Turn in your Bibles to Hebrews chapter 2. I'm going to read verses 2 and 3, and I'm also going to read Hebrews 10 verses 28 and 29. Hear now the word of God. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him?" Hebrews 2, 2 and 3. Hebrews 10, 28 and 29. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much more, how much worse punishment do you suppose? Will he be thought worthy who has trampled the son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing and insulted the spirit of grace? Thus far, the reading of God's word. Let us pray. Father in heaven, as we spend time here these many weeks talking about your law, help us, Father, to think of it in a lawful way. May we recognize how precious it is. May it, Father, be our wisdom. And yet, Father, help us to avoid the traps written of so often in your Word where the law becomes a minister merely of death. Grant us, Father, wisdom, we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Many years ago, after exercising at my health club, I was standing in line waiting to get a drink of water. And behind me stood an elderly gentleman with a beard wearing a shirt that said, Born Again Atheist. I couldn't resist. Smiling, I said, It must take a lot of faith to believe that. After a little interrogation, he concluded that I was a Christian and he was more than eager to enter into an enthusiastic dialogue. I could tell he wanted to fight. But I made the effort to keep things friendly and I think I succeeded. A few days later, my new friend found me at the club again and asked me to step outside. I didn't think he wanted to fight, so I accommodated him. He went to his car and he pulled out an old dog-eared Bible. I thought to myself, I know few Christians who have such worn-out Bibles, and even fewer who are as evangelistic as this born-again atheist. I guess the word would actually be de-evangelistic, but he opened his Bible to some passages that I must have read at some point. And I had read the Bible all the way through more than once. But these passages still have the shock value that he was hoping for. He turns the Old Testament civil codes of Leviticus 20. They were highlighted and underlined. They were a list of behaviors that might be called capital crimes. Crimes which incurred the death penalty. And there were a lot of them, a whole list of them. Your God, my new friend informed me, is a bloodthirsty despot. And then he waited for me to respond. I have to admit, although outwardly, I kept my cool. His sports background helps that. Remember, my dad was a boxer. And he said, when you get punched, you never let the guy know it hurts. I was keeping my cool on the outside. But I have to admit, I felt like my back was against the wall. I felt like I had to defend the dark side of the God who had saved my soul. I felt like I had to defend the embarrassing side of God. But I also knew this, even then, way back then, I also knew that if there was a problem, the problem wasn't with God and the problem wasn't with the Bible. I knew that if there was a problem, the problem was with me. Perhaps I'd become so accustomed and desensitized to sin that those things which are worthy of death, according to the character and nature of God, seem shocking to me. Maybe the problem was me. I gave my friend an answer that, unlike many answers that I give for the first time when confronted with a new subject is still my answer. Usually my first answer, you know, when I hear something, I've got to tweak it or whatever. But in a very basic sense, I still have the same answer to the question. And it was this. If God thinks those behaviors are worthy of death, they must be. Now, he just grumbled. But that was about all he could do. There wasn't much else he could say. If God says they're worthy of death, they must be. And now he's just, you know, he was waiting for me to kind of try to weasel my way through those verses. And I was just going, well, if that's what it says, that must be what it is. This was my first encounter with a theological issue that I would learn later actually had a name called theonomy. I began testing the evangelical waters on the issue. What would others say? What would other Christians say if confronted by the same atheist with the same issue? I mean, if I had, you know, if I felt uncomfortable with it, could I make other people feel uncomfortable with it, too, who are Christians? I remember speaking with a young woman who was in the ministry regarding the death penalty in general. She was against it altogether. Her reasoning was that the new covenant was a covenant of grace not a covenant of law. So I asked her if she thought there should be any penalty for severe crimes. She said she believed in life in prison. But how is life in prison gracious. That's great. You see it seems that if you want to be consistent with that kind of thinking there would be no punishment for crime at all. Criminals need merely apologize, agree to repent, and then you sent them free. Running the subject by a young lawyer, he had indicated to me that if he were to ever serve in Washington, he would never propose to his fellow legislators that we follow the Old Testament civil codes. He said that they would laugh him off the floor. He was a knowledgeable Christian but he believed that there was some other standard more suited for the functioning of government than the standard given by Moses in the law. I'm still genuinely seeking to figure out just what that standard is or how that standard works. There is a general disposition I have