← Back to sermon library

All right, you can turn to Deuteronomy 
chapter five as we continue to work our way through the Pentateuch. 
Deuteronomy 5. Some of this material will be 
by way of review for those who have been at the study of the 
Pentateuch. We saw much of it in Exodus chapter 
20, and as well sometimes as we move through the Confession, 
specifically in chapter 19. I want to deal with those things. 
Some of you have probably heard a few times. If not, then hopefully 
this will be a time to learn something new. Or if you have 
heard it, it will be by way of reminder. So I want to read the 
section, Deuteronomy chapter 5, I'll read verses 1 to 23, 
and then we'll take up the first six verses. So Deuteronomy 5 
at verse 1, And Moses called all Israel and said to them, 
Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in 
your hearing today. that you may learn them and be 
careful to observe them. The Lord our God made a covenant 
with us in Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant 
with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all 
of us who are alive. The Lord talked with you face 
to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. I stood 
between the Lord and you at that time to declare to you the word 
of the Lord, for you were afraid because of the fire, and you 
did not go up the mountain. He said, I am the Lord your God, 
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of 
bondage. You shall have no other gods 
before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, 
any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is 
in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 
you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord 
your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 
the children to the third and fourth generations of those who 
hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love 
me and keep my commandments. You shall not take the name of 
the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless 
who takes his name in vain. Observe the Sabbath day to keep 
it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall 
labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath 
of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work, you 
nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your 
female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your 
cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your 
male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 
And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the 
Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and 
by an outstretched arm. Therefore, the Lord your God 
commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Honor your father and your 
mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your 
days may be long and that it may be well with you in the land 
which the Lord your God is giving you. You shall not murder, you 
shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not 
bear false witness against your neighbor, you shall not covet 
your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's 
house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his 
donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's. These words, the 
Lord spoke to all your assembly in the mountain, from the midst 
of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness with a loud voice. 
And he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets 
of stone and gave them to me. Amen. Well, remember the book 
of Deuteronomy is simply a series of exhortations by Moses. We've 
completed the first one that's in chapters one to four. Basically, 
it's a historical review, the things that they had seen and 
witnessed in terms of God's nature and God's works among them. This 
brings us to the second exhortation, which is the longest of the book. It's an exhortation to pursue 
covenant loyalty. So it begins here and continues 
to the end of chapter 28. That's followed by a summary 
and conclusion in chapters 29 and 30, and then succession of 
Joshua in chapter 31. and then the death of Moses in 
chapters 32 to 34. Not all of that is about the 
death of Moses, but that's certainly where it is heading. And then, 
of course, Moses dies in chapter 34. So we come to the Ten Commandments. This is central in Israel's religious 
life. We'll make some comments later 
about the type of law that it is. Well, it is moral law, but 
we'll look at it in relation to the other two divisions in 
the law. But first, the summons or command 
to obey the law in verses 1 to 5. And then secondly, we'll notice 
the preface to the Decalogue in verse 6. Decalogue simply 
means the 10 words. They're called the 10 commandments. 
So some have called it the Decalogue or 10 commandments, 10 words. 
Then we'll look thirdly at the uniqueness of the Decalogue, 
and then finally at the threefold use of the Decalogue, or the 
Ten Commandments. But first, notice the summons 
to obey the law. And if you compare Deuteronomy 
5 with Exodus 20, it's absolutely the same. There's a couple of 
differences in terms of the actual wording. The fourth commandment, 
for instance, in the book of Exodus, the argument is based 
on creation. And here in Deuteronomy chapter 
5, the argument for obedience to the fourth commandment is 
on redemption, and I think that that is a blessed reality that 
the writer to the Hebrews picks up on in Hebrews chapter 10. And so what we find, I'm sorry, 
Hebrews chapter 4, but the similarities are obviously the same. There's 
an addition of field in the commandment concerning coveting, and then 
in the fifth commandment there's a bit of an expansion. So if 
you obey, then good things will happen to you in the land. But 
note with reference to the command to obey the law, verse one, chapter 
five, and Moses called all Israel and said to them, hear, O Israel, 
the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, 
that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. Now, 
this isn't new information for them. They had been called on, 
they had been reminded, they had been exhorted, and they themselves 
have sworn fidelity to obeying God's law as it was given by 
him. And so they're poised on the 
plains of Moab, ready to enter into the promised land. This 
is going to dictate, or rather characterize, the way they will 
function in the land. If they go in and function obediently, 
they will retain the land. They will be blessed in the land. 
The land will yield its fruit to them. But if they disobey 
God, then they will be ultimately exiled from the land. And we 
know that subsequent history shows us that that is precisely 
what's going on. But if you look at this, notice 
specifically "'Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments "'which 
I speak in your hearing today.'" As we saw in the last chapter, 
ours is not a visual religion. Ours is not a religion wherein 
we represent the deity with images or with statutes or some other 
thing. Remember back in chapter four, 
specifically at verses 10 to 14. I'm sorry, chapter 10, Verse 11. And so that's reiterated here 
in the beginning section with reference to the Ten Commandments. 
