Alright, so we've been spending the last couple of months now establishing the Word of God, particularly the Law of God, the Commandments of God, as the standard for how we define right and wrong. Please, thank you. So he established that the law was central in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said that he didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. And we saw the abuse of the law by the Pharisees, that their problem wasn't that they kept the law too well, but that they didn't keep the law. They didn't love the law, they loved themselves. And we saw the use of the law by each person of the Trinity. That God the Father was a reflection of His moral character. That God the Son kept it perfectly as part of His active and passive obedience. in keeping the law for us, and in the work of the Holy Spirit as He sanctifies us, as He makes us conformable to the perfect character of God. So, tonight we're going to do a little bit of I guess you might say a conclusion, just kind of a summary, pull all our thoughts together at the end of the semester. This will be the last class for this semester on this topic. Pastor Michael will be teaching next week and closing out his topic. But we're going to close this out by looking at the Law specifically in the New Testament. So usually when we talk about the Law of God, the first thing that comes to mind is the Old Testament, right? We think of the Pentateuch, we think of maybe even the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets, and all of these places where we find the Law of God. But it's amazing when you begin reading through the New Testament looking for it, And considering that the law of God is a valid, reoccurring theme for Christians today and throughout all the New Covenant, hell begins to jump out at you. I didn't really look this back up, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading one time that the book of Deuteronomy is the most quoted book in the New Testament. That's a quote from Deuteronomy as much as anything else. Jesus, the Apostles, and all of the New Testament writers not only assumed the validity of the Old Testament and the moral law of God, but they explicitly taught it. And so that's what we're going to look at tonight. Before we even get into the New Testament passages that talk about it. I want to think for just a moment about the fallacy of thinking that the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, particularly and expounded upon throughout the rest of the Old Testament. We kind of get this idea in our head that it's the Mosaic Law. It's the Law of Moses. And certainly that's when it was revealed in its fullest form. But that's not when it began. The moral law of God didn't begin with Moses. It was a sin for Cain to murder Abel. So, we didn't have the Law of Moses yet, but that didn't mean that it was okay. That's not when thou shalt not kill came into effect. It didn't come into effect with Moses. It was in effect before then. It was the Law of God, not the Law of Moses. Thou shalt not commit adultery. That didn't start with Moses. It started before then. So, the Law didn't begin under the Mosaic period, so why would we assume that it ended? under the Mosaic period. And we shouldn't imagine that. It transcends that particular period in history and it is the moral standard for all of God's people in all places in all times. Now you know that famous answer that Jesus gave when they tried to trick him with the question, Master, what's the greatest commandment in the law? And he said, the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and, the second is like unto it, to love your neighbor as yourself. But he didn't say, There isn't one commandment that's the greatest. Let me give you a new one that supersedes all the old ones. But he quoted the Old Testament to them. When he said that, when he said, Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. He was quoting from Deuteronomy and from Leviticus. Deuteronomy chapter 6. I'm going to read just snippets instead of reading the whole lengthy passage. Deuteronomy 6, verses 2, 5, 6, and 17 say this, "...that thou mightest fear the Lord thy God to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command thee, thou and thy son and thy son's son, all the days of thy life, and that thy days may be prolonged." That's the context we're talking about, keeping all the law of God, not only you but your son and your grandsons, for all the days of your life. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart." You remember that's what we kept stressing when we were talking about the dangers of Phariseeism, is that the law wasn't in their heart. They didn't love God's law. They weren't attempting to keep it in sincerity. They were trying to twist it to fit their own devices. Verse 17 summarizes what was said in the beginning of the chapter. So, Deuteronomy summarizes keeping all the law as, "...love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might." And in Leviticus chapter 19, Verses 15 and 18 is where Jesus was quoting when he said, the second is like unto it, to love your neighbor as yourself. You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the Lord. So when Jesus was asked what the greatest command was, he quoted them two commandments from the Old Testament that they would have been very familiar with, but what he was doing was summarizing all of the law and its importance to be kept in sincerity and in their hearts. They were trying to trick Jesus into saying, well, murder is a bigger deal than committing adultery, or committing adultery is a bigger deal than bearing false witness, or bearing a false witness is a bigger deal than covening. But He said, no, all of it is the greatest commandment. If you love the Lord and love your neighbor, you'll keep all the