found coming from both the world and the church that Christians ought to just keep their noses out of politics. I am routinely assailed by atheists and Christians alike for the columns that I write, generally addressing some cultural or political issue in a secular newspaper. There are a lot of Christians who are saying, you know what, you should not be addressing those issues. Pastors, according to many, should restrict their dialogue to their pulpits. and those narrow parishioners with their medieval minds still willing to imbibe the mythology of Scripture as a legitimate life and worldview. We should just stay in our little caves and talk about those silly things that we believe. You see secular society is willing to allow those who believe in the God of Scripture to govern their own lives and households and churches by biblical standards even though that's coming under attack. But the idea that kings and princes and presidents and legislators ought to consult the word of God for wisdom on how to govern has been rejected by almost everybody. It is precisely here that even Christians often unwittingly are seeking to serve two masters. In my opinion the zeitgeist of the spirit of the age the zeitgeist of the 60s has infiltrated the heart of Christ Church to the extent that we have willingly sent two thirds of the Bible packing. As one theologian used to say we a lot of Christians today look at the Old Testament as the Word of God emeritus. We wink at it. We give it, you know, something to wear. We put it in the back. We simply do not get in there and dig it out. We are New Testament Christians. We are New Covenant Christians. And so we don't really consult the Old Testament. And we have replaced that with some form of semi-biblical cultural relativism. I say semi-biblical because we still believe that the Bible ought to be consulted at some level. But I have continually noticed the scriptures trumped by a system of thought which became prominent and even taught in schools in my youth when I was a kid. This system of thought was made popular by a man named Joseph Fletcher. Although some feel that Fletcher was merely popularizing Something taught earlier by a Swiss theologian named Emil Brunner in a book he wrote called The Divine Imperative. Joseph Fletcher let me tell you a little bit about it. He had a lot of influence upon all of us quite frankly. Joseph Fletcher was at one time an ordained Episcopal priest who later became an atheist. In 1974 he was named Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association. He served as president of the Euthanasia Society of America. which later was renamed the Society for the Right to Die. He was also a member of the American Eugenic Society, that's kind of a selective breeding organization, and the Association for Voluntary Sterilization. But it was Fletcher's book, anybody know what book he wrote? Yeah, I'm hearing whispers, yeah. His book, Situation Ethics, that made waves. The book came out in 1966 and it became, quite frankly, part of the perfect storm of rebellion and hedonism. It just came out at this perfect time. Those of you who don't remember 1966, it was wild time. It was hippie time. It was free, you know, love in time. And that book came out and it was a perfect book for people who did not want to regard anything as absolute in terms of coming from God. Fletcher promoted a sort of discovery of ethic via situation. I remember sitting in a small group as a teenager. We were in class and we were being asked to make ethical decisions based upon various situations. For example, we had to imagine being in a lifeboat with ten people of various ages and background and health. In the scenario, there was only enough food for nine people to survive, so we had to decide who got thrown overboard. In other words, whose life is more valuable? You see, ethics, according to Fletcher, was determined by the situation. According to Fletcher, there can be no pre-established rules of right and wrong. Every situation is unique. You cannot generalize. Each case is handled under its own vague notion of love. You do the most loving thing, was Fletcher's argument. Quite frankly, the argument utilized in the emergent church today, oftentimes, you do the most loving thing. And, of course, the definition of love itself is just up for grabs. So that became a very powerful life and worldview that, quite frankly, dominated my youth, even walking in as I came into faith in Christ. Fortunately, by the grace of God, I was also exposed to a unique theological personality who was a contemporary of Fletcher, a man named Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer wrote a book called A Christian Manifesto that I remember reading, had a big influence upon me as a younger man, addressing how during his life he had witnessed a cultural political shift from a Christian life and worldview to a humanistic life and worldview. He had seen it during that period of time. Much of Schaeffer's work focused on maintaining a biblical commitment in the political arena. Schaeffer was really wonderful at that. Later, I was exposed to the lectures and works of Ruses John Rush Dooney, R.J. Rush Dooney, who wrote The Institutes of Biblical Law. Also, Dr. Greg Bonson, who wrote Theonomy and Christian Ethics. These theologians, in my opinion, were able to address the issue which my born-again atheist friend confronted me with more reasonably and with more biblical integrity than anybody I'd ever heard. They really addressed the issue. They didn't run away from