← Back to sermon library

God gave to Adam a law of universal 
obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not 
eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, 
by which he bound him in all his posterity a personal, entire, 
exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, 
and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him 
with power and ability to keep it. 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. 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, and partly holding forth diverse 
instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws, being 
appointed only to the time of Reformation, are by Jesus Christ, 
the true Messiah and only Lawgiver, who was furnished with power 
from the Father for that end, abrogated and taken away. 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, their general equity only being of moral use. 
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 doth Christ and the Gospel 
in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. Although 
true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, 
to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is 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. discovering also the sinful pollutions 
of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves 
thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, 
and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need 
they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise 
of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in 
that it forbids sin. And the threatenings of it serve 
to show what even their sins deserve and what afflictions 
in this life they may expect for them, although freed from 
the curse and unallayed rigor thereof. The promises of it likewise 
show them God's approbation of obedience and what blessings 
they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to 
them by the law as a covenant of works. So as man's doing good 
and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one 
and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under 
the law and not under grace. Neither are the aforementioned 
uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly 
comply with it. the Spirit of Christ subduing 
and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully 
which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done. 
Amen. So last time we looked at the 
first section, paragraphs 1 to 4, we noted first of all the 
revelation of the law of God at creation. So notice the link 
between paragraph 1 and 2. God gave to Adam a law of universal 
obedience, paragraph 1. And then in paragraph 2, the 
same law that was 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. So it's not two different laws, 
but what God spoke to Adam is what God spoke to Israel at Sinai, 
and what is for us today in the New Covenant Church. That's one 
of the emphases in this particular section of the Confession of 
Faith, that the moral law continues. The moral law, as we'll see specifically 
in paragraph 5, is perpetually binding upon not just the children 
of God, but also all men everywhere because of the nature of moral 
law. So, we have the giving of the 
law at creation to Adam, and then we have the giving of the 
law, or the revelation of the law of God after the fall, and 
that's in paragraphs 2 to 4. So, the moral law is given by 
God at Sinai, paragraph 2. but in addition to the moral 
law given to Israel, you had ceremonial law, and you also 
had judicial law. Ceremonial law ceases, not because 
it was bad, but because it accomplished the purpose for which God gave 
it. The Lord Christ fulfilled all that was envisaged by that 
ceremonial law, so it is no longer binding upon the people of God 
today. We'll see that tonight in our study in the book of Ephesians, 
in chapter 2, verses 14 to 18. It speaks of Christ abolishing 
the law of commandments. That is not a reference to the 
moral law, it is a reference to the ceremonial law. It is 
circumcision, it is temple, it is exclusion from and inclusion 
of temple, those ceremonial aspects of Israel's law that kept the 
Gentiles at bay or kept them as outsiders. So with the fulfillment 
of the ceremonial law and the going forth of the gospel to 
all nations, that aspect of the law of God is no longer binding 
upon the people of God today. So we're not bound by the food 
laws, we're not bound by those regulations given to Israel in 
the Old Testament. that were ceremonial in nature. 
And the confession, I think, here gives a wonderful and adequate 
summary statement of the function of ceremonial law. It says, containing 
several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, 
His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits. So the law of sacrifice, 
when you went to the temple or the tabernacle and you killed 
your animal or you took your animal on the Sabbath day and 
took it to the temple and cut its throat and handed it over 
to the priest, that was prefiguring, that was typifying, that was 
showing, yes, that there is a transfer or a substitution in terms of 
my sin upon that animal, but bigger than that it pointed to 
the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. And 
then it goes on to say, partly holding forth diverse instructions 
of moral duties, the demand for holy war in Deuteronomy chapter 
seven. Certainly that would have kept 
the Gentiles away from the body politic in Israel. When they 
were demanded to exterminate all of the Canaanites, that was 
an aspect of that law that was separation and that was exclusion 
of the Gentile nations. And then it says, 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. And with reference to abrogation, 
again, it wasn't abrogated because it was bad, it was nasty, it 
was something that was faulty. Christ fulfilled all that was 
specified in those types and shadows. And then in paragraph 
four, it deals with what we call the judicial laws. We're studying 
that on Wednesday night in the study in the book of Exodus. 
So Exodus 20, the giving of the 10 commandments, the moral law 
of God, the 10 general principles, And then in 21 to 23, you have 
how those general principles are fleshed out in the body politic 
in Israel. And so it says, to them also 
he gave sundry judicial laws which expired together with the 
state of that people. The state of that people was 
unique. It was not like any other sort of a situation, even that 
which obtains in the New Covenant setting. The people of God today 
are a holy nation, to be sure, but that language that was applied 
initially to Israel is now applied to the church, who is the true 
Israel. And as the church, we don't have that direct theocratic 
body politic situation that Israel of old had. They were directly 
ruled by God. They had a monarch, but it was 
a theocratic monarchy where God ruled through the particular 
monarch. And so it says, "...it expired together with the state 
of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution." 
