 1 Thessalonians 2 verses 5 and 10. So, I conclude, I believe, that what Jesus is talking about here, and the tenor of the whole of Scripture, is that there are contexts in which a civil oath may be lawfully taken, and at that point, as always, it's important to keep your oath, to keep your word. However, you're not only bound to the truth when you've taken an oath. At all times, in all of your personal communication, God hears, God sees, God holds accountable. Under all circumstances, our simple word should be trustworthy and sufficient. People know if He says yes, He means yes. He doesn't have to hope to die, cross His heart, stick a thousand needles in His eye, or any of the other silly sayings we make. He's good for his word. And if you ever have known someone like that, and that's the reputation, that's a man of his word. Now, if he told you that, if he shook on that, he means it. That's the reputation that we all want to have, even to our own hurt, to keep our word. Similarly, in that same context there, after oaths, he talks about retaliation. You have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. And now is that Bible? Yes, Allah says that. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But what is the context? But I say unto you that ye resist not evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain, give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away. Exodus chapter 21 and verse 24. Let's go ahead and read these. Landon, would you look up Exodus 21-24? And Brother Chris, would you look up Leviticus 24 and verse 20? These are the verses that tell us, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that Jesus is quoting here and that the rabbis have made in their oral tradition purely a ceremonial, external use that can be twisted for whatever use they want to make it out to be. What does Exodus 21-24 say, Landon? Pretty straightforward. And Leviticus 24, in verse 20? "...breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As He hath caused abomination, so shall it be done to Him again." Both of those contexts, Exodus chapter 21 and Leviticus chapter 24, is talking about justice being meted out in a civil court. Let me once again take us back to that story of the woman caught in the act of adultery brought before Jesus. Many have argued, see Jesus is there abrogating the Old Testament general equity of adultery being a capital crime. However, they hadn't done anything that the law demanded. They hadn't brought the man. They hadn't brought it before a civil magistrate. They hadn't brought it before a judge. They hadn't presented the evidence and the witnesses. It was lynching, is what it was. It was mob rule. We caught this woman. Let's stone her. The whole crowd caught up in a blood frenzy. And this is what the Jews had become. God says, an eye for an eye, you punch me in the eye, I'll punch you in the eye. That's not what Exodus or Leviticus was saying. It says, you go to the judge, you tell him, this man punched me, here's the witnesses to it, here's what led up to it, here's the evidence for it. He either needs to make good for whatever loss of your eye has happened, or if he can't, Then his own eye gets that. It was substitution. It was justice being meted out. And the Jews had taken the justice, the righteous justice that God required, in a organized, careful, judicial way, and turned it into personal vendettas. You hurt me, I'll hurt you. And Jesus says, Never been the spirit of that law. That law is about justice, not about retaliation. Pastor, would you look at Proverbs chapter 25 and verse 21? This is a personal context. This is a proverb. This is for how we live, how we deal with one another. Exodus and Leviticus, in those contexts, chapters 21 and 24, are talking judicially. What does Proverbs 25 and verse 21 say? If thy enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink. That's Old Testament. That's not Jesus' new radical teaching on old law said to punch your enemy, but I say love your enemy. No, the Old Testament said to love your enemy. Give him food, give him water. This is the way that God's people express themselves toward their enemies. Does that mean there's never any justice done? Does that mean that the abuser and the molester and the murderer and the brawler aren't called to account for their actions? No, they ought to be, in the proper realm that God has given for justice. But in our relations, one with another, personally, we are to do good to them. Let's rightfully use us. Another point was made that just kind of blew me away. If Jesus was here annulling the justice of substitution in a civil court, then the cross is unnecessary. Because Jesus was both just and the justifier on the cross. He took the punishment that we deserved. He was our substitution. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, before the bar of God, we deserve hell. The only reason we don't get it is because Jesus was our substitute. So if Jesus is saying here, Justice no longer demands a substitute. Justice no longer demands retaliation. Then God could have just forgiven humanity without any substitute. Justice no longer demands it, under Jesus' thinking. But that's not what He was saying. And He proved it at the cross. Justice demanded punishment. Substitution demanded that if this has happened, then there must be something equally hurtful and serious that happens. So, Jesus wasn't annulling this in the civil context, but he was saying, quit taking it and applying it to your own lives. And we know in the Old Testament cities of refuge were set up, so that if there was a slaughter that was either accidental or they believed to be in a just way, that there couldn't be the avenger of blood that would run them down and kill them. They could go to the city of refuge until a civil magistrate could hear their case. So, the Law of God was always interested in justice, and at the same time it was interested in justice being meted out in the proper forum, that it wasn't just mob rule. So in condemning Phariseeism, in condemning this empty shell of external, physical, outward-only obedience to the law of God, some have pointed to Matthew chapter 23, And verse 3. Verse 1 of Matthew chapter 23 says, Then spake Jesus to the multitude and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. But do not ye after their works, for they say and do not. for they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be born, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." But really, this is just confirming everything we've been saying. When these scribes and Pharisees teach you Moses' Law, do Moses' Law. But don't think that the way that they interpret it and live it out is applicable to the truth of it. Because they