Well thank you for the kind welcome and as always I am very glad to be here. I say that every year but I mean it every year that I am very glad to be here in the fellowship of the Gospel. And our subject is an important one, the Christian and God's Law. The Christian and God's Law. In 1 Timothy 1 and verse 8, which we read earlier, the apostle tells us, But we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully. So there is a lawful use of the law. and the law itself is good. The law is spiritual, the law is good. The question of the place of God's law in the life of the Christian has surfaced from time to time in the Church's history and it has become very much a point of debate in evangelical circles today. several different positions are advocated. First of all, the historic position, the historical reformed position, summed up in the doctrinal creeds of the reformed churches, generally makes a threefold division of the Old Testament law. The ceremonial law pointing forward to Christ in types and shadows and now set aside with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then the judicial laws or penal laws in Israel which are not automatically binding except in their general equity because Israel's position was in certain respects unique. Although Israel was a nation, it wasn't only a nation. And the moral law, as summed up in the Ten Commandments, which is binding upon all men in all places. Now this standard reformed position has been rejected and challenged in various ways. There is classic antinomianism. Antinomianism is simply made up of two words, anti-against and nomos law. So antilaw, antinomianism in its older form, one way or another distinguishes and separates loving obedience to Christ from conscious obedience to God's moral law. To give a modern example of this, and this view has surfaced centuries ago, it's not really new but it turns up now and again, to give a modern example of this, Edgar Andrews, writing in his commentary on Galatians published in the Welland series, by Evangelical Press, many good commentaries in that series, but nevertheless on this point Edgar Andrews advocates what could be generally called an antinomian view. His commentary called Free in Christ, on page 281 he says, their actions and attitudes are dictated by the spirit within rather than by external rules. Of course, their actions and attitudes must be validated by Scripture. Then on page 283, Paul's proposition is not that believers do the law, but that the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us. Romans 8 verse 4. The distinction is important, he says. and then quoting Westerholm on page 287, he says, Paul never speaks of the law's fulfilment in prescribing Christian conduct but only while describing its results. That's on page 287. We have to question that as we'll see in Romans 13. But the main point that Andrews is making is that Christians must Yes, they end up keeping the moral law but without thinking about that law in order for it to be true gospel holiness. A second view, it's not a distinct view and these are not sharp categories, is what is called New Covenant theology. Possibly Edgar Andrews would call himself a New Covenant theologian as well. New Covenant theology consists of the rejection of the historic Reformed view of the law, and this view holds that the Mosaic law, the law of God given by Moses, is indivisible, it's a complete whole, and is cancelled in total, and that the New Testament believer is under the law of Christ, that is, New Testament precepts. And Old Testament precepts are only applicable if they are repeated in the New Testament. So the Old Testament law was given as a block, cancelled as a block, and the New Testament gifts alone is to be referred to as indicating the continuing standard of holiness. In other words, there is no automatic carryover from the Old Testament, whereas the Reformed position is what is not cancelled continues. On this view, nothing just continues unless it is given in the New Testament. There is a radical cleavage made between the Old and the New Testament, and the Fourth Commandment, the Sabbath, is almost inevitably the first casualty of this particular view. So as well as Old Style antinomianism and New Covenant theology and the overlap between them, there is also undefined antinomianism. As well as these articulated views, many professing Christians just simply have never really given the matter serious thought. They have a vague idea that since believers are forgiven in Christ, we don't really have anything to do with the law. Romans 10 verse 4 says that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. And yet many Christians, instead of taking that in its context, that we are not justified by our personal endeavours to keep God's law, they apply it rather vaguely across the board that really believers are free in Christ and therefore haven't anything to do with the law. It's never pinned down, but just a general feeling that the law isn't anything much to do with us. Well, over against these departures from the historically formed view, we assert the following points. Firstly, the unchangeably holy God expresses his character in an unchangeable law defining what holiness is for man. Not the snappiest heading I grant you, but I'll just give it again. The unchangeably holy God expresses his character in an unchangeable law defining what holiness is for man. God is holy. God is holy in, that means he's separate, and God is holy in two senses. As the creator, he is infinitely above the creature. So he is separate from us in the sense that he is infinite, we are finite. He is the creator, we are the creature. He is the sovereign and the judge, we are the accountable creature. But also he is morally holy, that is, separate from sin. Habakkuk 1 verse 13 says, Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look upon iniquity. And in Psalm 11, Psalm 11 verse 6 and 7, We read, upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest. This shall be the portion of their cup. For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness. That's