That means we're not bound to the judicial laws of Moses based 
on the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled. The Old Covenant has been bettered 
by the New Covenant. So the Old Covenant is no longer 
binding upon the people of God. The book of Hebrews makes that 
sufficiently clear. We have the New Covenant, which 
is a better covenant founded on better promises that afford 
a better hope. So we're not bound to the judicial 
law of Moses by virtue of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant 
is no longer operative for the people of God. We're in the New 
Covenant. But it goes on to say or highlight that there is a 
general equity use of those old covenant laws or the judicial 
laws of Moses. So it's not obliging any now 
by virtue of that institution, their general equity only being 
of moral use. So when we see the wisdom inculcated 
in those judicial laws, we see their connection to the moral 
law of God in Exodus 20, then we can extrapolate from that 
principles of wisdom that we can apply to our modern situation. So that's a summary of where 
we've been. Notice in paragraph five now, the perpetuity of the 
moral law of God. So the confession is dealt sufficiently 
with the ceremonial law. It is dealt sufficiently with 
the judicial law. Those things are no longer binding. The emphasis from here on out 
in paragraphs five to seven is to highlight what paragraphs 
one and two said concerning the moral law of God. That law given 
to Adam, that law summarized or codified at Sinai to the nation 
of Israel. So we have the perpetuity of 
the moral law of God, paragraph five. Notice it says in the first 
place, the moral law doth forever bind all as well justified persons 
as others to the obedience thereof. So it's not only for the Christian, 
those are the justified persons, those who by grace through faith 
in Jesus Christ are justified, but notice that it says as others. as others are those who are not 
justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. So 
what we have in paragraph 5 is a statement that our neighbor, 
even though he's a pagan, even though he's a heathen, even though 
he is not a Christian, he is nevertheless under the moral 
law of God Most High. And so, there is this application 
of the moral law to all men everywhere. It's not conditioned by a particular 
covenant. So, whether you're in the Old 
Covenant or you're in the New Covenant, what we find in paragraph 
5 reflects what Scripture teaches. Whether you're justified by grace 
through faith in Jesus or you're not justified by grace through 
faith in Jesus, you're still under the moral law of God. And 
so the pagan doesn't have any recourse to say, well, you know, 
I'm not really obliged to not murder babies or not murder elderly 
folk, because that law is for the Christians. No, that law 
is for every man everywhere. That law is unchanging. That 
law is not negotiable. That law forever binds. If you 
look at 1 Timothy 1, I think what Paul does there is illustrate 
what we would call the first use of the law. When we consider 
the law of God, it's good to think in threes. There's a three-fold 
division of the law. You've got moral, ceremonial, 
and judicial. But then there are three uses 
of the law. You have the civil, the pedagogical, 
and the normative. The pedagogical means it is a 
child tutor, the law functions to show us our need for Jesus, 
and that sends us to the cross for justification. Normative 
means the Christian, the people of God who have the Holy Spirit, 
look for how do we live then as believers in Christ. The normative 
use of the law means that we look at that law and say we don't 
want to be idolaters, or blasphemers, or Sabbath breakers, or insubordinate, 
or murderers, or adulterers, or thieves, or liars, or covetous. 
We want to live in a manner that is consistent with the will of 
God. That's the normative use. The first use of the law is what's 
called the civil or political use. And that simply means that 
God gave his law to all men everywhere with the intent of restraining 
them from being as bad as they could possibly be. If there were 
no law whatsoever, this would be hell on earth. If there was 
no restraint external to man, if there was not any restraint 
internal to man, remember in Romans 2, the Gentiles, who didn't 
have the oracles of God, nevertheless had consciences that accused 
them or affirmed them in light of the activities they engaged 
in. There is that on-board preacher that every man everywhere, because 
he's in the image of God, has. He knows it's wrong to do the 
things that he's doing. Romans 1.32 underscores that. 