He then reminds them about the covenant at Horeb, or Sinai, 
in verses 2 and 3. So verse 2 refers to Exodus chapters 
19 to 24. Verse 3 highlights the continuity 
in the generations. If you look at verse 3 when he 
says, the Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers. You 
might ask the question, well, what is Exodus 24 about? Exodus 
24 was, in fact, God making a covenant with the fathers. I think we're 
supposed to understand it this way. He did not make this covenant 
with our fathers only, but it had a view to future generations, 
specifically this second generation upon the death of the first generation 
and all generations subsequent to that. So it's showing continuity 
between the Sinai event and what's going on here at the plains of 
Moab. Obviously the intervening chapters or books, Leviticus 
and Numbers, fleshed out the rest of the particular story 
or account. And then notice God highlights 
once again his nature in verses 4 and 5. The Lord talked with 
you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. God 
revealed himself. That comes up frequently in chapter 
4. It comes up frequently in the 
various statements where God spoke through Moses to the children 
of Israel. But that's unique to the God 
of Israel. He is a revealer of himself. 
He doesn't depend upon a particular class of men to make him known. He tells those men on how to 
make him known. If you have a dumb idol that 
can't speak, he depends upon his idol worshipers to dictate 
or rather describe the nature of that particular being. But 
God reveals himself because God is able to do that. And then 
the mediation of Moses in verse five. Notice, I stood between 
the Lord and you at that time to declare to you the word of 
the Lord, for you were afraid because of the fire and you did 
not go up the mountain. So Moses functions as a mediator 
in the capacity by which man cannot enter into the presence 
of a holy God. He needs the mediation of Moses 
in this instance in the New Covenant. Obviously, the mediator is our 
Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said, I am the way, the 
truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except 
through me. So God used Moses as a mediator 
to communicate to the children of Israel those things necessary 
for their obedience, those things necessary for their life in the 
land, those things necessary for their regular conduct, and 
for the various issues that may obtain if they commit crimes 
in the civil polity. So there was a fear on the part 
of the people of God And that fear was good because God is 
holy, God is glorious, and we can't just wander into his presence. 
So Moses functioned there as a mediator. Then notice, secondly, 
we have what's called the preface to the Ten Commandments in verse 
6. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of 
Egypt, out of the house of bondage. So notice that the following 
commandments begin first with a statement of God's grace, God's 
redemptive power, God's goodness and kindness to the children 
of Israel. In other words, it's not a command, 
now do this and then I will deliver you from Egypt. No, God delivers 
them graciously from Egypt and then he gives them commands on 
how to regulate their conduct in the land that the Lord their 
God is giving them. The Westminster Larger Catechism 
comments on the preface here. It says, the preface to the Ten 
Commandments is contained in these words, I am the Lord thy 
God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out 
of the house of bondage, wherein God manifests his sovereignty 
as being Jehovah, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God, 
having as being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words 
and works, and that he is a God in covenant as with Israel of 
old, so with all his people. who has he brought them out of 
their bondage in Egypt, so he delivers us from our spiritual 
thralldom, and that therefore we are bound to take him for 
our God alone, and to keep all his commandments." I think that's 
a good explanation of this brief statement in verse 6, I am the 
Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out 
of the house of bondage, so the law with reference to the commandments 
that follow are the response of the children of Israel to 
the gracious redeeming power of the living and true God. There's 
obviously a connection to what we find in the New Covenant, 
though I want to make sure we understand the Old Covenant was 
a covenant of works, the New Covenant is a covenant of grace. 
But in a pattern, similarly, we are saved by God's grace, 
not because of our good works, but we're saved unto good works. He chose us in him before the 
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without 
blame. He doesn't choose us in Him before the foundation of 
the world because we were holy and without blame. He chooses 
us to save us and to cleanse us and to wash us such that we 
can then enter into that life of obedience to God. Now obviously 
there's provision in the New Covenant for those who do not 
live perfectly, namely all of us, with reference to the laws 
of God. There is an advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ 
the righteous. Never forget, there are some 
big distinctions between the Old and the New Covenant, but 
in terms of a general pattern, it's the same sort of an idea. 
Redemption, and that's followed up then by those being redeemed 
giving honor to God and serving God and obeying God. It's that 
guilt, grace, gratitude motif that the Heidelberg Catechism 
presents. We are guilty and undone in our 
sin. We receive the grace of God most high and we respond 
in gratitude and obedience when it comes to our service to the 
living and true God. So the 10 commandments are given 
by God. So he said, and then verse six, 
I am the Lord your God. Oftentimes it's referred to as 
the law of Moses, and that's not bad. It's not incorrect insofar 
as he communicated the law or was the mediator of that law, 
but he didn't originate it. It didn't come from the pen of 
Moses as an innovator or as a creator or as a writer. He mediates the 
law in the hearing of the children of Israel. notice as well the 
personal nature of God according to verse 6 I am the Lord your 
God I am the Lord your God he doesn't say that to the pagan 
nations around them but he says that to those who have he has 
redeemed by his grace and for his glory and then notice as 
well I am the Lord or Yahweh your God which highlights his 
covenantal name Exodus chapter 3 verse 14 God reveals that name 
I am that I am, or I am who I am. Charnock says that that name 
signifies his immutability as well as his eternity. Terms you 
should all be familiar with now, subsequent to the Confessing 
the Faith conference. His immutability means his unchangeableness 
and as well his eternity, meaning he's atemporal, he is not bound 
by time, he is not within time. Turretin refers to the name thus, 
he says, but since eternal existence, omnipotent power, and immutable 
truth belongs to God alone, the name Jehovah or Yahweh, which 
embraces all these three, ought to be peculiar to him alone. 