giving them reason. Why does fire fall? Why does judgment come upon the wicked? For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness. God's character means that he does punish sin. One of the great delusions of this generation is the idea that God doesn't punish sin, that that's an outmoded idea, a thing of the past, and yet it is self-evident even in this world that God is a God of judgment. The character of God means that he does punish sin. because he unchangeably loveth righteousness. He is the righteous Lord that loveth righteousness. His standard for men reflects his unchangeable character. There is a law, then, which defines sin. 1 John 3, verse 4, Whoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law. for sin is the transgression of the law. That's what sin is, transgression of the law. So every time sin is mentioned in the Bible, the presupposition behind that is that there is a law of God, and sin is the transgression of it in thought, word or action. Sin cannot be left without God-given definition. Otherwise all the exhortations against sin become meaningless. All those exhortations to keep clear of sin, to sin not, to modify sin, what do they mean if there is no definition of sin? There must be a fixed permanent standard given by God, and that is His law. Secondly, one law defines the guilt of sinners, the obedience of Christ, and the holiness we are to pursue. One law defines the guilt of sinners, the obedience of Christ, and the holiness we are to pursue. One single standard shows that man is a sinner. That same standard was perfectly conformed to by our Lord Jesus Christ and the guilt of its transgression fully borne by him on behalf of God's elect. And that same standard is the definition of holiness that the believer is to pursue in union with Christ. Let's break this down a little. First of all, one law condemns the guilty and defines the standard of holiness for believers. One law condemns the guilty and defines the standard of holiness for believers. If you turn to Colossians chapter 3 and verse 3, Colossians 3 verse 3, For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry. For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience, in the which ye also walked some time when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him." Now notice in this passage, firstly, the deeds to be mortified are named. 5, verse 8, mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth, and then he gives them sins that are to be mortified, fornication, uncleanness and so on. Verse 8, put away these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy and so on. In other words, specific sins are named in scripture. Some are internal, so in verse 5 it speaks of things in ordinate affection, covetousness, inward. Some are external, they come to outward expression, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. But whether internal only or internal coming to outward expression, they are named as targets of mortification, of putting to death. These are sins that by God's grace in the process of sanctification are to be put to death through our union with the Lord Jesus Christ. They are specific. He doesn't leave sin undefined. He doesn't say that holiness is to be pursued purely by our own, purely by undefined opposition to sin. He names specific sins because our impulses are not reliable in themselves. the work of the Spirit produces godly impulses, but our impulses are subject to mixture, and we cannot rely just on what we feel is sinful. We need to be told what is sinful, and the Apostle does it. But then, secondly, the same named sins which the forgiven believer is to mortify bring condemnation upon the unbeliever, for which things said, the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience." These sins that the forgiven sinner, the believer, is to mortify are the same sins which bring the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. One single standard defines the holiness the believer is to pursue as well as defining the ground of condemnation of those who know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. One single standard. Thirdly, The sins believers are to mortify in pursuit of holiness in Christ are the same as those we formerly walked in as unbelievers, verse 7, in the which he also walked sometime when he lived in them. Same old sins to be mortified by the believer, same sins as He walked in as an unbeliever. In other words, he doesn't say, well, we're now in such a spiritual plane that we don't actually have to think about what is right and wrong. He says, those things you did wrong before, you must consciously, by the grace of Christ, mortify now. then we can also say that the specifics of that law which convinces the unbeliever before conversion defines the holiness he is to pursue after it. The specifics of that law which convinces the unbeliever of his guilt before his conversion defines the holiness he is to pursue after it. Romans chapter 3 and verse 20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. So the law shows us we're sinners and that we need an imputed righteousness in Jesus Christ. We'll see this more later, but that's one reason why the law of God is to be preached, because the law defines right and wrong and shows men and women that they are sinners. The Spirit of God awakens a sinner, as he pleases, to see their need of Christ by showing them that they are sinners condemned by God's standard, God's law. Romans chapter 7 and verse 7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law. For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, for without the law sin was dead. But I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me. and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid! But sin that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Here the Apostle is talking about his experience of conviction of sin and he is saying that before he really began to think about the law of God. Yes, he was still a sinner, but sin was relatively dormant, if you like. He lived a life of sin, there's no question of that. But