So this civil or political use is the first use of the law, 
which just means God restrains his creatures from being as bad 
as they could possibly be. And I think that's the way Paul 
is referring to it in 1 Timothy 1, verses 8-10. He says in verse eight, we know 
that the law is good if one uses it lawfully. What would be an 
example of using the law unlawfully? Does anybody know? That's right, in light of the 
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel of free and sovereign 
grace, to tell someone, go thou and obey the Lord in order to 
be saved. That's an unlawful use of the 
law. That's why I think when preachers preach the law, they 
should always always refer to gospel. They should always at 
some point say, well here's the law, here's the demand of God, 
but here is the provision by God in and through the person 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the person and work of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. So that persons know that God 
has demanded exact, entire, and perpetual obedience, but God 
has provided redress in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. So 
there are unlawful ways of using the law. We can also unlawfully 
use the law in sanctification by adding to it, by elevating 
our preferences. There's a whole host of ways 
to unlawfully use the law. So Paul affirms that. Now, when 
he goes on in verses 9 and 10, he's not exhausting the uses 
of the law. He doesn't speak to the pedagogical 
use here. He does in Galatians 3. He does 
in Romans 3. He doesn't speak to the normative 
use of the law. He does in Romans 13. He does 
in Ephesians chapter 6. He is speaking in terms of the 
civil use. He says, knowing this, that the law is not made for 
a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for 
the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for 
murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for 
fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, 
and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 
according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was 
committed to my trust. So verse 9, knowing this, that 
the law is not made for a righteous person. Well, in terms of the 
normative use, it is. We're righteous in and through 
our Lord Jesus Christ. So in Romans 13, when he demands 
obedience to the law of God, and in Ephesians 6, when he tells 
Gentile believing children that they obey their parents and the 
Lord for this is right, they're righteous people and the law 
is made for them. With reference to the pedagogical 
use, knowing that the law is not made for a righteous person, 
we can certainly apply that here, but for the lawless. In other 
words, point them to that law so that they can see their need 
for Jesus. But it's more likely the civil use. The law is not 
made for a righteous person. Why? Because the righteous person 
is fulfilling the law. He's doing what he's supposed 
to do. I think one of the best ways to illustrate this section 
is the laws concerning counterfeiting. That law is not made for us. 
Why? Because we don't counterfeit. That's Paul's point here. The 
civil use or the political use of the law functions as a restraint 
for the lawless. And so with reference to the 
statement in the confession, with reference to the abiding 
validity or perpetuity of the moral law, it's not only for 
the justified by faith, but it's also to others. It's also to 
the non-Christian. And so there is an aspect wherein 
the church of Jesus Christ is faulty if she is not declaring 
and proclaiming the law of God, not just for the believer so 
that they know how to conduct themselves as justified Christians, 
but for the unbeliever. It is wrong and wicked for the 
government, it is wrong and wicked for society at large to engage 
in the flagrant violations of God's law. And if we don't tell 
them that, they'll never see the need for the gospel. These 
two go hand-in-hand. If you don't tell somebody their 
need for Christ, they're not going to ever see their need 
for Christ. What's a means by which we tell them their need 
for Christ? We hold up to them the law of 
God. I mean, that sort of symbolism yesterday of the pro-life walk 
is announcing to the world around us it's wrong to murder babies. Why is that? Because we don't 
like it? Because it's a preference that 
we don't delight in? No, because God Most High spoke 
the truth of the Sixth Commandment. It abides and it is perpetual 
upon all men everywhere in whatever condition he finds himself in. 
If he's justified by grace or he's not, he's still duty-bound 
by God to obey. when it comes to the flagrant 
violation of the Seventh Commandment today? Why are people all up 
in arms about this transgender thing and the mutilation of children? Because it's a preference thing? 
I mean, at a certain basic level, any mother or father or anybody 
with a degree of sanity should be opposed to the castration 
and to the removal of breasts from teenage children. But it's 
because God Most High has mandated sexuality in a way it's supposed 
to be operative. And so we don't do our culture 
any favors if we just say, well, you know, that's just the way 
they're going to function. The Eighth Commandment, it is 
not right for people to steal, even government. They are bound 
by God. If not, you know, not in terms 
of the judicial law or some theonomic reconstructional approach, but 
in terms of the moral law of God, you're not supposed to steal. Fractional reserve banking and 
fiat currency is theft. And for whatever reason, we're 
okay with that. We shouldn't be okay with that 
because God's word is binding. That's the emphasis in paragraph 
five. 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. See, we are citizens of two kingdoms, 
the redemptive sphere, which is best represented in the church 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, but we're kingdom citizens in the 
civil sphere as well. And I think as responsible citizens 
in the civil realm, we bring our Christianity, we bring our 
approach to the law of God. We tell sinners, it's wrong for 
you to engage in this particular manner of life. God is the creator 
and God holds men accountable. And then it goes on to say, neither 
doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen 
this obligation. Turn to Matthew chapter five. 
Well, Jeremiah 31, first of all. Jeremiah 31, that is a foundational 
and crucial text for understanding the law of God in the New Covenant. 