And Bovink says Yahweh describes him as the one who in his grace 
remains forever faithful. So that wonderful statement in 
verse six, I am the Lord, your God. And then it speaks concerning 
his activity, his personal involvement. I am the Lord, your God. Remember 
way back when, when we went through the book of Exodus, there were 
a few occasions where God saw the bondage, God saw the suffering, 
God saw the turmoil of the children of Israel. It was that which 
was the predicate according to the manner of men. that God acted 
upon and then went after them to redeem them. So God saw the 
suffering of the Israelites and it provoked him to redeem them 
or to deliver them. And he acted on their behalf. He acted providentially, he acted 
powerfully, and he acted personally. When we read about that night 
of the Passover when the angel of death goes out to slay the 
firstborn in Egypt, it's the Lord who executes that judgment. It's God who acts personally 
on behalf of the nation of Israel to deliver them out of that bondage. So I am the Lord your God who 
brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And he does that for his own 
glory. He says that in the book of Exodus. 
He says to Pharaoh, for this reason I have raised you up. 
and hardened your heart. Why? So that I may manifest my 
glory. Paul invokes that in Romans chapter 
9 when he's arguing for the absolute supremacy and sovereignty of 
God in the matter of salvation. He points to that Exodus event 
and God's commentary from Exodus chapter 9 in terms of purpose 
as to why Pharaoh does what Pharaoh does. It's so God can manifest 
his glory. So it's a manifestation of his 
glory, the redeeming power of God. But as well, it was consistent 
faithfulness to his promise to Abraham. I'm going to deliver 
your descendants from point A to point B. Well, they're going 
to end up in bondage in Egypt. God is going to powerfully redeem 
them from that there, bring them to the base of Sinai for further 
legislation in Leviticus. bring them through the wilderness 
in the book of Numbers, and bring them to the plains of Moab at 
the end of the book of Numbers, and then exhort them now through 
Moses on the plains of Moab. And then for their well-being, 
they were suffering, they were destitute, they were in turmoil, 
they were in pain. And so he redeems them. And so 
as I said, we see the graciousness of the lawgiver as the larger 
context for the giving of the law. Walter Kaiser says, the 
lawgiver places his law in the environment of grace, for it 
was his gracious act of redemption and deliverance from Egypt that 
revealed his name, Yahweh. So the Lord, the Lord your God 
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of 
bondage, see that as the gracious statement that it is, a message 
of God's redemption, a message of God's goodness, and then it's 
in that context then that the commandments proceed. Now, thirdly, 
the uniqueness of the Decalogue. The uniqueness of the Decalogue. 
If I asked you, are there a lot of laws in Exodus, Leviticus, 
Numbers, and Deuteronomy, you'd say yeah. And if I asked you 
how many laws, you'd say 613. That's whether positive statements 
or negations. There's 613. So if you comb through. But when you come to the Decalogue 
or the Ten Commandments, there's something unique about it versus 
the other what we call divisions of the law. And so I want to 
speak to the threefold division of the law. And if anybody's 
interested in this subject, perhaps you've heard, well, that's not 
biblical. It's been imposed upon the Bible. People say that, believe it or 
not. Well, I would suggest the easiest way to see it is Exodus 
chapter 20 is moral law. Exodus chapters 21 to 23 is judicial 
law, and Exodus chapters 25 to 40 is ceremonial law. So that's 
the threefold division. You've got moral, you've got, 
we'll go in the order of moral, ceremonial, and judicial. Now, 
moral is unchanging. Moral is trans-covenantal. In other words, whatever covenant 
you happen to be in, these commandments are binding upon you. Ceremonial 
law is not trans-covenantal. In the New Covenant, we can eat 
bacon. In the New Covenant, we can mix fibers. In the New Covenant, 
there are things that we can do that were prohibited to Old 
Covenant Israel to separate them from the nations around them. 
We call those ceremonial laws. And then judicial laws are the 
laws governing the people in the body politic, the way that 
they function in civil society one to another. So I'm going 
to argue that the moral law transcends covenant. Moral law is a reflection, 
or better, a revelation of God. In other words, if we ask God, 
what is it that pleases you? Well, it's the Ten Commandments. 
Again, ceremonial laws were for a time. Judicial laws, as our 
confession says, has a general equity principle. And I think 
that's something to be investigated and pursued. But the moral law 
of God is that which continues from the old covenant right into 
the new covenant. Our confession states at chapter 
19, paragraph 2, the same law that was first written in the 
heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness 
after the fall. So the confession connects the 
giving of the law at Sinai, a summary or codification of it, with what 
Adam received when he was made by God in the Garden of Eden. So the same law that was first 
written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness 
after the fall and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in Ten 
Commandments and written in two tables, the four first containing 
our duty towards God and the other six, our duty to man. John 
Lightfoot says, Adam heard as much in the garden as Israel 
did at Sinai, but only in fewer words and without thunder. In 
other words, whatever Adam received is what is here revealed to us 
in the Decalogue. Some have referred to this as 
natural law. God built into his creature a 
law principle wherein that man knows in his heart of hearts 
that it's wrong to murder people, that it's wrong to commit adultery, 
and so on. So we have the abiding validity 
of the moral law, so we're going to argue for that. Turn to Jeremiah 
the prophet, Jeremiah chapter 31. Jeremiah chapter 31, an old 
covenant prophet prophesying a new covenant. an old covenant prophet prophesying 
a new covenant. Notice in Jeremiah 31, 31, Behold, 
the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 
Not according to the, if you want to see the application of 
this to the church, the new covenant Israel is the church. It is Hebrews 
8 and 10. Hebrews 8 and 10 appeals to this 
particular section of scripture. So when you see house of Israel 
and house of Judah, it is not to be understood ethnically. 