commandments. So when Jesus quoted that, we recognize that that's what He was doing. He was drawing on the authority of what had already been written. In the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, individuals are commended, they are complimented for their obedience to the law. So it wasn't just in the Old Testament that we see where individuals were commended for their righteousness and obedience to God's law, but we see it in the New Testament as well. In Luke chapter 1 and verse 6, we find that story about when Jesus was brought to... I'm sorry, Luke 1 and verse 6 is talking about John the Baptist's parents, and the description of them, Zacharias and Elizabeth, in Luke 1 and verse 6, "...and they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless." That's how Zacharias and Elizabeth will be remembered for all of history. That's how they've been remembered for the last 2,000 years, and so long as God keeps us on this earth and His Word remains, this will be the testimony, the character, and the reputation of Zacharias and Elizabeth. They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless. Wow, what a strong statement. Then the ladies who prepared ointments and spices for the Lord's body after His crucifixion, in Luke chapter 23 and verse 56. Verse 55 tells us the women which came with Him from Galilee followed after and beheld the sepulcher and how His body was laid. And verse 56, and they returned and prepared spices and ointments and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. So this was important enough for the Holy Spirit to inspire the Gospel writer to record for all of history that these ladies were obedient to the commandment and they rested on the Sabbath. Jesus had a claim that His teachings were identical to the Law. I say to this day, I think unfortunately it's becoming less and less, but even up until recent history, children were almost universally taught, what's the golden rule? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, right? Everybody's taught, you know, just that's the way we ought to act. Well, it comes from Matthew chapter 7 and verse 12. where Jesus said, Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. So Jesus summarizes what we've come to know as the golden rule in that way. Whatever you would have men to do to you, do that to them. Now upon what did he rest that? For this is the law and the prophets. So Jesus said, the golden rule, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, if you would do that perfectly, you would keep God's law perfectly. That's the law. Whatsoever you would have men to do unto you, so do ye to them. If you would do that, you would love your neighbor as yourself, right? That's what's indicated there in that passage. If you love someone as yourself, you're going to do to them as you would have done to you. And Jesus says, this is the Law and the Prophets. So, as we've been harping on over and over again this semester, Jesus wasn't teaching something that was antithetical to the Law, something that was opposed to the Law, something that was opposite to the Law. But He was saying, what I'm teaching you is what you should already know. And what your rabbis and traditions have done is twisted these things. If you would just return to what God's already declared, you would be in line with what I'm teaching you. In Matthew chapter 12, Jesus is confronted. Let me go to this passage and make sure I don't misquote this to you. Yeah, Jesus is confronted for plucking corn to eat on the Sabbath day. Alright? Now, The commandment to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, to rest on the Sabbath, not do any servile work therein, was never, Jesus tells us very clearly, it was not made in such a way that man was made for the Sabbath. But God intended for the Sabbath to be a blessing. And so when Jesus was confronted for plucking ears of corn to eat, He didn't say, That old Sabbath rule doesn't mean anything. I'm here to bring you a new system, a new way of doing things, a way to abolish the Sabbath. Instead, He appealed to the Law of God as to why His actions were justified. Verse 3, Jesus said to them, What David did when he was in hunger, and they that were with him, how he entered into the house of God and did eat the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests." So under normal circumstances, just any old individual couldn't go in and eat the holy showbread. That was only for the priests. And Jesus said, but in circumstances where he was hungry and he needed it, and he was providentially hindered from getting food other ways, God didn't see the bread as being more holy than the person. He saw the person was what was important. Or have ye not read in the law? That's what Jesus says to them in verse 5. Have ye not read in the law how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless? Now, they don't profane the Sabbath, but you understand what he's saying. He's saying, if it were anyone else, people would say this kind of thing about the preacher. Well, how can you say it's wrong to work on Sunday? Preachers work every Sunday. Okay, you understand what we're talking about here. The priests were working on the Sabbath. They were doing those holy things, but it wasn't profanity for them to do it, because they were doing that which was holy. They were serving God. Once again, the individual and his heart was more important than the day. or the particular circumstances surrounding it. So when Jesus was confronted with, quote unquote, breaking the law, He didn't say, well that law doesn't apply. He said, have you not read in the law? What I'm doing is actually in line with what the law teaches. So Jesus appealed to the law to justify His behavior. But it wasn't just Jesus. or those individuals in the Gospels who were there, because many have