the issue, and they certainly didn't come up with the things I thought I viewed as nonsense. They addressed the issue straight forward. These theologians were all experts on what had come to be known as Calvin's Geneva, where John Calvin served to clarify the role of Christ in relationship to the civil government. That was a big, big issue back hundreds of years ago. Now, many would disagree with these men's assessment of Calvin's position on theonomy. The word probably hadn't even been invented yet. But of course, everyone wants Calvin on their side. Friends, it's not going to be my intention to argue about which reformed theologians or theological camps agree or disagree with theonomy. We're not going to go down that road. In the weeks to come, I'll talk a little bit about what our particular church's confession says about that. What I would like to present is a biblical argument for the role of God's law in politics. If you recall, this series was launched via the Great Commission. where Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples and teach them to obey all that he had commanded. Friends, there is no lead case over politics that Christ doesn't see and isn't allowed entrance. You know what I mean by lead case? It just suddenly dawned on me when I said lead case. Who can't see through a lead? Right. That was kind of the metaphor. As a subtopic of teaching the commands of Christ, I think it would behoove us to examine this issue for a couple of weeks, a few weeks, known as theonomy. A definition. What is theonomy? It's just a convenient word, really. It's a combination of two Greek words, theos, God, and namos, law. So in short, the word means God's law. But more specifically, it has become a term Referring to the study of the extent of the application of the Old Testament civil codes to modern politics. That's really the study of theonomy. How does what God gave to Moses affect the decisions we make today in our political structure? In the Old Testament, we see God giving laws to Moses which were to be applied in the civil governing of Israel. Although we will see some of this in the New Testament, there is no place where the counsel of God more thoroughly reveals how a nation ought to be governed than where God gives his law to Moses about how Israel is to be governed. It might be easiest to understand theonomy to be addressing things that are not merely sins, but crimes. All crimes are sins, or at least they should be. Something shouldn't be a crime if it's not a sin. But not all sins are necessarily crimes. You understand? There are certain things that are sins that are just between you and God. There are certain things that are sins that the church needs to deal with in terms of a disciplinary issue. But there are certain sins that are crimes that the civil magistrate needs to arrest people for. An easy way to determine which sins fall into the realm of criminal activity would be those sins which God calls men to punish after a due process. That's how we know it's a crime. For example. I would argue the first theonomic statement in the Bible might be found in the ninth chapter of Genesis in verse six, where we read, whosoever sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed from the image of God. He made man. In other words, what God is saying is when someone commits murder, God is telling them that they must deal with that issue through a civil penalty. In this case, the death penalty, somebody kills somebody, then they need to be dealt with in terms of the death penalty after a due process. Now there are many objections by Christians to theonomy. I have to just tell you this is one of Pastor Paul's idiosyncrasies. It's not a popular position. I realize that. And I just want to state that it is not my desire simply to be a theological provocateur. What I'd like to do is explain why I think this issue is important. I think it's an important issue. I think it's a huge blind spot in modern evangelicalism. I really do. And I want to at least start the series off by giving four brief explanations or reasons why I think the subject I'm about to speak about over the next few weeks is important. First, the preeminence of Christ. The second one we'll talk about is the influx of relativism. Third, the spread of the gospel. And fourth and finally, the justice of the gospel. So why is theonomy important? Why is this? Why am I bringing this up? Number one, the preeminence of Christ. Now, this is not an order of importance, but the first reason I believe theonomy is an important issue has to do with the preeminence of Christ. It is not the goal of theonomy merely to clean up Washington and make life better and safer for our children, which I think it does include that. Over and above whatever pragmatic benefits there might be to a godly government, above it all is the acknowledgement of Jesus as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. How easily we've given that away. You know, over the years, theologians have come to recognize three offices of Christ. What are those offices? Right. Prophet, priest and king. These are not offices that Jesus will someday hold, but they are offices he currently holds. There is generally agreement among evangelicals that Jesus is currently our prophet. His word is the word of God. We have it in our laps as we open the scriptures. There's general agreement among evangelicals that Jesus is currently our priest, presenting his own blood and interceding for us before our Father in heaven. We start every church service