when God's good law was brought to bear upon him, telling him what was right and wrong, far from making him holy, it made him more sinful. You see, our fundamental antagonism is towards God. By nature, our most deepest, deep-rooted hatred is towards God, God as he truly is. And what the Apostle is saying is this, that like a stagnant pond, when the law came, and stirred that stagnant pond, the stench of sin was all the greater. It showed itself, it came out. And isn't that true, that by nature, the more we know something is forbidden by God, the more we want it. The sinfulness of it constitutes the attractiveness of it and the known sinfulness of it. makes it much more desirable. And that's how corrupt we are, how depraved we are by nature. So the law, this specific command, thou shalt not covet, specific command, part of the Ten Commandments, convinced Saul of Tarsus that he was indeed a guilty sinner before God. But notice verse 16, Here he is talking about his experience as a believer and he says, verse 15, For that which I do I allow not, for what I would that do I not, but what I hate that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. He is saying there that sin now is Yes, he's still a sinner, he's still corrupt, but there is a new nature and remaining corruption is contrary to that new nature. He's not disowning his responsibility for his sins, but he's saying there is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. It's contrary to the new nature that I now have. But he says, for I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. For to will flesh there means man in his fallen condition apart from the grace of God. He says, In my flesh dwelleth no good thing. By nature there is nothing good, but there is something good by grace. For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is pleasant with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Now what is this law that he delighted in after the inward man? The ungodly do not delight in the law of God after the inward man, but he did as a believer, as one born of the Spirit. It is the same law that convinced him of sin in his unconverted state. There is no ground for thinking the law in verse 22 is any different to the law in verses 7 down to 13. That same law that convinced him of sin is now the law that he delights in as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, though he laments and bewails the inconsistency of his conformity to it. So, he delighted in the law of God. He didn't just happen to keep it in some mysterious, unthought-through way. In Christ, as a believer, as one who loved the Lord Jesus Christ, he loved the law of God. He delighted in it, though he fell short of its requirements. He had a consciousness of what was good as defined by the law of God. And then we can also say Christ kept and bore the punishment required by the one law on behalf of his people. Christ both actively kept and bore the punishment of the transgression of that one law on behalf of his people. 2 Corinthians 5 verse 21, For he had made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The law broken by sinners Christ kept. The law broken by the elect of God, Christ bore its penalty. One definition of sin defines what Christ didn't do, He didn't sin, and what He did do, He bore the penalty of sin. Remember our definition from 1 John 3 verse 4, sin is the transgression of the law. So when it says he had made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that's telling us Christ kept the law and Christ bore the penalty of transgression of the law. It does not honour Christ to despise the law of God if the law of God doesn't matter. What does Christ's obedience mean? What does Christ's suffering and death mean? He was bearing the wrath of God on transgression of God's law. To sum up then, one single divine law constitutes firstly the basis of man's condemnation, secondly it is the instrument to expose man's guilt and his need of Jesus Christ. Thirdly, the obedience of Christ was conformity to that law. Fourthly, the sufferings of Christ were a bearing the guilt of transgression of that law as the substitute. Fifthly, the holiness that Christ works in his people consists of repentance of transgression of that law and conformity to that law in practice. Romans chapter 8. Romans chapter 8. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." So here the Apostle reasserts no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. And because there is no condemnation, because the guilt of sin has been borne by Christ, Christ has borne the guilt of transgression of God's law, then there is a basis for the reversal of man's being given over to corruption as part of God's judgement upon him for his original sin in Adam. And therefore, the Spirit of Christ Jesus working in the people of God causes them to be holy. And that holiness is defined as the righteousness of the law being fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. When people say they are walking after the Spirit, does it lead them to conformity to God's law? Because if it doesn't, then they are not walking after the Spirit. The effect of walking in the Spirit isn't some airy-fairy experience. It's when the Spirit of God enables us, through faith in Christ and in love to him, to put to death those simple inclinations to transgress the law of God. That's walking in the Spirit. It is concrete conformity in thought, word and practice to the law of God. So if you meet one of these wonderful super saints who tells you they don't need the law because they're walking after the Spirit, If the effect of their so-called walking after the Spirit is not fulfilment of the righteousness of the law, they are deceived. It is not the Spirit of God who causes them to depart and ignore and make light of the law of God. There is nothing unspiritual in observing concrete precepts. Before the fall in the Garden of Eden, God gave to Adam and Eve in their sinless state concrete command, negative concrete command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thou shalt not eat of it. There is