It is not to be understood as if it's some regathered kingdom 
of Israel according to the physical seed in the future. It's a reference 
to the Church of the Lord Jesus, or the Church, rather, is the 
fulfillment of this passage. So then note, not according to 
the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that 
I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, 
my covenant which they broke. Notice the discontinuity prophesied 
by the old covenant prophet concerning the new covenant. There is a 
discontinuity here. The new covenant isn't the old 
covenant. There is continuity, but there 
is discontinuity. And if you don't get discontinuity, 
you're going to flatten the distinction between the two and end up with 
a works principle in the new covenant. This is very important. Notice, not like the covenant, 
or I took them by the, not according to the covenant that I made with 
their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead 
them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke. 
He's talking about the works covenant. He's talking about 
the old covenant that ratified at the base of Sinai through 
blood in Exodus 24, where the children of Israel swore fidelity 
to all that Yahweh commands. And then notice, which they broke. 
That's another discontinuity. In the New Covenant, if you're 
in by grace through faith in Jesus, that is an unbreakable 
covenant. We preach this under the guise 
of perseverance of the saints. Some call it eternal security. 
Either way, it's a beautiful concept. God does not lose a 
sinner that he saves. He will, according to Matthew 
121, with reference to Jesus, he will save his people from 
their sins. All that the Father gives me 
will come to me, and the one that comes to me I will certainly 
not cast out. Could you break the old covenant? Absolutely, 
positively. Did the first generation? Yeah. 
Will the second generation? Yeah. How do we know that? Because 
we read from Judges onward. Actually, it starts in Joshua. 
It starts in Exodus 32. After they receive the law and 
they swear fidelity to Yahweh in 24, in 32 they're dancing 
around a golden calf and ascribing to it the power of having brought 
them out of the land of Egypt. So you could break the old covenant. 
The glory of the new covenant is that we can't break it. It's 
a beautiful and wonderful thing. Notice, though I was a husband 
to them, says the Lord, but this is the covenant that I will make 
with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I 
will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. 
Now, in the hand of an old covenant prophet, when he's speaking about 
a particular law that's going to be internalized in the new 
covenant, I'd argue that he's speaking about the moral law. 
He's not speaking about ceremonial law. They'll know not to mix 
fibers. They'll know not to eat bacon. They'll know that they 
need to have a fence around their roof, all those aspects of judicial 
law. When he says, I will put my law 
in their minds and write it on their hearts, he's talking about 
the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue. And I will be their God, and 
they shall be my people. No more shall every man teach 
his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. 
For they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest 
of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity 
and their sin, I will remember no more." Those are features 
or elements of the New Covenant. Were they present at the time 
of the Old Covenant? Yeah, there were people that 
were forgiven. Abraham believed God that was accounted unto him 
for righteousness. David rejoices in the blessed 
man to whom God does not impute his sin. So there was forgiveness, 
but those were not essential features or elements of Old Covenant 
religion. They were there by virtue of 
the coming New Covenant But the New Covenant community is going 
to be defined thus. They're going to have the law 
internalized in their hearts. They're going to have that intimacy 
with God. They'll know God. They will have that forgiveness 
of sin. So the Old Covenant prophet prophesying about a New Covenant 
says there's discontinuity with the Old Covenant and the New 
Covenant. The continuity is the law, that moral law. God is going 
to write it on their hearts, that moral law that Israel constantly 
broke in their old covenant situation. In the new covenant, again, we 
will break it, much to our shame, but we have an advocate with 
the Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous, who himself never 
broke it. Jesus is the Israel of God, who 
does everything that Israel of old was supposed to do, but they 
failed. Jesus didn't fail. And by virtue 
of his righteousness, it is imputed to us and received by faith alone. Now turn over to the Gospel of 
Matthew, Matthew chapter 5. Matthew chapter 5, by the time 
of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is starting to get popular. Jesus 
is starting to be famous. Notice in Matthew 5, 1, and seeing 
the multitudes, he went up on a mountain and when he was seated, 
his disciples came to him. Then he opened his mouth and 
taught them saying, He's got his disciples there, but he's 
got multitudes there. And probably he'd already been 
asked, what do you think about the law of Moses? We can suppose 
that because there are several interactions between Jesus and 
the religious leaders where they think that Jesus has a problem 
with Moses. So Jesus, before he gets to the 
sort of harder essence of what he's going to do in terms of 
the law in Matthew chapter 5, I think that he gives this hermeneutics 
with reference to the law in verses 17 to 20. So if you look 
at Matthew 5, 17 to 20, he says, do not think that I came to destroy 
the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but 
to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth 
pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the 
law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one 
of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called 
least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does and teaches 
them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For 
I say to you that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness 
of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the 
kingdom of heaven. So which law does he now turn 
to? He turns to the Ten Commandments. He deals with murder in verses 
21 to 26. He deals with adultery in verses 
27 to 30. And he's not heightening or strengthening 
the law. He is simply saying this was 
always the law's intent. When he says in verse 20, I say 
to you that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of 
the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom 
of heaven. I think that function pedagogical. He is telling them 
that if you look at those Pharisees and you think they're righteous, 
you don't have a hope. Rather, you do have a hope in 
Jesus Christ, the righteous, but it also functions in a normative 
capacity. The scribes and the Pharisees 
thought as long as you didn't actually cut somebody's throat, 
you didn't actually stop their hearts from beating, then you 
weren't guilty of committing a violation of the sixth commandment. Jesus says, no, the law's always 
specified and stipulated that if you are angry with your brother 
without a cause or you engage in character assassination of 
your brother, you're guilty of violating the commandments. And 
we can see that in the Old Testament. We've seen it in the Pentateuch. 