acknowledging that when we come to him in a time of prayer, of confession of sin, that we have our high priest Jesus. But friends, I don't know if you realize this. The majority of modern Christianity has a very truncated view of that third office. He may be king of our hearts, But he will not take that office, it is often suggested, until he comes again. He is the soon coming king. He's not on the throne yet. He doesn't get on the throne until the second coming. Or there are those who view his kingship as merely operating in the heavenly or ethereal realms. That he's king, but he's king kind of in heaven. He's king of the things we can't see. But friends, neither of those views work well with the biblical notion that Jesus is currently King of Kings. Let me explain. King of Kings, we read it numerous times in 1 Timothy 6, we read it, is in the present tense. It's not in the future tense. It's not that he will be King of Kings. He is King of Kings. So that kind of removes the whole idea that he's not King of Kings until some future event. And the idea that he's king in the heavenly ethereal realms, friends, there are no other kings there. What other kings are there? There's angels and there's saints who have died in order for him to be king of kings. The kings, small k, only exist on this planet Earth. People whose hands you can shake. As we finish the Great Commission, Jesus made it clear that all authority had been given to him in heaven and on the what? Earth. The followers of Christ are to make disciples based upon the fact that Jesus has all authority on earth, not just some authority. He has all authority. In the second chapter of Philippians, Paul used the word. It's in the aorist tense to explain that Jesus has been highly exalted. and given the name which is above every name, that's past tense. Paul explains in Ephesians that Jesus is now at the Father's right hand, quote, far above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come, both. In Psalm 2, the father says to his son, ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, Psalm 2, 8. Friends, are we to assume that Jesus didn't ask? And who receives the warning in Psalm 2? Quote, Now, therefore, be wise, who? Oh, kings, be instructed, you judges of the earth. Psalm 2, friends, has unavoidable political overtones. In Colossians 118, we are taught that Jesus is, quote, the head of the body, the church was the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have preeminence. Preeminence, the Greek word literally means first place. Jesus is to have first place in, quote, all things. This means, in an ultimate sense, television is to glorify Jesus. Schools are to glorify Jesus. Medical professionals should see themselves as serving Jesus. Politicians and economists and entertainers should all recognize that their efforts are richer and deeper than they otherwise thought. because they are doing their work to the glory of God. This isn't a life and worldview that's trying to rob people of their joy or their happiness. What we're trying to do is get people to recognize there is a deeper sense in which whatever gifts you had are to be utilized to the glory of God. At a time when the church had every reason to think Jesus had very little power over kings, the Apostle John gave a perspective we should still embrace today. He greets the churches in the name of Jesus in Revelation 1, 5, the faithful witness, talking about Jesus, the firstborn from the dead and the ruler over the kings of the earth, to him who loved us and washed us from our sins with his own blood. Friends, look at that in one verse. We see the faithful witness, Jesus, the prophet, and the one who has washed our sins with his own blood, the faithful priest. Notice also that Jesus is the ruler of the kings of the earth. King, prophet, priest, and king right there in one verse. Friends, a God-glorifying aspect of theonomy is its recognition of the preeminence of Christ over all areas of life, including politics. Secondly, a second value to theonomy is its genuine answer to relativism in the monstrous arena of politics. We are teaching Think about it. I mean, what are we teaching our children and our watching culture when they see Christians spouting the verbiage of moral absolutes while functioning as political relativists? I have noticed that, at least in theory, it is here that almost all Christians are verbal theonomists. It's kind of like J.I. Packer said, on our knees, we're all Calvinists. But I think when we begin to talk to people, we realize Christians are all at least theoretically theonomists. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that there is almost unanimous agreement among Christians that allowing mere men to determine right and wrong has disastrous consequences. Almost all Christians believe that kings and presidents should be on their knees and govern in a godly manner. In many seminaries I've attended, in interactions I've had with numerous Christians from a wide variety of theological persuasions, I must say that I have yet to meet anyone remotely Christian, and sometimes even non-Christians, who doesn't think that rulers ought to submit to the holy character of God. It's almost like everybody agrees with that. At the same time, when the conversation gets down to practical discussions, our sources, in terms of what the character of God should actually produce, is almost meaningless. We have this statement, yeah, God should reign and rule, but when we get down to what does that look like, it is so diverse, it