Jeremiah 31, it's a passage we're all familiar with. It's one of 
those passages that we can fight Paedo-Baptists with, but that's 
not the only purpose for which it's in the Bible. 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. We learn from Hebrews 8 and 10, this is 
the church, okay? It's not two separate distinct 
peoples of God. It's not, you know, the two houses 
of Israel. This is old covenant language 
pointing forward to the true Israel, which is the church of 
the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice in verse 32, "...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." 
You have to see the discontinuity. There's discontinuity between 
the Old and the New Covenants. Those Paedobaptists, unfortunately, 
are guilty at times of flattening the discontinuity. To assume 
that everything that the Old Testament says is operative necessarily 
in the New Testament is to not read the Bible properly. So he 
says there is going to be discontinuity, not like the covenant that I 
made, or 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. Again, Hebrews 8, celebrate, 
7 and 8, celebrate the discontinuity between the old and the new covenants. 
So to say, well, it's just kind of new, it's just a little bit 
new. No, it's a better covenant founded on better promises with 
a better hope. That's cause for rejoicing. The 
old covenant said, do this and live. The new covenant says, 
Christ did this, therefore live. It's a blessed thing. And then 
one of the features intrinsic in terms of the discontinuity 
between old and new covenant, notice what he says, my covenant 
which they broke, You could break the old covenant, right? The 
moment they stood in the book of the covenant, so we have Exodus 
20, giving the law, Exodus 21 to 24, the book of the covenant. 
So 21 to 23, judicial law, application, concrete specifications for life 
in the land. So what does Israel do in chapter 
24? Exodus 24, all that the Lord has commanded we will do. Everything. 
All that God has commanded, we will do. Yeah, almost, I don't 
know, I smirk a little bit when I read that as a New Covenant 
believer, because I know that that lasts for what? About a 
millisecond? All that the Lord commands, I will do? Have you 
ever said that? Have you ever tried that? I mean, 
you wake up in the morning, I'm gonna do everything God says 
and everything God commands. Yeah, about a millisecond. That's 
probably about how far we get. So one of the discontinuities 
between old and new is that you could break the Old Covenant. 
Isn't that a blessed discontinuity in terms of the new covenant? 
We can't break it. We can't unsave ourselves with 
reference to our blessed Savior. And then he says, 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 in their 
hearts. Which law? The ceremonial law that was unique 
to the Old Covenant? No, it can't be. The judicial 
laws which were unique to the Old Covenant? No, it can't be, 
except for the general equity that does display the wisdom 
of the moral law. But I will write my law in their minds and 
write it on their hearts. 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." So there were these 
things operative in the old covenant. If you were an Isaac or a Jacob 
or you were a David, you had the law of God internalized in 
your heart. You had that knowledge of God 
and covenantal intimacy. You had the forgiveness of sin. You had those features as an 
Old Covenant believer. But they weren't essential features 
to the Old Covenant. The prophet's telling us these 
are essential features to the New Covenant. In other words, 
you're not in the New Covenant community unless you have that. 
You could be in the Old Covenant community not having these things 
or having these things. But in the New Covenant community, 
these are essential features. So when we turn to Matthew chapter 
5 and everybody's wondering what does Jesus think about Moses, 
Jesus affirms Moses, just like we saw last week in the woman 
caught in adultery. Does Jesus affirm Moses or does 
he disregard Moses? Well, he absolutely affirms him. 
And he makes that hermeneutical statement in the Sermon on the 
Mount. In Matthew 5, 17, do not think that I came to destroy 
the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but 
to fulfill. He didn't come to abrogate or 
remove them. Now, there's other data that 
we need to add to this to see and flesh out what he's speaking 
of. Does he mean the ceremonial? Does he mean the judicial? Or 
is he specifically highlighting the moral law of God? Well, as 
we move through the pages of Holy Scripture, we see that he 
means the moral law of God. John 14, 15, he makes this statement 
to his people, if you love me, keep my commandments. He's not 
an antinomian, he's not dispensed with the law of Moses, he's not 
disregarding that law, he's not saying it's somehow done, it's 
somehow over. And again, so much of this is 
contradispensationalism, which does teach that the law of God, 
as given by God on Sinai, is not binding on the Christian 
church today. That's simply false, brethren. That is incorrect. 
That's inaccurate. It's a bad reading of Holy Scripture. Put bad hermeneutics in, get 
bad stuff out. Romans chapter 3, in a passage 
where Paul is dealing with justification by faith alone. He begins in 
chapter 3 at verse 21, and he's going to pursue that theme all 
the way to the end of chapter 4, and then in chapter 5, tell 
us how it is the case that Christ could die for our sins. He highlights 
the doctrine of imputation. But notice in chapter 3 at verse 
27, where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? 
Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from 
the deeds of the law. Or is he the God of the Jews 
only? Is he not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the 
Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the 
circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 
You could hear the Jew now. You could hear the person in 
the back of the synagogue now. Well, what about the law then? If we're justified 
by faith apart from the works, does that mean no more law? Verse 
31, do we then avoid the law through faith? Certainly not. 
On the contrary, we establish the law. In other words, now 
that people are empowered by the Holy Spirit, having been 
justified freely by God's grace, they have the wherewithal to 
keep the law, to obey the law, to do what Jesus says in John 
14, 15. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. Turn over 
to Romans 13. Romans 13, when the apostle needs 
to give a concrete example of what love to brethren is, he 
doesn't say, buy them flowers, take them out for coffee, take 
them out for a, you know, a gelato. No, he says, obedience to God's 
revealed precepts, obedience to the concrete law of God is 
an expression of love one to another. So in Romans 13, 8, 
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 are 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. 
Now, it's probably more romantic to tell your sweetie your eyes 
dazzle like, you know, stars and your hair is glowing locks 
of beauty and gold, but, you know, concrete expression is, 
honey, I haven't committed adultery against you. I haven't stolen 
from you. I haven't attempted murder. That, 
again, doesn't sound as romantic, but that is a concrete fulfillment 
of the law of God. And I think that kind of an understanding 
does wonders in the church, because I think at times people get their 
noses bent out of shape by so-and-so who maybe hasn't done such-and-such. 
Hey, they haven't murdered you, they haven't stolen your property, 
and they haven't committed adultery with your spouse. Good sign. 
there that they actually do love you. Let's get from this whole 
idea of a romantic Hollywood sort of an approach to what love 
is to a concrete application of the law of God. And then turn 
over to the book of Ephesians. We're gonna see this again tonight, 
because in Ephesians 2, he speaks of the abrogation, the fulfillment 
of, and then abrogation of the ceremonial law. But in that same 
book of Ephesians, look what he does in chapter six at verses 
one and two. Children, obey your parents in 
the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother. Now this is significant in this 
sense. Remember that Ephesus was not 
made up of Jewish believers. In fact, that's the point in 
Ephesians chapter 2. He wants us to see that Gentiles 
and Jews now possess covenantal solidarity in and through our 
Lord Jesus Christ. There's no longer that distinction. 
There's no longer that barrier. There's no longer that separation, 
the ceremonial law that kept the Gentiles out that sort of 
fostered an animosity between the two groups. The Jew looked 
down at the Gentile because he was not circumcised, and the 
Gentile looked down at the Jew because he was an arrogant, self-righteous 
wretch. So that's been dissolved. The 
ceremonial law is gone. So you've got Gentile Christians 
who have obviously Gentile children, and those Gentile children have 
believed the Gospel, and so the Apostle commands Gentile children 
to obey the law given at Sinai. Well, how do we explain that? 
We explain it the way that the Confession does. The moral law 
was given to Adam, it's codified at Sinai, and it remains valid 
and in play for all men everywhere at all times. It isn't conditioned 
by a covenant. It's not conditioned by ethnicity. 
It's not conditioned by any other thing. It is a revealed will 
of God for all mankind. So honor your father and mother. 
And then when he says, which is the first commandment with 
promise, he appeals to that order. He appeals to the commandments. The reference to one involves 
the reference to all. And then he goes on to say that 
it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth. He 
even appends the promise or attaches the promise that is given in 
that law, given at Sinai. So Christ, as our confession 
says, does not, or neither doth Christ in the gospel anyway dissolve, 
but much strengthen this obligation. Any questions or comments here 
before we move on to this next section? Anything at all? First Timothy 1, 8 to 10, yeah. My argument is that that's a 
reference to the civil or political use. Certainly has a pedagogical 
function, but I don't think that's the point there. Yes? I remember years and years ago, 
we had some really difficult house guests, and I was starting 
to wonder, because I am a believer, because I was having such a struggle 
with her abusing me, well, Jewish, so and so ill, like, you know, 
like the Sixth Commandment, because it wasn't touch, feeling, 
emotion, it was just hard core objective fact. It was so helpful. Yeah, and it's strange that we, 
I mean, again, there's nothing wrong with romance and dear, 
you look better than the sun, whatever, that's fine. Song of 
Solomon gives us a warrant for that. But objectivity and concreteness, 
and you know, especially it's what Ben Shapiro has popularized, 
facts don't care about your feelings. That's a biblical concept, brethren. That is objectivity. And I think when we free ourselves 
of that sort of subjective, ethereal, kind of a I'm-not-sure thing, 
and we get to the Bible and we get to its real-world application, 
I think it's a very helpful thing. All right, well, that's a good 
thing. I'm glad that that helped you. 