said, well, we're kind of in a gray area there. Jesus hasn't been born yet, or maybe He's just died, but He hasn't risen from the dead yet. All of these things kind of put us in this in-between area between the Old Covenant's closing and the New Covenant coming into full fruition. But it's all throughout the New Testament. It's not just in the Gospels. We see it in the Pauline epistles again and again. Paul stood with Jesus, surprise, surprise, in upholding the validity and authority of God's law as our moral standard. In Romans chapter 13, verses 8 through 10, Paul said this, Oh no man, anything But to love one another. For he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. What do you mean by that, Paul? What do you mean that he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law? You mean there's a new law that all we have to do is love and if we feel love in our heart, the law is fulfilled? Well, no. For this, he says. He explains himself. For this. Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. This is why it's so important that we don't redefine terms. The Bible defines for us what love is. What is love? Love is, thou shalt not commit adultery. According to Paul. According to Jesus. According to the Bible. That's what love looks like. So you can't say, well, I know culturally it's unacceptable to commit adultery, but we just love each other so much. No, actually Paul said, love is this, thou shalt not commit adultery. Love is this, thou shalt not kill. Love is this, thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment. So he doesn't act as though the law has been abolished, or the commandments have been abolished, but he says, you keep the law and the commandments, and in keeping them, we define love, we see what true love is, what it looks like. I don't want to get too far off track here, but in our current state, it's become very popular to say because of our love for the poor, the injured, the downcast in society. We need to take from the population at large by force in order to redistribute it to the less fortunate. So we're going to have government mandated health insurance for everybody in the country, and we're going to steal from the healthy to give to the sick. Really what it comes down to, we're going to force you to pay for someone else's. But Romans 13 says, love is thou shalt not steal. So you can't say, you can't appeal to love for breaking God's law. How about Galatians chapter 5 and verse 14? Paul's writing to a completely different set of people, in a different time, in a different circumstance. And in fact, the fact that we find this in the book of Galatians is extremely telling, because Galatians really is specifically about not inappropriately using the law in our justification. That's what the Galatians were getting wrong. They thought they needed to keep the law in order to be saved. In order for God to save them, we need to be circumcised, we need to keep the Sabbath days, we need to keep the separation between the Gentiles and the Jews. We need to do all these acts of the law in order to be justified before God. And Galatians is written almost entirely Correcting that, rebuking that mindset, and still in that book. In Galatians chapter 5 and verse 14, Paul said, So, once again, Paul draws back on the implicit the assumed idea that the Christian ought to want to be fulfilling the law. What we're striving for, right, is to be more like Christ, more like God, more godly. And they said, well, here's how you can do that. And you're striving to keep the law. Stop worrying about dividing between the Gentiles and the Jews. Stop worrying about whether there's a circumcision in the flesh or not. And start working on loving your neighbor as yourself. in the confines of the way that the law says that that looks. Paul also taught that while external ceremonies were nothing, the true keeping of the law of God was everything. In 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and verse 19, Once again, a completely different circumstance than Galatians, and a completely different circumstance than Romans. Paul's writing to the church there in Corinth, and in 1 Corinthians he's dealing with all kinds of crazy issues going on in the church. And once again, one of the circumstances was a certain group of the people who believed that circumcision was critical for salvation. And Paul said, circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. and the grammatical idea there, the keeping of the commandments of God, are something. That's what it's all about. It's not about circumcision. It's not about uncircumcision. If you want to be circumcised, great, be circumcised. Also, I'm not telling you you can't be circumcised. Knock yourself out. If someone's uncircumcised, that's fine. You want to be uncircumcised, you don't want to get circumcised, that's fine too. Whatever. But here's what it's all about. The keeping of the commandments of God. This is what we're interested in. Paul wanted the keeping of the commandments of God. We already told you. Love the Lord your God. Love your neighbor as yourself. That's found in the two tables of the law. And Paul understood that even under Christ, he was not without law. Some people say, I'm not under law. And that's true, we're not under the law. But I don't have a law, I just have Christ. Well, Paul said this, you remember that famous passage where he says, I've become all things to all men. If they're this, then I'm that too. Well, listen to what he says when he gets to the point where he's talking about being without the law. 1 Corinthians 9, verse 20, he says, And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews. And to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law. To them that are without law, as without law, and then he immediately puts in parentheses, being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. So, the only stipulation that he puts in this passage here, in 1 Corinthians chapter 9, he doesn't qualify to the Jews I became as a Jew, even though I understand that ethnicity is not... He didn't qualify, he just said, I became like a Jew. When it came to... What verses are we reading? 