is so muddy, that the statement itself means nothing. In short, if you reject that special revelation given by God on how nations are to be run, primarily revealed in the Old Testament, you are generally left to leaders making decisions based upon their own vague notion of love, justice, or jurisdiction. It's Fletcher. It's Fletcher in the political arena. Friends, politics is a giant blind spot where Christians like to claim absolutes, but have no idea where those absolutes are actually to be found. And I think the consequences have been disastrous in my lifetime. Third, the spread of the gospel. I believe this issue is valuable due to the spread of the gospel. What do I mean by that? Paul exhorts Timothy to, quote, pray for kings, And all those who are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life. First Timothy 2 2. We're praying for kings that we might lead a quiet and peaceable life. We send missionaries to un-evangelized areas and oftentimes they're met with what? Violence, death and imprisonment. We pray that those in authority might come to faith and utilize their position to open doors for the gospel. The Bible says in Romans 10, 17, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Oftentimes, in order for the word of God to be heard, doors need to be opened by those who are hostile to Christ. We pray that these people in positions of leadership will repent, come to faith and open doors that are otherwise shut. As a church, we pray for our saints in China. I see Sui here, so good to see you, who organized my trip to China a few years ago. And we, you know, I did a seminar to the underground church. Quite frankly, these were men, about 30 or so men and women, mostly pastors, mostly men, whose main reason that they're not part of the government church and the underground church is because they recognize that there is a king of kings. that you can be part of. I mean, you could talk to Sui about this later. You can be part of the government run church in China and you can have your quiet times and read your Bible and you can pray and you can love your neighbor. But you don't start writing articles about how the laws in China are ungodly. You do that and you end up in prison. Many of those people who were part of that seminar ended up in labor camps, ended up in prison for one reason or another. As a church, we prayed for them. We prayed for those saints in China who attended that seminar. Many of those were imprisoned. They were separated from their families. They were separated from their churches. I don't have any doubt that they ministered in prison, but our prayer is that they would have the freedom to bring Christ's message to all the world. We pray that those people in leadership open doors and say, go preach the gospel. It's kind of a Gnostic idea, I think, and a very false understanding of the sovereignty of God that, well, God's going to do whatever he wants to do, so we don't really need people making the right choices. No, we need to pray that God will circumcise hearts of leaders to open doors. Friends, governments and their laws play a large role in the advancement of Christ's kingdom. Their efforts at halting the gospel will fail. Again, Psalm 2 speaks to these leaders. Verses 10 and 12. Now, therefore, be wise, O kings, be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son lest he be angry and you perish in the way when his wrath is kindled. But a little blessed are those who put their trust in him. Friends, the gates of hell will not prevail against the kingdom of God. Kissing in this passage means to respect the authority of first Samuel 10. One, we see that in Scripture. It should be the prayer of Christians that judges and kings respect the law of Christ that, like the king of Nineveh, all under their authority would be blessed. That should be our prayer. That's what we want to have happen. And certainly that's what we should be teaching those who come to faith in Christ who are in those positions of authority. Finally, the justice of the gospel. Theonomy upholds the justice of the gospel. The cross, after all, was a public execution, was it not? Where the just died for the unjust. It is in this civil arena where we see more than anywhere else on Earth the full sense of penalty for sin. There's no place else we see it. I mean, we might see it in excommunication, but in terms of the full impact of the justice of God, I don't think there's anywhere else we see it as much as we see in the civil arena. During the time of Christ, people hanging on a cross. You walk by and you see them hanging on the cross. When a society loses its sense of justice, its citizens lose their sense of guilt before God and need for a savior. We just don't think anything we're doing is wrong. Like one guy in a Bible study one time when I was explaining the sin of man, and he's looking at himself and talking about how we're guilty before God, and his comment was, what's not to like? I mean, I thought it was, and he is, he was a real fun, cute guy, you know. But I'll tell you what, if I could get a magnifying glass and take a look at your soul through the eyes of God, there's plenty not to like. When sins, friends, which are crimes, go unpunished, the people become unacquainted with their own unjust condition. It's, you know, in the Greek word dikos means just, righteous. This is ah, because it's unrighteous is what the word means. It's the that passage that I just read. The just died for the unjust. It is the righteous died for the unrighteous. In the same way, a church which refuses to discipline opens the doors of unacceptable behavior by failing, as the Westminster Confession teaches, to deter others from like offenses. A nation which calls evil good and good evil. Isaiah 520 becomes quote wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight. Isaiah 521. Now the author of Hebrews is now we're finishing up here and I want to get to the two passages that I read to make my point because in my opinion I think this is the biggest point. So if you've had a hard time following me and I'm going really fast but this is to me a huge issue. The author of Hebrews utilizes the Old Testament civil system in this very way to punctuate man's culpability before God. Hebrews again, Hebrews 2, 2 and 3. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast in every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation which at first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him? See that passage, depends upon the unalterable justice of God. I just reward is the term that he uses. And that's exactly what it means in the Greek, a fair punishment. That passage requires an understanding of the just reward. To make its point, the word spoken through angels, by the way, was God's law. Let me read the other passage. It's a kind of a parallel passage. It's just two verses because I think it makes it even more clear. Anyone versus 28 and 29 of chapter 10 of Hebrews. Anyone who has rejected Moses's law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment do you suppose will he be thought worthy who has trampled the son of God underfoot counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing and insulted the spirit of grace. I hope I'm going to make this clear. Notice the author's premise. The premise is the civil justice of the Mosaic administration. The execution of the offender on the testimony of two or three witnesses. That's his premise. In an argument, you've got the premise and you've got the conclusion, right? His premise is, in the Mosaic administration, based upon the testimony of two or three witnesses, the offender was put to death. To remove, friends, the validity of the premise, as those who reject theonomy do. They'll look at this and go, that doesn't apply anymore. That's the mosaic administration. That's old school. To remove the authority or the validity of the premise is to remove the impact of the conclusion. And that is, in this passage, the punishment of those who trample the Son of God underfoot. You see, the writer seems to be saying, since you know those penalties are just, how much more these penalties? You understand the reasoning of the writer? You know that the law of Moses was just. How much more will you be guilty if you trample the blood of the covenant underfoot? If you remove this, that doesn't even make sense. His whole argument goes out the window. You have to acknowledge that what he said about the Mosaic administration By the way, writing to people who didn't have a New Testament Bible yet, you've got to keep something in mind. Everywhere through the New Testament where the writers are referring to the Scriptures, it's referring to the Old Testament. And I'll make that point more clearly in the weeks to come. But friends, you understand this? The New Testament utilizes the Mosaic Law to confirm the justice of God as it relates to believing or rejecting Jesus. To reject the civil codes of the Old Testament softens the impact of the justice of the gospel. A culture devoid of a proper understanding of justice will have difficulty grasping their need for Christ. It's such a subtle and insidious trap of the enemy. Don't make people feel guilty. Justify their behavior. Let people think they can do whatever they want to do and do it with impunity. Because if they feel guilty before man, how much more will they feel guilty before God? If they have to stand before a human court and acknowledge their guilt, how much more will they recognize their guilt before the eternal triune God? That's the argument that the author of Hebrews has made. And that argument, friends, has all but disappeared in terms of any kind of valid impact of Christians in the culture in which we live. But assuming Christians do affirm the preeminence of Christ, Assuming we recognize the danger of the influx of relativism. Assuming we desire the spread of the gospel. And the legitimacy of the justice of the gospel. How do we go about serving Christ in the political venue? What are the rules? What are the laws? Where are they to be found? And how does the New Testament interact with the Old Testament to reveal this information to us? And we'll talk about that next time. Let us pray. Father in heaven, we do pray that we would recognize and see your law as good and holy and true. Interesting, Father, words. That apply really only to you, only God is true, only God, God alone is wise. Yet at the same time, we read that these particular words are assigned to your law. How else, Father, can we understand that other than that your law is a transcription of your very character? Help us, Father, and deliver us from the shame that we might feel when we take a good hard look at the justice of a holy God. May these things, Father, be approached in love and wisdom and gentleness. But, Father, may they be approached. Help us, Father, as Christians to recognize who our master is in every aspect of life. that You, my Father, be glorified throughout all the earth because of the good God that You are. We pray these things in Jesus' name, Amen.