You see it throughout. You couldn't just, as long as 
you didn't kill somebody externally, you could hate them and despise 
them. The Old Testament never authorized that. Same with the 
section on adultery. He's not heightening the law. 
He's not bringing it to a place that it had never been before. 
Pharisaic interpretation, as long as you didn't actually go 
into your neighbor's wife, didn't matter. Jesus says, no, if you 
look upon a woman to lust, you have broken the commandment in 
your heart. You're guilty of the seventh 
commandment. So Jesus shows that he upholds the law in this particular 
section. And then we see the apostles 
appeal to the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments, when it comes 
to doing Christian ethics. Turn to Romans chapter 13, just 
two quick specimen passages, just to show the abiding validity 
of the Ten Commandments. And there are many more that 
we could look at, but just two quick ones. Notice in Romans 
13, eight, owe no one anything except to love one another, for 
he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 
you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall 
not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not 
covet. And if there is any other commandment, they're all summed 
up in this saying, namely, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. 
Love does no harm to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment 
of the law. So if it was done away with, 
that's a unique turn of phrase for the apostle when he wants 
to demonstrate what love looks like. Love is not subjective. Love is not mystical. Love is 
not ethereal. Love is concrete obedience to 
God's commandments, and that is precisely what Paul says, 
and he invokes the second table of law to show what it looks 
like in the context of the church when people love each other. 
They don't engage in adultery. They don't engage in theft. They 
don't engage in murder. Notice in Ephesians chapter 6, 
Ephesians chapter 6, Paul writing to a predominantly Gentile church, 
takes the fifth commandment and applies it to them. Ephesians 
6, 1. Children, obey your parents and 
the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother, 
which is the first commandment, with promise that it may be well 
with you and you may live long. Notice on the earth, not in the 
land, but on the earth. This is a universal principle 
in terms of obedience to parents. Again, it's not formulaic. It's not an algorithm. Every 
time you render obedience, that means an extra life or a bit 
of life is going to be added to you in the earth. But Paul 
just appeals to this with reference to a Gentile audience in a new 
covenant setting in a churchly epistle that's highlighted salvation 
by grace through faith based on God's sovereign election and 
predestination. And he invokes this as a admonition 
to Gentile children in Ephesus on how they're to conduct themselves 
relative to life in their parents' home. So the identification of 
the moral law of God. As I said, they're called the 
Ten Commandments in Exodus 34, 28, and in Deuteronomy 4, 13. They are called words in Deuteronomy 
5.22 and Deuteronomy 9.10, hence Decalogue. So if I say Decalogue, 
it simply means Ten Commandments. So that's the moral law, trans-covenantal, 
always abiding, abiding for every man everywhere. You can't say, 
well, I don't live in a Christian nation, so I'm not subject to 
the Ten Commandments. What do you think the standard 
is when God judges pagan nations, when God brings judgment to bear 
upon Canaanites? Is it because they violated the 
laws of Marduk? They violated the laws of Asherah 
or Baal? No, they violated the laws of 
the living and true God. So that's the standard of judgment. 
Whether you're a Jew, whether you're a Gentile, whether you're 
from this country or you're that country, it doesn't matter. There's 
a universal scope relative to moral law. The second division 
of the law is called ceremonial. And ceremonial is somewhat like 
it suggests. It has to do primarily with worship. 
primarily with worship. As our Confession says in 19.3, 
besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give 
to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical 
ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, 
actions, sufferings, and benefits. tabernacle, temple, priesthood, 
incense, sacrifice, all these things prefigured, they were 
typical, they pointed forward, they foreshadowed, they announced 
to the children of Israel in that old covenant, covenant of 
works, that there was a Redeemer coming, there was a Messiah coming, 
there was a Lamb of God coming, and that ceremonial law pointed 
to that, and it showed it to them. partly holding forth diverse 
instructions of moral duties. It was moral in the sense that 
if you ate a jackdaw when God said not to, you'd get in trouble. Or if you engaged in ceremonial 
uncleanness, you would be put out for a time. So there were 
moral parts to it to be sure. But it goes on to say, all which 
ceremonial laws, being appointed only to the time of Reformation, 
are by Jesus Christ, the true Messiah and only Lawgiver, who 
is furnished with power from the Father for that end, abrogated 
and taken away. So we have that in the New Covenant 
documents. We have that teaching. Turretin 
says the ceremonial law is the system of God's positive precepts. Positive law differs from moral 
law in this way. Positive law is something that 
God commands for a particular time, for a particular use, in 
a particular covenant. For instance, positive law is 
the prohibition to Adam and Eve against eating out of the tree 
of the knowledge of good and evil. That's positive law. It's not wrong to eat fruit from 
a tree. It was wrong in that instance 
because God said not to. Positive law functions in moral 
law with the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment, because 
it's moral law, is trans-covenantal. So in the old covenant, Sabbath. 