20 and 21. Under the law, as under the law. He didn't stipulate that. Even though I'm not under the law, because I'm under... But when it came to those who are without law, as being without law, He said, now, I don't want you to misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not without law before God. God's law still governs me. I'm under the law to Christ. But to them, I became as uncircumcised, I would eat the meats they were eating, whatever those Jewish ceremonial so-called, as we've talked about, laws were, I didn't get hung up on those things. But I was never without law before God. I always kept God's law as the governing factor in my life, as the idea that he puts there between those parentheses, being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ. Not only did Paul make these statements, but there are so many other places in the New Testament, not only Paul, but Paul and Peter and John and so many of the different writers in the New Testament, they make statements and they give commands to be good, to be righteous, to be obedient, to rebuke evil, to flee from falsehood. Statements like this. And every time a statement like that is made, we need to ask ourselves, how do we define that? What do we mean by that? What does that look like? Romans chapter 13 is one of those for me where the description is given of how the magistrate, how the government and its governors are to act. Verse 4 says that the ruler, the magistrate, he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. So we need to ask ourselves, what is evil? Who is it that the magistrate is supposed to be bearing the sword against? If he's rewarding the good, then what is good? If He's a minister of God to thee for good, then what do we mean by good? Are these strictly arbitrary definitions that are going to change with every culture and every time? And God is just saying, if Hitler's in charge, then just follow what Hitler says. And if Stalin's in charge, just follow what Stalin says. And if Nero's in charge, just follow what Nero says. I don't think that's what He's saying at all. But when we define these words correctly, when we say good means what God calls good, and when evil means what God calls evil, instead of calling good evil and evil good, when we call good good and evil evil, then the governors are using their position correctly, and those who are to be in submission to them ought to be using their position correctly. I say all that, a little bit of a rabbit trail, to say when we read verses like 1 Timothy 6 and verse 11, the dowel men of God flee these things and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. What does he mean by righteousness? Well, he means doing that which God has commanded to do. That would be right. It would be just. In 2 Timothy chapter 2 and verse 19, "...nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His, and let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." What's iniquity? Well, the Scriptures tell us in another place, the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these. We can tell, we can see what iniquity is. It's all those things that are disobedient to God's law, to God's commandments. Ephesians 5, 10, and 11. Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. How do we know it's acceptable to the Lord? And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. What are the unfruitful works of darkness? But rather reprove them. Many times, I think especially for those of us who have been in church for years and years, or maybe we were even raised up in church our whole life, we just read those verses. Oh yeah, we need to do that which is good. We need to reprove that which is evil. And we never stop to think, how do we define those terms? When we stop to think, how are those terms defined, we have to come to the conclusion that the Scriptures, the Word of God, God gets to decide. what is good and what is evil, and He's told us, He's given that to us, He didn't leave us in the dark. Paul assumed the authority both of the Decalogue and the Inspired Case Law. When I say Inspired Case Law, I read, you know, the Bible says, if your ox falls in the ditch, go and get it out on the side. That's a case law. It's giving you an example of a real world application to some law or another. If an ox gores a man, and the ox shall be put to death. But if he was wont to push in times past, and then he gored a man, then the ox is put to death, and the man is put to death. That's case law. Here's a real world application of what this law looks like. Paul assumed that both thou shalt not kill, that was divinely inspired and authoritative, and if an oxen is wont to push in times past, and the owner didn't keep him in, and he gores someone, that's a violation of thou shalt not kill. So he said both the law itself and the case law, the application of it, Paul assumed that where that's found in the Scriptures, that's authoritative. I never even really considered this, this one example, this first example I'm going to give you, until I was studying for this lecture. 