don't. They've added all of these interpretations of men, all of these laws of men, to Moses' law. This verse reminds me of Romans chapter 13, which tells us to be subject to the magistrate. But it tells us what the magistrate is supposed to be doing. He's supposed to be bearing the sword against evildoers and rewarding them that do good. Romans chapter 13 does not tell us to obey Hitler. He's a civil magistrate. He's a power ordained by God. If he tells me to kill Jews, I guess I better do it. The civil magistrate says abortion is okay, killing children in the womb, so we've just got to obey that. We've just got to go along with it, right? No. The civil magistrate is to be bearing the sword against the evildoers and rewarding those who do good. Similarly, the scribes and the Pharisees had a place as teachers of God's law, but they were abusing it. They weren't teaching God's law, they were teaching man's law, and they were putting the facade of God's law over their law. In fact, Matthew chapter 23 and verse 4 that we just read, what they were teaching bind heavy burdens and grievous to be born on men's shoulders. That word, grievous burdens, is in direct contrast to 1 John chapter 5 and verse 3, which tells us, for this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not grievous. So what the scribes and the Pharisees were teaching were grievous. Why? Because it wasn't God's law. It was man's law. It was man's wrong, twisted interpretation of God's law. God's commandments are not grievous, 1 John tells us explicitly. This properly defined, I'm going to use the word because I think it fits it best even though it's been also abused by some, but theonomy. The idea of a system that rests on God's law, that we look to the Word of God to guide and direct our steps, of choosing in ethics what's good and what's evil, is not opposed to God's grace and Christian holiness, But externalism, legalism, and autonomy have always been contrary to God's law. Empty actions imagined to be very ceremonial, but without any reality or heart change behind them. Let's go through this list of verses that explains that and then we'll be done. Pastor, would you look up Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29? Sister Ida, would you look up Deuteronomy chapter 6 and verse 5? Sister Debbie, would you look up Deuteronomy chapter 11 and verse 18? Sister Gladys, would you look up Deuteronomy chapter 10 and verse 16. Landon, would you look up Psalm chapter 37 and verse 31? Brother Chris, would you look up Psalm chapter 40 and verse 8? And then I'll close this out with Isaiah chapter 1 and verses 10 through 20. Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say? Deuteronomy chapter 5 and verse 29. What does that say So what was it that God was wanting for obedience to His law? A heart for it. A heart to love it and to obey it. What does Deuteronomy chapter 6 and verse 5 say? Jesus was asked what's the greatest and first commandment. He wasn't making something up. He was quoting from the law. Love the Lord your God with all your heart." As Deuteronomy chapter 11 and verse 18 say, "...therefore, she, lay up these small words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes." These words of the law, bind them to your heart, to your soul. Make it an inward reality. As Deuteronomy chapter 10 and verse 16 say, Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked." Circumcise the foreskin of your heart and be no more stiff-necked inward reality. What about Psalm chapter 37 and verse 31? Psalm 37 and 34? 31, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. The law of His God is in His heart. None of His steps shall slide. The law of the Lord is in His heart. None of His steps shall slide. What about Psalm chapter 40 and verse 8? I delight to do Thy will, O my God. Yea, Thy law is within my heart. I'd like to do Your will. Your law is in my heart. And Isaiah chapter 1 and verses 10 through 20, Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom. Give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the Lord? I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations, incenses and abomination unto me. The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with. It is iniquity even the solemn meeting." Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble unto me, I am weary to bear them. And when you spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea, when you make many prayers I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood." In the Old Testament, God's saying, I'm sick and tired of the empty ceremony. wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow. Though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land. But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." So, when we make an emphasis on the fact that Jesus didn't abrogate the moral law, the general equity of the law, We're not saying, so go back and act like the Pharisees. Now the Pharisees were wrong too. There's two extremes here. There's antinomianism, which says, Jesus did away with the law, there's no law, yay, we can do whatever makes us happy, God just wants us to be happy. And there's Phariseeism. It says it's all about doing the right thing, going through the right motions, getting everything checked off your checklist every day. And both of those are wicked and self-serving. The believer is to have a love for God's laws, to be bound to His heart and to His soul. His actions are to be an outflow of what's in His heart and in His mind. Both the antinomian and the Pharisee are finding opposite ends of the spectrum to serve themselves. But the heart that longs to serve God, that loves Him, loves His word, loves His commandments, loves His law, loves to obey Him, and the external is only a reflection of a changed heart, a circumcised heart. So, that concludes our lecture for this evening. Are there any questions or comments before we close? Theonomy? So, Theo means God, and nomos is the law. So, all theonomy means is a system that abides by God's law. So, T-H-E-O-N-O-M-Y. God and law. Alright, let's go ahead and close with a word of prayer. Pastor, would you mind closing us out? Father, we're very thankful for this evening's lecture, as there's a lot of clarity been given to the importance of man's heart in relation to the law. Help us to be faithful, not to just be hearers only, but to be doers, and in being doers, that we would be faithful to consider our fellow man as well as the heart of the law that you have so carefully prescribed from the beginning of the Bible to the end. I pray that you would help us to be faithful servants to you this week, forgive our sins, and cleanse us from unrighteousness. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.