New covenant, Sabbath. The positive aspect is Saturday 
Sabbath in old and Sunday Sabbath in new. So positive is based 
on covenant. So positive is not a universally 
obliging law that governs every man everywhere irrespective of 
his covenant. So back to Turretin, the ceremonial 
law is the system of God's positive precepts concerning the external 
worship in sacred things prescribed to the ancient church either 
for the sake of order or signification. And I think this is very much 
illustrated in the way that Old Covenant Israel worshiped versus 
the way New Covenant Israel worships. We don't come to the tabernacle. 
We don't come to the temple. We don't have a functioning priesthood. We don't have garments. We don't 
have sacrifices. We don't have incense. Those 
things were uniquely confined to that old covenant setting 
to prefigure, to typify, and to point forward to the Lord 
Jesus Christ. There's an obvious difference 
in the New Covenant documents on how the worshipper is to worship 
versus the Old Testament. That's why it's specious argument 
when somebody says, well, it was in the Old Covenant. Yeah, 
but that doesn't mean it's definitely necessary for New Covenant worship. You'll hear about dancing in 
New Covenant worship because David danced before the Ark of 
the Covenant. Well, I would suggest David wasn't 
in a worship service, but when dance is referenced in the Psalms, 
it was a different ball game. There's also sacrifice in the 
Psalms. Do any of us want to sacrifice 
when we come to church? Well, if we're Roman Catholics, 
we do. Do any of us want to wave incense 
when we come to church? No, of course not. Do we have 
laws of purity or cleanliness or holiness? We contracted ceremonial 
uncleanness so I can't go to church tomorrow? Of course not. So be very wary of persons who 
say, well, it's in the Old Testament. Well, it's governed by a covenant. which covenant has positive law, 
which speaks to a particular people in a particular time. 
To extrapolate from that principles for corporate worship and new 
covenant worship is bad logic, and it's bad reading of covenant 
theology. So to say that we should dance 
in public worship in the New Covenant or that we should offer 
up incense because it's in the Old Testament, that's not a good 
way to argue, brethren. And trust me, you're going to 
end up in some problems. So the ceremonial law, once again, 
is the system of God's positive precepts concerning the external 
worship and sacred things prescribing to the ancient church either 
for the sake of order or signification. So typical ordinances prefiguring 
Christ's person, graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits. There 
were duties involved. Again, you weren't supposed to 
eat shrimp. You're not supposed to be like the heathen around 
you. That was moral. You better not eat shrimp, or 
you're going to be ceremonially unclean or impure, and you're 
going to have to go out of the camp for a bit. That doesn't 
translate over into the new covenant. You can eat shrimp and bacon, 
preferably together. And then the abrogation, temporary 
nature of these laws, they're abrogated by Christ. And again, 
this isn't built into the confession and imposed on scripture. The 
passage that they have in mind when they say until the time 
of reformation is in Hebrews chapter 9. Hebrews chapter nine, 
six. Now, when these things had been 
thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the 
tabernacle performing the services. But into the second part, the 
high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered 
for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance. 
The Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the holiest 
of all was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was 
still standing. There was built into that system 
a non-completeness. Psalm 110 speaks of a priest 
according to the order of Melchizedek. At the time there was a functioning 
priesthood. At the time there was a functioning, almost, temple. 
David broke that, so there wasn't quite a temple yet, but they 
were on their way. They had a tabernacle. So he writes that about a priest, 
according to the order of Melchizedek, when there's an existing priesthood, 
when there's an existing structure, a sanctuary. Why? Because this 
is incomplete. This is typical. It's pointing 
us forward. It's moving the ball down the field. Notice, it goes 
on in verse 9, it was symbolic for the present time in which 
both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him 
who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience. 
Concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings and 
fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. What's 
the implication? Once the time of reformation 
comes, those things are not binding anymore. We don't build tabernacles, 
we don't ordain priests, we don't get goats and bring them to church 
on Saturday so that we can kill them and offer up the blood to 
God, no. Notice the contrast, verse 11, 
but Christ came as high priest of the good things to come. With 
the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, 
that is not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and 
calves, but with his own blood, he entered the most holy place 
once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. Now notice 
in verse 15. The Old Covenant believers were 
saved, not by virtue of the Old Covenant, they were saved by 
virtue of the New Covenant. Notice in verse 15, and for this 
reason he is mediator of the New Covenant by means of death 
for the redemption of the transgressions under the First Covenant. That's 
the Old Covenant. How did Abel go to heaven? Through 
the blood of the Lamb. How did Abraham go to heaven? 
Through the blood of the Lamb. How did Moses go to heaven? Through 
the blood of the Lamb, not the lamb that they picked up and 
took to the synagogue or tabernacle on Sabbath, but through the Lamb 
of God. Redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant that 
those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 
So in other words, when God put the old covenant into play, It's 
hard to talk about this or talk like this about God. He knew 
that it wasn't going to bring redemption to all of the people. It was designed that way. It 
was designed to hedge them in so they wouldn't compromise the 
seed. So David could come from the 
line of David and to hedge them in such that they could get from 
point A to point B. When they get to point B and 
they ate the practices of the Canaanites, they're exiled from 
the land. But after the Babylonian captivity, God gathers them back, 
brings them under the decree of Cyrus, king of Persia, back 
to the land of Judah where they're stationed, and then the Messiah 
comes. So this is all according to plan. 
In fact, look back just for a moment at Hebrews 8. Hebrews 8 verse 
7, for if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place 
would have been sought for a second. See, the apostle here isn't going, 
wow, I'm not sure what to make of this flow in covenant history. No, this was always the design. 