2 Corinthians 6, verse 14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness?" I think the primary application we usually give to this is a believer not being married to an unbeliever. We don't want that unequal yoke. I've heard it applied even to business decisions. You don't want to get too deep in business, business partnership with an unconverted person. It can be applied to a lot of different things across the spectrum of life, but not being unequally yoked together with unbelievers. That's just another one for me that I've just heard it so often in my life. I don't stop to think about the imagery that Paul is using there. Unequally yoked. A yoke is what you put on the neck of an animal who pulls a plow or a wagon or something of that nature. Well, did you know that in Deuteronomy 22, verse 10, the Scriptures commanded, Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Now, I don't know about you, but that passage of Scripture right there has been one of the most difficult passages for me to understand, not only how it's applied today, but why it was even put in place in the first place. Here's the whole passage of Scripture, Deuteronomy 22, verses 9 through 11. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds, lest the fruit of thy seed with which thou hast sown and the fruit of thy vineyard be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers' sorts, as of woolen and linen together." Have you ever wondered, you know, what is that about? I can't wear cotton and wool bix together. It just doesn't even hardly make sense. I can't plant muscadines next to my peach tree. What is this about? Do you remember the other place where Paul said, Let me see if I have it written down here. Yeah, 1 Corinthians chapter 9. In 1 Corinthians chapter 9, Paul is talking to the church in Corinth about paying the preacher. He says, "...say I these things as a man, or saith not the law the same also?" So he says, am I just making this up as a man, or can I call on the authority of the law? For it is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt this is written, that he that ploweth should plow in hope, and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." So here's the line of thinking that Paul's taking. When God said, don't muzzle the ox, It really wasn't so much about the oxen. He wrote that for our sakes. That we would know when we're working, we're deserving of the payment that comes from that labor. So, was it right for Israel not to really muzzle the ox and let it eat? Absolutely, that was right. But what was the point of that? What was the undergirding lesson that God was teaching His people from that? It was for our sakes that we should learn to not withhold the good things from the laborer, particularly the minister. Well, now take that same line of reasoning that Paul uses and apply it to 2 Corinthians 6, verse 14, which we read. Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. When God said, don't plow with an ox and an ass together, don't wear different kinds of linen together, and don't sow different seeds in your vineyard. Was that because God was trying to teach him something about vineyards and cloth and animals? Or was that written for our sakes? Well, to use Paul's words, for our sakes no doubt, that we should learn, now take it back to 2 Corinthians, be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Does that mean it was right for Israel to really not hook an ass and an ox up together? To really not wear different kinds of cloth? To really not sew in their ears? Yes, that was right. But the point was, the lesson God was teaching was, don't be unequally yoked. That was the lesson that was being used. So, in 2 Corinthians, Paul draws on that law, which would have been ingrained in the Jews' minds, when someone said, don't be unequally yoked, they would have thought Deuteronomy 22.10. Don't yoke up an ox and an ass together. Yeah, I know that law. But with unbelievers... Wait a second, he's applying this spiritually. When Paul said, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Immediately the Jew would have thought, Oh yeah, I know that law. I know what the Scripture says about that. Oh wait, Paul is giving it a spiritual application. But not just Paul, but Paul is saying this is what God was intending to teach you all along. This is what you should have been drawing from that. In 1 Timothy chapter 5 and verse 18, we find another interesting layer to this line of thinking. So Paul has been drawing on the authority of the law, applying it in a spiritual sense to today. And then in 1 Timothy 5, verse 18, he does something that goes a step further. He takes an Old Testament law, And he lays it right next to a New Testament statement by Jesus. And he uses the two of them combined to teach this truth. In 1 Timothy 5.18, he says, "...for the scripture saith..." So he's quoting the law here, and he calls it the scripture. "...the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn." That's Deuteronomy 25.4. That says, "...Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn." So he quotes that, and he says, that's scripture. "...and the scripture says, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and..." So the implication is, "...and the scripture says..." The laborer is worthy of his reward. Well, where does the scripture say the laborer is worthy of his reward? That's not in the Decalogue. That's not in the law. That was a statement of Jesus. In Matthew chapter 10, in verse 10, Jesus told his disciples, Don't take a script for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat. So Paul says, the Scripture says in the Old Testament, and the Scripture says in the words of Jesus, these two things, and he lays them side by side. He doesn't say, the Law said this, but good thing Jesus came along, now we can get rid of what the Law said, and we can look at what Jesus said. No, he said, they're both Scripture. The Scripture said, don't muzzle the ox. The Scripture says, the laborer is worthy of his reward, therefore we know. these things to be true. And he lays Deuteronomy and Matthew side by side as authoritative references for why he was teaching what he was teaching. Nor was it just Paul. Peter equates the way of righteousness