nothing unspiritual in specific and even negative divine command. We overreach ourselves if we think we don't need to be told what is right and what is wrong. It is a pseudo-spirituality arising from pride that makes us think we don't need to be told. We do. We are dependent upon the grace of God to be holy and we are dependent upon the revelation of God to tell us what holiness actually is. So how do we show our love to Christ? not by flattering ourselves and saying we don't need God's law. We show our love to Christ, our Redeemer, to whom we owe all our salvation, by looking at God's law to tell us what is pleasing to God. And our thankfulness, our devotion to Christ must show itself in conformity to the law of God. Let's just think for a moment about those who say, we don't need these precepts, thou shalt not, we don't need them, we have the Spirit of Christ. Well, it was the Holy Spirit who gave those commandments. What they're actually saying is this, that the work of the Holy Spirit in us doesn't simply incline us to follow the precepts of the Lord, but the Spirit of Christ within us actually reveals what is right. In other words, it's mysticism, it's charismaticism, it's saying that the work of the Spirit is not simply to renew the heart and will and mind and understanding to follow the specifics of Scripture in loving obedience to Christ, but actually the work of the Spirit in us reveals what is right, rather than giving us understanding and a willing heart to do what is right as defined by Scripture. In other words, It's claiming that the Spirit's work in the believer today is revelatory and not simply the work of renewing the heart and will. It actually entails fresh revelation outside of Scripture and this we absolutely deny. What the Spirit of God does in the hearts of God's elect is that it renews the will, it gives understanding, but not only so, it renews the heart and will, so that there is a desire for Christ to trust Him, to turn away from sin, to repent of the transgression of God's law that they now see. and to come to Christ, to trust Christ for acceptance in the sight of God, and then, as a forgiven sinner, to desire to walk in the ways of the Lord, and those commands which they formerly despised they now embrace with all their heart. There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared Psalm 130, verse 4, that's telling us the forgiven man, and only the forgiven man, begins to fear the Lord, to have a loving reverence for his God, and to seek to know what pleases him from his word. To this man will I look, to him that is of a broken and contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word. It is the Holy Spirit who breathed out Scripture, and the man who is born of the Spirit delights in the Word of God. He embraces its promises, he trembles at its threatenings, he yields obedience to its commandments. But the New Covenant theologian man, he says, New Covenant Theology man, he says, but you misunderstand us. We don't believe in this mystical antinomianism. We accept there is a permanent law of God. We just differ from you as to how we find it. We don't rely on feelings and call it the leading of the spirit. We do accept there are objective precepts in Scripture, but in order to know what is still obligatory upon us, we don't do what you do. You look at the Old Testament and you say, what isn't cancelled when we come into the New? That still carries on. We accept there are precepts, but the only precepts we need to take account of are those given in the New Testament. This brings us to our third main point. The location of the moral law in God's Word. The location of the moral law in God's Word. Where do we find it? We've seen that the work of the Spirit in us, if the Spirit of God works in us, then we trust Christ, we turn from sin, we love Christ, we desire to obey his word. Where are we to find this model law? Are we to look through the whole Word of God, or are we to simply rely on the New Testament Scriptures and say, if it isn't there, then it doesn't stand? Now, we said earlier that the reformers, Protestant reformers generally, held that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the moral law of God in all parts, and this is reflected in the Reformed confessions and catechisms. For example, the Westminster Confession is quite explicit and the catechisms spend a great deal of time explaining the Ten Commandments. We find in Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession, paragraph 2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and as such was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments and written in two tables. The first four commandments containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings and benefits, and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all of which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now further than the general equity thereof may require. And here's the crunch. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, 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. Neither does Christ in the gospel in any way dissolve but much strengthen this obligation. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works to be thereby justified or condemned, Yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly, and so on." Well, that's a long quotation, but you see that it's representative of the position of a Reformed forebear. And as we mentioned at the beginning, it sets out three parts to the law given by Moses. The ceremonial, which was temporary, pointing to Christ. The judicial, not automatically applicable in the New Testament because of the uniqueness of Israel's position as church and state together. And then the moral, which is automatically binding on all as a permanent standard of righteousness and summed up in the Ten Commandments. The New Covenant theologian thinks they got it wrong. Well, let's have a look at it. Firstly, Christ's teaching. The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5 and verse 18 and 19. 