And then notice in verse 8, because finding fault with them, not 
the law, Not the covenant, but with them. The problem was always 
them. And then he appeals to that section 
in Jeremiah 31, 31 to 34. This was what was spoken by the 
prophet Jeremiah, an old covenant prophet, prophesying new covenant 
realities. It's come to fruition through 
the true Israel of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. So the abrogation 
of ceremonial law, it means it's not binding on us in terms of 
the various things that you see with reference to the prohibitions 
given to the nation of Israel to separate them, to be a holiness 
code, to keep them from the perversion of the Canaanites around them. 
And then the third division of the law is judicial. And judicial, 
as it sounds, means judicial. It governs the goings-on in the 
civil polity. And you can see the connection 
there very clearly in Exodus 20. Not that you can't in Deuteronomy, 
but in Exodus 20, moral law, giving of the Ten Commandments. 
Exodus 21 to 23, how to put the moral law into practice into 
civil society. When God says that if you have 
a flat-roofed house, you need to put a fence around it, what's 
the underlying moral principle? You're not supposed to murder 
people. You're not supposed to kill people. And incidentally, 
our confession, which I'm about to read, speaks of the general 
equity of the judicial law for nations today. So you could extrapolate 
from that under the general equity principle that if you have a 
swimming pool in your backyard and you've got neighbors that 
have two-year-old kids, It's probably wise to put a fence 
around it so they don't fall into the pool and kill themselves 
because the sixth commandment says, you should not only not 
kill people, but try to promote life and try to preserve life 
and try to keep life safe. So our confession at 19 four 
to them also, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired 
together with the state of that people. not obliging any now 
by virtue of that institution." In other words, we're not Old 
Covenant, Commonwealth of Israel. We're just not. We're not a theocratic 
nation that has a monarch with priests and prophets and tabernacle 
and temple. We're just not that. I know that 
America likes to think, or at least evangelicals in America 
like to think it's that, but it's not. It just isn't. We're not that. We're not the 
old covenant commonwealth of Israel. And that's what the confession 
is saying. In other words, We are not obliged to obey those 
things because we're an old covenant, theocratic, monarchical situation. But the confession ends with 
their general equity only being of moral use. As I explained, 
if the law said put a fence around your flat top roof, it's a good 
idea to put one around your swimming pool. When the law speaks concerning 
the goring ox, Boy, I think that's a great, there's a general equity 
principle for drunk driving, you know, for other acts of recklessness 
or other things that imply criminal negligence. See, if your ox, 
you know, busted out of the fence and went over and gored your 
neighbor, but he didn't have a history of busting out of your 
fence and goring neighbors, you weren't criminally liable to 
that. But if your ox had a history 
that he busted out of fences and gored neighbors, you could 
be executed for that. That's criminal negligence. So 
when it comes to those sorts of things, and Paul appeals to 
these things too in the New Testament documents. Turretin explains, 
the forensic or judicial law concerned the civil government 
of the people of God under the Old Testament and contained a 
body of precepts concerning the form of that political rule. In other words, when we get through 
the plains of Moab, we get to the land of Canaan. How are we supposed to live? 
How do we flesh out these Ten Commandments? Well, that's where 
judicial law comes. It fleshes out the moral commandments 
of God. Now, you might be thinking, well, 
how do we sort of determine what we can and can't use? you'd probably 
not be the first one to start thinking that way. Turrington, 
I think, gives some helpful rules or observations concerning what 
can we get from old covenant judicial law that can function 
in a new covenant situation wherein we live in various types of political 
orders Some people live under monarchs. Some people live in 
constitutional republics. Some people live under communism. 
Some people live under socialism. Some people live in democracies 
and all those sorts of things. So is there things that we can 
glean or gather or learn from judicial law? Turretin says, 
with reference to some principles, one, that which prevails not 
only among the Jews but also among the Gentiles is of common 
right. Two, what is found to be conformed 
to the precepts of the Decalogue and serves to explain and conform 
it. And three, the things so repeated in the New Testament 
that their observance is commended to Christians. That's not going 
to answer every question, but I think it gets you in the ballpark. 
John Gill also has a very interesting comment in terms of the wisdom 
of the judicial law. Now, I should say, I'm going 
to quote Gil and Luther, both of whom have been accused of 
being antinomian. And antinomian means against 
the law. That doesn't mean that if they 
saw the speed limit sign was 55, they'd gun it to 95. Antinomian means doctrinal belief 
that the law of God does not apply to believers today. Now, 
this may seem outlandish to you because you read the New Testament, 
but it's not outlandish because there's a lot of people out there 
that are doctrinal antinomians. No, we're under the law of Christ, 
which means freedom and joy. Well, yeah, we are freedom and 
joy, but the law of Christ includes don't sleep with your neighbor's 
wife. You can't evade that. You can't escape that. You cannot 
go and bow down to Baal. You just can't. That's prohibited. Jesus says, if you love me, what? Go do whatever you want, wherever 
your heart takes you. No, you'll keep my commandments. 
We just saw that in Romans 13, 8 to 10. How do I know I'm loving 
my neighbor? Because I'm not killing him. 
I'm not stealing from him. I'm not going after his neighbor's 
wife or the neighbor's husband. But Gill makes this observation. 
And Gill, by the way, was not antinomian. Antinomians don't 
say what I'm about to read. But the charge isn't his view 
on judicial law. It's on moral law. He wasn't 
an antinomian. But with the judicial law, he 
says this. And you know what, brethren, 
this strikes a chord, because I think he's on to something. 