with the holy commandment. He uses those two phrases in the same verse. Hopefully on Sunday afternoons we'll get to this verse here before too long. 2 Peter chapter 2 and verse 21. Peter says, speaking of apostates, those who have left the faith, Not that they lost their salvation, but they seemed to be in the way and then they walked away from it. 2 Peter 2.21, "...for it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." Now what was the law In the Old Testament, the case law given to Moses for someone who was a traitor, someone who abandoned the ways of his people and joined up with the enemies. He was to be cut off from his people. He was to be killed. Well, Peter says, in a sense, the same thing applies spiritually. It would have been better just to have been born a Philistine than to have been born a Jew and to hear the oracles of God and turn from it and join the Philistines. That's the indication. And so it is spiritually. Peter says it's better to have not known the way of righteousness than after they have known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But what we're really focusing on here is that he equates the way of righteousness, the way of salvation, with turning from the commandment, turning from the holy commandment. The universal orthodox understanding of Scripture is that when God's saved someone, when He's put them into the way of righteousness, they desire to keep the holy commandment. They want to follow the commandments of God. John constantly stresses obedience. I'm not even going to take the time to go through 1st and 2nd and 3rd John, where he talks again and again and again about keeping the commandments. Really, what I want to just take a couple of minutes to look at is in the book of Revelation. Similar to what Peter did, where he equated those who were in the way of righteousness with those who kept the holy commandment, John does a similar thing in the book of Revelation. In chapter 12 and verse 17, we read about the seed of the woman who have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Now this is what it said about them. The dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God. and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Here's who those saints are. Here's who the seed of the woman is who have the testimony of Jesus Christ. They're those who keep the commandments of God. He says basically the very same thing in Revelation chapter 14 and verse 12. Here is the patience of the saints. Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. So you see, he's giving these titles to those who have been saved, saints, those who keep the faith of Jesus, those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ, those who are the seed of the woman, and tied in with those titles are those who keep the commandments of God. To John, that was just part and parcel of the package. If you have the testimony of Jesus Christ, if you have the faith of Christ, you're going to be keeping the commandments of God. James speaks of the danger associated with speaking against the law and therefore speaking against the law giver. James chapter 4. Verses 11 and 12, James is talking about learning to control our tongue, which is such a strong theme throughout the book of James. And he says, "...Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." There is one lawgiver. who is able to save and destroy, who art thou that judgest another?" It always amazes me when you're telling somebody, don't you know the Scriptures say, I shall not commit adultery, that sleeping with someone who's not your wife is wrong? Only God can judge me. Yeah, I know, that's what I just said. God said it's wrong for you to be sleeping with someone that's not your spouse. I know only God can judge you, and God has judged you, and God will judge you. The Scriptures tell us marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. I know God can judge, but they use it as almost an excuse for their sin. Don't tell me I'm saying only God can judge me. Yeah, I'm agreeing with you there. There's one lawgiver, God. And He said what you're doing is wrong. I didn't make that up. I didn't come up with that. I'm just telling you what God judged. And that's what James says. He says, speak evil against your brother." And He's not talking about telling them that what they're doing is sin. He's saying you're judging them in some way outside of the law, speaking evil of Him, when the Scriptures told us not to bear false witness against our brother. He says when you do that, you're speaking evil of the law. And you're judging the law instead of submitting yourself to the law and the law-giver. James didn't say, don't judge, we're not under the law, we're under grace. He said, don't judge, there's one law and one law-giver. And you're under it just like they're under it. You're both held to the same standard. The law that God gave. But these New Testament writers didn't just simply imply the authority of the law. They didn't just assume it in their statements like all of these passages that we've been saying. But they explicitly stated it. They said the law has authority. Or they drew on the law. We've already looked at a couple of those. Paul said, what saith the Scripture for the Scripture saith, and then he quotes the law. Obviously, he's explicitly naming the authority of the law there. 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and verse 34. Really, I think most of the time we just think of this as a New Testament application, but Paul draws on the authority of the law. 1 Corinthians 14.34, "...let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." So Paul says, the reason that I'm implying that women keep silence is because they're supposed to be under obedience. How do I know they're supposed to be under obedience? That's what the law says. I draw on its authority. Again, in the book of James, chapter 2, starting in verse 8, If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well. If you fulfill the law, you do well. But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. James says, how do I know that you're sinning when you have respect of persons? The law tells me you do. The law convinces me. The law convinces you that you've committed sin. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." So James just hammers this point home. We're not under, but we're called to be obedient to the law of God, we have liberty now to be obedient to the law. That's how we're going to be judged. We're not going to be judged as believers. We're not going to be judged as those who had no ability to keep the law. We're going to be judged as those who had the liberty. Those who had been freed by the Holy Spirit from the bondage to sin. We have the liberty to obey the law. When we don't, God will judge us for that. 1 Timothy chapter 5 and verse 19, Paul tells Pastor Timothy, "...against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." Where do you think he came up with that idea? The law. That's what the law said. A man was not to be found guilty except in the mouth of two or three witnesses. And it amazes me when you make the claim, when I make the claim, I believe God's law is what ought to determine right from wrong for everyone in society. If we're going to have a definition for what's right and what's wrong, I think God should be able to define that for us. So you just think that you should go out and stone every homosexual? No, that's not what the law says. The law says that's the duty of the magistrate who bears the sword, not me. The law says there has to be two or three witnesses. The law says there has to be evidence provided. We're talking about doing things God's way, in a just way, not vigilantes going out and carrying out their own form of justice. And so Paul told Timothy in 1 Timothy, don't just receive baseless accusations against elders. Because there's people who are going to be mad at them for what they've said, people who are going to be jealous of their position, people who are going to have hurt feelings or whatever the case may be. So if someone's going to bring an accusation against an elder, just stick with what the law says. Don't receive it except in the mouth of two or three witnesses. And the law is not diminished, but intensified under the New Testament. And this goes back to what we were talking about in 2 Peter. Hebrews chapter 10, this is one of the most difficult passages of Scripture in the New Testament for me. Just to wrap my head around and not deny what the Scripture clearly says, but not make it say anything that's contrary to the rest of Scripture. In Hebrews chapter 10, verses 26 through 29, it says, For if we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. that a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sore punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite under the Spirit of grace? So Paul says, for those who have received the knowledge of the truth, and then turned from it, go off and sin willfully, rebelliously, stiff-neckedly, after they've heard of the blood of the covenant, seem to be sanctified by the blood of the covenant, seem to have the Spirit of grace, and they've counted that an unholy thing, they've done despite unto it, they've willfully sinned, He said, if the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was put to death under Moses' law, what will the man do who trod underfoot the blood of Jesus Christ? He didn't say, that was Old Testament wrath, now we have New Testament grace. He said, if that was the way it was under the law, what do you think it will be like now? How much greater is Jesus, the perfect realization of every facet of Sabbath, how much more important is He than the day? How much more important is Jesus than he who would commit adultery or something of that nature against his fellow man. If you would do such despite unto the Lord Jesus, there remaineth nothing but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. We shall devour the adversaries." Now that doesn't sound like a diminishment of the law. That sounds like an intensification. Jesus is more. That's what Hebrews is all about. The Law was shadowy. It was a picture. It was a reflection. Jesus is reality. Everything. Apex. And that's what Paul says there in Hebrews chapter 10. Let's close with a statement from the London Baptist Confession of Faith. Chapter 19 deals with the Law of God. And point five, we'll get there one of these days on Sunday morning. It says this, the moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others. So the moral law binds everyone, saved people and unsaved people, to the obedience thereof. And that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it." So everyone is bound to keep that moral law that God gave, because the matter contained in it is right, and the Creator who gave it is right. Neither doth Christ in the Gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. When Jesus came with the Gospel, He didn't dissolve our obligation to keep God's moral law, but He actually strengthened it. He taught us the fullness and the reality of it. And if you have a copy of the Confession, there's a lot of proof texts for that one particular point. Romans 13, 8-10. James 2, 8. James 2, 10-12. Matthew 5, 17-19, and Romans 3, 31 are all given as the verses from which the authors drew that conclusion about the moral law of God. So concludes our semester on biblical ethics, the discerning of right and wrong. or the believer. Any questions or comments about what we talked about tonight or over the course of the semester? I really appreciate you all coming out, taking time for this. I know I always