Again, the bar has been set low at Free Grace. Show up and you 
are great. Don't throw coffee cups at people 
and you're great too. But hey, there's where we're 
at. All right, so then notice in 
paragraph six and seven, you have the specific uses of the 
law of God. The specific uses of the law 
of God. In paragraph six at the very beginning, I think deals 
with a passage or deals with a concept that I think helps 
us deal with the passage. So it says, although true believers 
be not under the law as a covenant of works to be thereby justified 
or condemned. So this is the qualification. 
Before it gets into, well it has spoken of its perpetuity, 
paragraph 5, it's gonna affirm that or reaffirm that in paragraph 
seven. So you've got the perpetuity 
of the moral law of God, and then you've got a paragraph specifically 
designed to teach the uses of the law. This is a more sort 
of amplified version, more of a developed version. I think 
the three uses in terms of civil, pedagogical, and normative are 
kind of a helpful framework. This teases that out a bit, kind 
of develops it in a bit more detail. But before it gets into 
the uses, it wants to give this necessary qualification. Paragraph 
six, although true believers be not under the law as a covenant 
of works. So on the one hand, we're under 
the law, but on the other hand, we're not under the law. That's 
what paragraphs five and six are telling us. So on the one 
hand, paragraph five, it's for you as a believer. Paragraph 
six, it's for you as a believer, but not in a particular way. And so although true believers 
be not under the law as a covenant of works to be thereby justified 
or condemned. We're not under the law as a 
covenant of works to be justified or condemned. We're not under 
the law in the sense that I better obey everything today and I better 
do it perfectly, I better do it exactly, I better do it entirely, 
I better do it perpetually or I'm going to find myself cut 
off from God. That's not the way we're under the law. We're 
under the law the way it's going to specify and the helpful things 
that the law does give us. But if you look at Romans chapter 
six, the text that it refers to in the Confession, I think 
it helps us understand Romans 6, 14. That has become something 
of a battle cry, something of a banner wave with reference 
to no more law for the believer. And again, that has come from 
dispensational theology. Notice in chapter six, verse 
14. For sin shall not have dominion 
over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. Well, does 
that mean there's no, does that invalidate Jeremiah 31, Matthew 
5, John 14, Romans 3, Romans 13, Ephesians 6? You don't just 
take a text, lift it out of its context and say, there's no more 
law for the believer. I mean, Paul said it right there. 
You're not under law, but under grace. If you question that, 
you are denying the Bible. Brethren, there are contexts 
There is theology, there is consistency, there is a whole approach or 
a holistic approach that one needs to bring to individual 
texts. When he speaks that you are not 
under law, he is probably speaking in terms of what the confession 
is. You're not under law as a covenant 
of works to be thereby justified or condemned. You're not under 
the law as a killing agent. You're not under the law as this 
means of absolute condemnation for every remaining corruption 
that you have. You are not under the law as 
well, could refer to the old covenant. I think that's the 
way he uses it specifically in Galatians three. You can turn 
there to Galatians chapter three, specifically at verse 21. I don't 
think, well, verse 19, I don't think he's speaking specifically 
of the moral law or of the ceremonial or of the judicial. I think that 
Paul is speaking in Galatians 3.19 and following of the old 
covenant. The old covenant is a law covenant. Grace and truth, or a law came 
through Moses, but grace and truth through our Lord Jesus 
Christ. John tells us that in the prologue. Again, that doesn't 
mean there's no grace and truth in the time of Moses. It doesn't 
mean there's no law in the time of Jesus. But if you had to ask 
the question, what does Old Covenant, one word association, represent? 
Law. Word association, one word with 
reference to New Covenant? Grace, right? I mean, that's 
a pretty simple, simplistic way. You've got law, gospel, old covenant, 
new. Now, that's simplistic and it 
doesn't properly reflect the covenantal dimensions of those 
things, but there's a good help in that regard. I think in verse 
19 of Galatians, what purpose then does the law serve? It's 
not about the Old Covenant. What was the function? What was 
the point? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed 
should come, to whom the promise was made. God put a barrier around 
Israel. Don't eat shellfish. Don't eat 
pork. Keep separate. Don't go eat with 
the pagans. Because if you eat with the pagans, 
you're going to sleep with the pagans. And if you sleep with 
the pagans, you're going to jeopardize the seed. Remember? It was all 
about seed, Galatians 3. Seed of the woman is going to 
crush the devil. We have seed in the promise to Abraham, to 
Isaac, and to Jacob. There's this seed emphasis in 
the Old Covenant. And one of the purposes for the 
Old Covenant was to protect the seed. It was kind of like a football 
team who had the ball. You want to have your blockers 
out there so that you can protect the ball. You don't want the 
invading team to get the ball. Well, you don't want the pagans 
to take the seed. And so the Old Covenant functioned in that 
way. Why couldn't they eat bacon? Why couldn't they mix fibers? Why couldn't they do what the 
pagans were doing? Because they weren't the pagans. And God wanted 
to teach them that, and let them know that there is a separation. 