I cannot but be of opinion that a digest of civil laws might 
be made out of the Bible, the law of the Lord that is perfect, 
either as lying and express words in it, or to be deduced by the 
analogy of things and cases, and by just consequence, as would 
be sufficient for the government of any nation. And here's the 
practical benefit, and then there would be no need of so many law 
books, nor of so many lawyers, and perhaps there would be fewer 
lawsuits. However, we Christians, so he 
says, I recognize the judiciousness of compiling a book of civil 
laws out of the Bible, but this is the key. Listen to what he 
says. However, we Christians under 
whatsoever government we are, are directed to submit to every 
ordinance of man for the Lord's sake and for conscience sake, 
even to everyone that is not contrary to common sense and 
reason and to religion and conscience. And there he cites Romans 13, 
Titus 3, 1 Peter 2. So would it be great to compile 
a digest of civil laws from the Bible that would run a society? Well, yeah, but probably ain't 
going to happen. And whatever commonwealth you 
happen to live in, be faithful, be godly, be upright. Luther. Now, Luther was accused 
of being an antinomian because he preached Christ all the time. But he didn't. I mean, he wrote 
other books on the bondage of the will, various things. But 
he himself makes this observation concerning judicial law. Nor 
would it be a sin if the emperor used some of the civil laws of 
Moses. In fact, it would be a good idea if he did. Therefore, the 
Sophists are in error when they imagine that after Christ the 
civil laws of Moses are fatal to us. People that would say 
the judicial laws, no, they're not fatal. It's good. It's an 
extrapolation of the principles of the Ten Commandments and fleshing 
them out in civil society. So the moral law and the finger 
of God. I mentioned this in our last study. The moral law alone 
is said to be written with the finger of God. I made sure I 
qualified that. That doesn't mean that God didn't 
give the ceremonial and that God didn't give the judicial. 
but that he writes the moral with his own finger indicates 
something of the abiding nature of it. And then, of course, the 
moral law is placed in the Ark of the Covenant, according to 
Exodus chapter 40. So when it comes to moral law, 
and we'll stop there, we'll do the threefold use of the Decalogue, 
God willing, next Wednesday night. But when it comes to these particular 
things, It is very helpful for us to understand that division 
in the law. Sometimes you'll hear people 
argue against, you know, why do you Christians forbid homosexuality? And we say, well, the Old Testament 
says no homosexuality. I know the New Testament does 
as well, but then they'll throw out, well, the Old Testament 
says you can't eat shrimp. How do you answer that? A lot 
of Christians say, well, we can eat shrimp, but you can't be 
a homosexual. Yeah, but why? What's your hermeneutical principle? 
Brethren, we do ourselves no favor when we just parrot a few 
slogans, but we don't know the hermeneutics behind. Why it's tough to have debates 
like that, because people don't even begin to think through how 
it is we interpret things in a covenant, when it comes to 
law, what type of law we're dealing with, and to make matters a bit 
more difficult for us, the Old Testament's not a systematic 
theology. It's not written the way Louis 
Burkhoff wrote his systematic theology. It's not written the 
way our Second London Confession is written. It is a book with 
law. It is a book with poetry. It 
is a book with songs. It is a book with prophets. It 
is a book with wisdom. It's a book with all kinds of 
stuff, even the Pentateuch itself. You'll be motoring along through 
some moral law, and then you'll get some prohibition against 
eating shrimp. I'm just using a simple analogy 
here. Well, how do I distinguish? Well, 
you distinguish by understanding the threefold division of the 
law. There is a hermeneutical principle as to why you cannot 
be a homosexual based on the Old Testament, and you can eat 
shrimp and bacon based on the whole Bible. So that's the reason 
why I bring this up. And if you want that book, a 
good book on the subject, From the Finger of God by Philip I 
want to say Ross, it's not Ross. Is it Ross? Does anybody have 
that book? It's not Ross. Philip, yeah. Anyone else have 
From the Finger of God by Philip somebody? It's published by Christian 
Focus Publications. But what he does there is he 
does history because the argument is, well, the reformers made 
that up. The confessions made that up. No. Philip Ross, published 
by Christian Focus Publications. Very good book. Not a beginner 
read, though, just so you know that. Don't grab it and get 30 
pages in and curse the day I was born. So I would say go to the 
Confession, chapter 19, where it distinguishes, or rather shows, 
the threefold division of the law. It shows the moral, the 
ceremonial, and the judicial. Good systematic theology books 
in the Reformed tradition will also deal with that subject. 
Because as I said, it has some very practical implications in 
our dealings with not only pagans, but with Christians, Christians 
who differ in methods of interpretation and how do we get to certain 
conclusions for worship and for life and things like that. All 
right, let us pray. Our Father, we have seen many 
things in a passage like this. We thank you for your redeeming 
power displayed there in Egypt out of the house of bondage. 
We thank you for that redeeming power that we see on the cross 
at Calvary. and the work of the Lord Jesus 
Christ on our behalf. We thank you for that gospel. 
We thank you for your law. We thank you for the gospel. 
For when we break the law, we have an advocate with the Father, 
even Jesus Christ the righteous. And as New Covenant believers, 
let us never forget this. Let us always be looking to that 
fountain that is open for sin and uncleanness. We ask that 
you would fill us with your Holy Spirit. Give us a love for the 
law. Give us a desire to pursue the things that are pleasing 
in your sight. And we ask this in Jesus' name, amen.