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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So there is a law which does not pass until fulfilled. The ceremonial is fulfilled in Christ, that passes away. The moral law continues. And then the Lord Jesus gives some exposition. You see in verse 27, You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Now when he says, you have heard that it was said by them of old time, he is not referring to God's law, he is not referring to scripture. If he was simply referring to scripture, he would say it is written. Consistently Christ and the apostles referred to scripture as it is written or the scripture says. What he's referring to is the superficial interpretation of the ancient rabbis. And that's why he said, you've heard that it was said by them of old time. And what did the rabbis make of the seventh commandment? Well, thou shalt not commit adultery. That means thou shalt not commit adultery. And that's all it means. As far as they were concerned, It meant literal adultery, was sinful and that was it. But Christ is giving the full meaning of the 7th commandment and goes on to condemn sexual lust and so forth. You see this most clearly if you turn to verse 43. You have heard that it has been said thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. Now these actual words are not found in the Old Testament. And it's clear that Christ, when he says, you have heard that it has been said, or it has been said of old time, he's talking about the rabbinical misuse and misinterpretation of the law of God. And so in verse 44 he says, But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. You say, but surely that's unique to the New Testament. Well, it's not. Exodus chapter 23. Exodus 23 and verse 4, If thou meet thine enemies ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him." So love to our enemies was taught in the Old Testament as well as in the New. And the contrast in the Sermon on the Mount is not between Old Testament teaching and new, it is between the rabbinical mangling of the law of God and the true meaning of the law of God. Christ was made under the law. He conformed to the law of God. And conformity to Christ for us means conforming to God's moral law. That moral law summed up in the Ten Commandments. And then looking at New Testament teaching, 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 21. 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 21. To them that are without law as without law, being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. Now this verse has been much abused. Verse 20 says that unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, 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. being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ. This has been fearfully abused. The apostle is dealing with his willingness to give up legitimate things for the good of others. And the freedom from the ceremonial law was a freedom that he used consistently with seeking the good of others. You say then he went beyond what was required of him. No he didn't. The use he made of his freedoms under the first table of the law were consistent with his duty under the second table of the law. Let me explain that further. For example, when he did not eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols so as to avoid offending the weaker brother, he wasn't doing something beyond what the law of God required. He was doing something that the first table of the law, our duty directly to God, sanctioned, but he was abstaining from it because of love to his neighbour. so that when the apostle gave up legitimate freedoms, it wasn't a work of supererogation, it wasn't a work of above and beyond what the law of God required. He was simply using what was legitimate in terms of the first table of the law in a manner consistent with the second. His love to God required under the first table of the law That first table of the law taught him that eating these foods offered previously to sale, offered to idols, was not sinful. It was not a breach of the first or the second commandment. But, knowing that it would harm others, he has regard to the second table of the law, his duty to his neighbour. And so he would do without that food, rather than breach the second table of the law, even though he didn't break the first five. He would have regard to love to his neighbour, and not break the sixth commandment by that which was destructive of his neighbour. So there is no addition to the moral law in the apostles abstaining from legitimate things for the good of others. He is simply observing the second table of the law, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But what about this phrase, not without law to God but under the law to Christ, in verse 21? What does it mean? Antinomians have made it mean whatever they want it to mean. But it actually means this. Firstly, he did not try to keep God's law to merit acceptance with God. He trusted in Christ's merits. Secondly, he knew that Christ had fulfilled the types of the ceremonial law and that these types in themselves were no longer required. But thirdly, he was under the law as the direction as to how his love to Christ was to come to actual expression. He says, I'm under law to Christ. Those aspects of God's law which are consistent with belonging to Christ, they are my rule of obedience. So he rejected work salvation, that was a misuse of the law, he understood that the types of the ceremonial law had been fulfilled and that he wasn't automatically obliged to keep them. But the moral law he acknowledged and sought to keep out of love to the Saviour who had redeemed him from his sins. In other words, he kept the moral law, the Ten Commandments, from gospel motives. Love to Christ, in whom he trusted for his acceptance with God, caused him to observe the moral law and, where necessary, even to give up legitimate things for the good of his Jewish neighbour. Then we have New Testament appeal to the Ten Commandments, Romans chapter 13. Romans 13 verse 8. O no man anything but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 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. Now what the apostle is doing here He's not confirming what still applies of the Ten Commandments. He's appealing to the Ten Commandments to confirm the rightness of what he is now saying, and that's important. He's not saying, I as a New Testament apostle am telling you that these commandments still apply. He's saying Here is confirmation of what I, as a New Testament apostle, am saying. And he appeals to the Ten Commandments. And he also appeals to the second summary commandment, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And he's telling them to do that. is saying this is what you should do. Edgar Andrews is quite wrong to say that the apostle never appeals to the law of God as prescriptive for the Christian. He does it and he does it here. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself is a quotation from Leviticus 19.18 and the Apostle is saying that that great summary commandment sums up the second table of the law of God and he gives the specific requirements of it. In Ephesians 6 verse 1 to 3, Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honour thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise. that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." He is speaking to the children among the saints at Ephesus and he says, obey your parents in the Lord, gospel motive, out of love to Christ, for this is right. And then he says, we know it is right because there is a commandment in Exodus 20, honour thy father and thy mother. So there he is urging gospel motive, love to the Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, upon the children, and then they are to conform to the fifth commandment. James 2 verse 9 to 12, likewise, or Galatians 5, 13 and 14, Galatians 5, 13 to 14, For brethren, ye have been called unto liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." He is saying the law of God as it relates to our obligation to man is summed up in this Old Testament precept. thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." He's not saying this stands because I'm confirming it, he's saying this stands and it confirms what I'm now saying, that love to our neighbour as ourselves is our obligation. The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God. They were written on tables of stone. They were distinct from the ceremonial and judicial laws. They are appealed to as permanent standards of right and wrong. And one more thing here. Love is commanded in the law and is not an alternative to it. This is important. If you've lost the thread, come back now because this is important. Love is commanded in the law, it is not an alternative to it. We hear many people, often sincere but not having perhaps always thought about it, but they say, as Christians we believe in love, not law. Well, where are we told to love but in the law of God? God tells us to love God, to love our neighbour. Matthew 22 and verse 36. Matthew 22 and verse 36. When one of the lawyers came tempting him, verse 36, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." He's asking which is the great commandment in the law. But Christ doesn't say, well, you want to forget about law. We've moved on. He doesn't say that at all. He says, here is the great commandment, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and mind and strength. The second like to it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Where are these from? They are from the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 6 verse 5, Leviticus 19 verse 18. He quotes Old Testament precept to show what God's law requires in summary. So love is not a replacement of God's moral law. Love summarizes the substance of that law. So in Romans 13 we referred to earlier, love to our neighbor is shown by hearty obedience to the second table. If you love your neighbor, you'll not kill him, you'll not hate him, you'll not seek his harm, you'll not seek his ruin, you'll pray for him, for his conversion, you'll seek his good, You'll not commit adultery with his wife, you'll not steal his goods, you'll not lie to him, you'll not envy what he's got and you haven't. And the same is true of the first table. Our love to God will find itself its expression, yes, in obedience to the second table, but also the first table. And it's obedience to that first table that the world particularly hates in the Christian. We worship only God. We worship God God's way. We worship him with reverence and reverence his name at all times and all that pertains to him. And we'll keep his Sabbath day holy. You say, ah, but wait a minute, the Sabbath, the Sabbath, this is the question, the weekly Sabbath. But you see, the Ten Commandments stand together. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance, as surely as marriage and the family was established at creation. But what about redeeming grace? Well, redeeming grace doesn't nullify created order. In 1 Corinthians 11, the Apostle argues in that passage from the created order. The passage concerned with head covering for women in the public assemblies of God's people. He argues it from the created order. And likewise, the women keeping silent in 1 Timothy chapter 2, he argues that the man was first created and then the woman. And that this created order has application among the redeemed on earth today. Redemption, saving grace, does not cancel the created order for the people of God in this world. And the Sabbath was made for man. In Mark 2, verse 24-28, the Lord Jesus asserts his authority over the Sabbath. As the Son of Man, he is Lord of the Sabbath. And he says the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. He's saying the Sabbath was made for man as a blessing, as a benefit. It doesn't mean it's not obligatory. There's no contradiction between command and privilege. This is the folly of modern man that he thinks command means the opposite of privilege and blessing. It's nonsense. God can command something and blessedness is in conformity to it. And if the Sabbath was made for man, that means it wasn't just made for the Jews, it wasn't just made