It never ceases to amaze me with... Well, I don't want to get into 
that. Anyways, back to verse 19. What purpose then does the 
law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed 
should come, to whom the promise was made. Who's the seed? We'll 
look back at verse 16. Now to Abraham and his seed were 
the promises made. He does not say, and to seed 
as of many, but as of one. And to your seed, who is Christ. The promise to Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob is glorious, not because of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
but because they're the football team that's going to carry the 
ball down the field. It's the seed that matters in Old Covenant 
Israel. And so the Old Covenant as a 
system, as an imposition on the people, with all of its rigor 
and all of its condemning power, nevertheless functioned to keep 
them in check. And that's what it says, it was 
appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator 
does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Tough passage 
right there. Verse 21, is the law then against 
the promises of God? Certainly not, for if there had 
been, again I think he's talking Old Covenant. If there had been 
a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness 
would have been by the law. But the scripture is confined 
all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might 
be given to those who believe. But before faith, we were kept 
under guard by the law, kept for the faith, which would afterward 
be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor 
to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 
But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 
See, if we apply this to moral law, guess what people do with 
verse 25? Well, now that the promise has come, we no longer 
have regard for the Ten Commandments. That's not his point. The Ten 
Commandments abide. The confession isn't wrong. It 
is summarizing the giving of the law to Adam, the codification 
of the law at Sinai, and the law in the hand of our Savior. 
The law as the moral law of God abides and is perpetual for the 
people of God and the non-people of God. The tutor that is no 
longer over us is that old covenant system imposed by God for a specific 
end to protect them, to restrain them, to protect the seed, and 
to make sure that they didn't fumble the ball. Even with the 
old covenant, they tried over and over again to fumble the 
ball. Read the reformers, Ezra and 
Nehemiah. Nehemiah actually castigates 
the children of Israel and tells them to put away their pagan 
wives. This is what I was going to mention 
earlier, the permanence view of marriage. That's simply not 
attentive to the scripture. Nehemiah commanded divorce of 
old covenant Israelites who had taken pagan wives. Why? Because it does reflect 
the seventh commandment, but it also reflects the reality 
that if everybody in Israel takes a pagan wife, they're going to 
fumble the ball. There'll be no seed of David, no seed of 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that will come to save his people 
from their sins. See, it's not just kind of interesting when 
we get to the New Testament and Jesus is from the tribe of Judah. It's not just, wow, that's kind 
of out of the path. Wasn't that lucky? No. Everything specified, all the 
way back to the Shiloh prophecy of Genesis chapter 48. has to 
come to pass perfectly. The fact that he's born in Bethlehem, 
Africa. The fact that he is of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob. That he is of the line of David. All of that thing. 
It couldn't be left to chance. It couldn't just be a hope on 
the part of God. You know, I hope they don't fumble the ball and 
I hope Jesus comes and I hope Jesus, God orchestrated every 
detail. And one of the things that he 
used to orchestrate that old covenant system was the old covenant. 
to restrain and hedge the people in. So Paul's point in Galatians 
3 is not that after faith has come we no longer need the objective 
commandment, don't commit adultery. Of course we need that commandment 
in terms of the normative use of the law. We can reflect as 
justified Christians, justified believers, on what God thinks 
in terms of sexual ethics after faith has come. we're no longer 
under a tutor. So the law in that second use 
functions as a tutor to be sure, but I think the tutorial role 
in this section is primarily the old covenant as a system. 
I would go to Romans 3 for my proof text when it comes to the 
pedagogical use of the law. I see it here for sure, but I 
think it's bigger. I think it's more comprehensive 
in terms of Old Covenant versus just the moral law of God. Whereas 
Romans 3, by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified 
in his sight, for by the law is what? It's the knowledge of 
sin. That's the tutorial function 
of God's law. So the confession there does 
a good thing. Gives us that necessary qualification. I think it helps 
us with that Romans 6.14 passage. And then it says, the law is 
of great use to believers, and the law is of great use to others. Who are the others? Again, it's 
the non-believer. If you have a class called believers 
and then a class called others, you have to conclude the others 
are not believers. So even in this statement, it's 
continuing to highlight the usefulness of God's law for both the saved 
and the unsaved. Notice that it informs them of 
the will of God and their duty, both believers and unbelievers. It directs and binds them, excuse 
me, to walk accordingly. then discovering, or also discovering 
the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, believers 
and unbelievers. Brethren, when you preach the 
gospel to a friend or a family member, yeah, Jesus is great, 
and he'll save you from your sins. Well, what's sin? Tell 
him the law. Point to the Word of God. Point 
to that revelation of God at Sinai. It's the way to bring 
examination, conviction in the life of the believer for humiliation, 
hatred of sin, and then a clear sight of their constant need 
for Christ. As well, notice it restrains 
corruptions. for believers, and it is likewise 
of use to the regenerate." So the restraint of corruption. 
If you look at 2 Timothy for a moment, 2 Timothy chapter 3, 
this is the way we are supposed to use our Bibles and the way 
that we are supposed to read our Bibles. 2 Timothy chapter 
3, There's not only a great statement concerning the inspiration of 
scripture, it's God breathed, verse 16, all scripture is given 
by inspiration of God, but it highlights the utility or the 
profitability of scripture. It's profitable for doctrine. 
What's doctrine? People today don't like that 
word doctrine. Guess what? Doctrine means teaching. If we don't want doctrine, we 
don't want the Bible. Doctrine is just, I guess, more 
old-fashioned-y, that it just sounds offensive to the modern, 
oh, no, we just need Jesus. Well, how do we have Jesus without 
doctrine? At some point, you're gonna have 
to ask, which Jesus is this, if you have no doctrine or a 
lack of emphasis? So all scripture is profitable, 
or it's profitable for doctrine, but notice, for reproof, There 
ought to be seasons and times when you read your Bible and 
you come away with, man, I'm not doing what I'm supposed to 
be doing. How do you read, you know, Romans 
13, 14, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision 
for the flesh to fulfill its loss? How can we read that and 
not feel some degree of reproof? Does that define and describe 
us each and every, oh yeah, every single day I'm putting on the 
Lord Jesus, every single day I'm not, you know, making provision 
for the flesh to fulfill its loss. Probably not. If you are, 
praise God, you can teach next week and tell all of us how you 
do it. But notice, there should be reproof, but it's not just 
reproof. God doesn't leave us broken, 
bloodied, and battered. He corrects us, right? He corrects 
us. There is that blessedness of 
the word, and then instruction in righteousness. He informs 
us how we're supposed to conduct ourselves and how we're supposed 
to function in every sphere and in every place of our lives. 
So there's that restraint. It forbids sin. It's threatening 
to show what sin deserves and the afflictions that accompany 
sin. And then it gives us the promises 
for obedience. It shows God's approbation of 
obedience and shows the blessings believers may expect. That's 
a good sort of summary statement concerning the usefulness of 
God's law. And then this section ends, or 
the chapter ends, with the harmony of the gospel. Paragraph 7, neither 
are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace 
of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it. It's a perverse 
method of interpretation that sees such an antithesis. Now, law and gospel, they are 
antithetical in some ways, but there is a sweet compliance in 
other ways. And if we don't appreciate that, 
then it's owing to us needing more study. Neither are the aforementioned 
uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly 
comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling 
the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will 
of God, revealed in the law, require it to be done. The Spirit 
works with word and by Spirit. He does take those objective 
precepts, he brings them to bear upon the people of God, shows 
us where we need to repent, shows us where we need to renew, shows 
us those things in a manner that is consistent with our growth 
in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. James 
Durham said, therefore Christ was so far from destroying this 
law in its authority, and Paul so far from making it void by 
the doctrine of faith, that our Lord tells us He came to fulfill 
it, Matthew 5, 17. And Paul shows that his preaching 
of faith was to establish it, Romans 3, 31. Which truth being 
confirmed by them both in their practice and doctrine, shows 
that the breach of the holy law of God is no less sinful to us 
now than it was to them before us. Well, in conclusion, I hope 
that we have a good appreciation of the law of God. It's a big 
subject in scripture, obviously, and I think the Confession really 
does give a good summary statement concerning it, and it reflects, 
well, the Reformed tradition. I think that's one of the strengths 
of the Reformed tradition. We always think about soteriology 
and justification by faith, and, well, we should, but I think 
their understanding of the law is very helpful as well. We'll 
all pray, and then if there's any questions, we have a couple 
of minutes. Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We 
thank you for the truth of law and gospel. We thank you for 
your graciousness in providing the Lord Jesus Christ as a sacrifice 
for sinners. We thank you for his life, his 
death, his resurrection, and the benefits that we have now 
by your grace through faith in him. We ask that you'd bless 
our time of worship morning and evening. We pray that you would 
be glorified and praised. And we ask through Christ our 
Lord