for people in the Old Testament, it was made for man. All men, everywhere, as a blessing. And the coming of the Redeemer, full of grace and truth, in which the grace of God is more abundantly displayed, doesn't take away what is a blessing and what was given for our good. It was made for man, for his good. Does Christ, the Saviour coming, deprive us of what is good? Of course not. The day is changed from the seventh to the first day. In Matthew chapter 12 and verse 5, Christ And interestingly, Christ never argues against the false accusations of Sabbath-breaking from the Pharisees. He never argues on the basis that the Sabbath law doesn't stand. He always simply clears the debris of Pharisaical nonsense that had been added to it. and vindicates the true meaning of the fourth commandment. He never says, oh, but the Sabbath doesn't apply. He always says, the Pharisees, you've got it wrong. This is what it means. Matthew 12 verse 5, Or have you not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless Here he's saying the true purpose of the Sabbath is not just inactivity, it's rest in order to worship. And so, when work was necessary for the worship of God, like when the priests were heaving around these sacrificial animals for the worship of God, he says it was blameless. Because the rest is not an end in itself, it's rest in order to worship. And if the worship necessitates work, then it's necessary work and it's legitimate. So worship is the first aim of the Sabbath. The rest, from ordinary labour and recreation, is in order to worship. And so Christ appeared after his resurrection to his disciples on the first day of the week consistently. He rose from the dead on the first day. He appeared to them on subsequent first days. And we find in Acts 20 verse 7 that the church of Troas met for worship on the first day of the week. In 1 Corinthians 16, 1 and 2 it is evident that the churches met on the first day of the week for worship. And so if that was the day they specifically met for worship, then that is the day in which they rested in order to worship. And so the Sabbath continues in the New Testament on the first day of the week, commemorating not only creation completed, but redemption accomplished by the Lord Jesus who rose again on the first day of the week. But the moral principle of a weekly Sabbath stands, uninterrupted. from the creation to the death of Christ, the seventh day, with the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week, the first, first day of the week, Sabbath, back to back with the last seventh day Sabbath, it continues, one day in seven, from beginning to end, the day changed, the Sabbath preserved. And so the Sabbath is a blessing and a privilege. Thirdly then, and our time is more than gone. Thirdly, how is the Christian to use the law? How is the Christian to use the law? And here we'll just give a summary very quickly. The term legalism is knocked about very freely amongst evangelicals. Far too freely. If someone's more consistent than we are, we call them a legalist. It's a handy one, isn't it? Don't think about it. Don't think you might be wrong and they might be right. Just call them a legalist. It's like the word extremist. You just throw out these terms. Oh, he's an extremist. He's a legalist. And the word legalist is used freely, thoughtlessly, for anyone whose standard is irritatingly irritatingly different from our own. And we don't really want to consider whether they're right. And so we call them a legalist. Never do that. Never use the term legalist without making sure that you're using it correctly. What's the right use of the term legalist? But someone is a legalist if he is depending upon his own efforts to keep God's law for acceptance with God. That's a legalist. It may also legitimately be applied to someone who is preoccupied with the detail and neglecting the great principles of holiness and godliness. Beyond that, don't use it. that Christian might just be more consistent than you are. But what's the legitimate use of the law? First of all, to bring the knowledge of sin. In 1 Timothy 1, which we read, the apostle says that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully. He then goes on to give a lawful use of the law in exposing sin In that passage, the exposure of sin by the law is a lawful use of the law to see ourselves as sinners. And so he says, verse 9, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind. for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust." He's saying this use of the law as exposing sin and need of Christ, this is according to, it's in line with the glorious gospel of the blessed God. That's why ministers should preach the law of God. Because people need to see that they're sinners. You tell people that Christ died to save sinners, they say, well, so what? I don't mean that irreverently, but that is the reaction. So what if they don't see that they're sinners? What relevance is this to me? There must be the preaching of the law like Christ did with the rich young ruler, you know the commandments. And then he pinpointed his covetousness. Or the woman of Samaria, go call thy husband. She said, well I have no husband. He said, absolutely right. The law is to expose sin. But that doesn't stop. when we're converted to Christ, we still need to know our sins. In the Lord's Prayer, as it's called, Matthew 6.12, forgive us our debts. How do we know we have sins to confess? I hope you confess sin to God often, daily, constantly, because we do sin every day. But how do we know that we've sinned? Well, by the law of God. That's how we know. And that means that every day when we confess our sins to God, we examine our thoughts, our ways, our words by the standards of God's law and we come to God. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves when the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Little children, I write these things unto you that ye sin not, but if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. How are we going to confess sin if we neglect God's law which tells us what it is? We are to humble ourselves in the light of God's law and go to Him with our sins and seek mercy in Christ. Then a second lawful use of the law is to define the sin that must be mortified. We are commanded to mortify, to put to death sin, Colossians 3, 5 that we looked at earlier. We are to know our enemy. If we don't look at God's law, we won't have a correct grasp, we won't focus correctly. Our view of sin, of our sins, will be blurred. We need to know our enemy, we need to know what sin is according to God's law. Now the knowledge of sin itself, the knowledge of what God's law requires will never make us hate sin. If we know ourselves at all, we know that to be true. Knowing that something is wrong doesn't make us hate it. It makes us feel guilty about it, it makes us feel bad about it, but it doesn't make us hate it. We all know that, don't we? We can know something is wrong and yet still want it. So the law on its own, showing us what sin is, doesn't make us hate sin. It tells us what it is, but it doesn't make us hate it or doesn't give us the strength, the power to turn from it. Only Christ and his grace can do that. But still, we need the law to pin down what is sinful in our lives so as to turn from it by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. and to define the channels of devotion to the Redeemer. Men have done many things out of professed love to God that are completely wrong. We need the law of God to channel our love to the Redeemer, to Christ. Don't we understand that we are still sinners? Our judgement is not reliable. Something can seem right to us in our eyes, but when we look at the law of the Lord, we find it's not right at all. We're not so above sin that we can't sinfully justify what is sinful, or else sinfully condemn what isn't sinful. We're not infallible, we're not beyond completely getting wrong and calling good evil and evil good. We're still corrupt and our thinking is corrupted and we need the Word of God. The forgiven man is a changed man and the change shows itself. in seeking by the grace of Christ to be conformed to that very law which formerly they despised. And then to increase our gratitude, our sense of gratitude to the Redeemer. It is this law that we transgressed in our wickedness. Our sins are more than the hairs of our head. It is this law that Christ perfectly kept. holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, now made higher than the heavens. It is the curse of this law that Christ bore when he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? The law of God should show us how undeserving we are of any good. It should show us the excellency and glory of Christ in keeping it and in bearing its curse. And our gratitude to him should show itself in delighting in that law which he delighted in when he was in this world. It defines also, and this is a subsidiary as it were, it defines even the duty of civil powers to which the church is to bear witness. Not all sin is crime, but there should be no crime that isn't sin. Not all sin is crime, otherwise we'd all be criminals. But everything that is legitimately criminalized should be criminalized because it's a sin. Sin showing itself in public, open ways. That should be the definition of crime. And the church is to bear witness to that, to speak thy word unto kings and to tell those in authority, God requires you to be a terror to the evildoer. What does that mean? What is evil? Who has the right to define it? If you listen to our politicians, they haven't a clue. But we know God defines evil. God defines sin. And it is the public expression of that evil with which the civil power should deal by way of punishment. And then finally, the law and heavenly glory. the law and heavenly glory. If this law is the outshining of God's holy character, what will happen to it in heaven? What about this law in heaven? Heaven is an eternal state, but the principles of this law will find their application in the eternal state of glory. In heaven there is no sequence of days. There is no marriage. In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. There is no childbearing. So what happens to the law of God? Well, the essence of that law which apply to man's life on earth in the Ten Commandments will be beautifully conformed to in the eternal world. Only God will be worshipped and God will only be worshipped in accordance with his own will. His name will never be irreverenced, or blasphemed, or taken in vain, or even thought ill of. There is a perfect love to God amongst the unfallen angels and redeemed men and women. There will be a perfection both of service and of rest, and His servants shall serve Him. and they rest from their labours. There will be no rebellion, contrary to the essence of the 5th commandment. No malice, contrary to the essence of the 6th commandment. All human relationships will be perfectly ordered in love according to the mind of God, the essence of the 7th and 8th commandments. There will be no falsehood, no lying, Ninth commandment, no envy, no covetousness. Tenth commandment, everyone will be perfectly content with their lot in heaven and love God to the full extent of their capacity and love one another with no envy, no shortfall, no malice, no marring. And we will love all that God loves and nothing that defiles. shall enter therein. All our longings for Christ and conformity to Him and to His law will be fulfilled. We know not what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And whoso hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Those who long for Christ and for purity in heaven They are seeking after Christ and purity on earth. They have this hope in them. They purify themselves while they are in this world. And so they seek, by the grace of Christ, to be conformed to Him whose delight it was to do the will of Him that sent Him, by being conformed to the commandments of the Lord, the moral law of God, summed up in the Ten Commandments. summed up even more in the two great commandments and their glory in Christ and pursue holy conformity to Him by conformity to the moral law of the Lord. Amen.