Should the law be divided into three parts—moral, ceremonial, and civil?

What a can of worms …

I agree Jim, and I would regard these distinctions as a necessary consequence of how the Bible itself treats the Old Testament Law, a point implied in the very examples you have given.

It’s not really a matter of “should” it be, but rather can it be? And the answer to that is no; there is no biblical teaching by which to distinguish them and no biblical example of such a distinction. The law exists as a whole. The threefold division is unknown in Scripture or early Christianity. There is no way to defend it from Scripture.

Jim’s argument about shellfish and mixed clothes is inadequate for the simple reason that we are not under the Law of Moses. It matters not whether one eats shellfish or wears mixed clothes unless you are under a restriction. No one is under the Mosaic Law today, no matter how you configure it.

To divide the law in such a way ultimately undermines the authority of Scripture and asserts the authority of man over the authority of God in his Word.

Well, I don’t have time today to get into an in-depth discussion of the matter, but perhaps I will have time early next week. Sermon prep and ministry take priority today and tomorrow.

The tripartite construct is valuable. I observe there are moral truths that transcend national boundaries and time. 9 of the 10 commandments are found in the New Testament (the Sabbath observance is excluded).

The question is less about whether it is valuable (however that is construed; I find it not only not valuable, but misleading and undermining the Scripture) and more about whether it is biblical, isn’t it? I don’t see any biblical reference to a division of the Law. Wherever the Law is treated in Scripture, it is treated as a unified entity, not something from which one can pick and choose what is applicable.

There are moral truths that transcend national boundaries and time. And because of that, some of our laws (whether as Americans in our case, or as Christians) are virtually identical to laws given to Israel.

Consider this: If someone commits a murder in Detroit (not wholly unthinkable), they are not charged with breaking the laws of Ohio, even though both Michigan and Ohio have laws against murder. The person is charged with breaking the law in the jurisdiction in which the crime is committed. So as the church, we are not under the Law of Moses which is for a different jurisdiction.

Or consider a law that has been repealed. One can no longer be charged with a law that is not in effect. So a person may commit murder in Detroit, but he can no more be charged with breaking the Law of Israel than he can with breaking the law of Ancient Rome. Neither jurisdiction exists to bring charges.

The fact that 9 of 10 commandments are repeated is significant, isn’t it? Why isn’t the Sabbath command repeated?

When I was in the military, I was under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. One offense in the punitive articles is Desertion (Art. 85). There is not a civilian equivalent to this offense.

• While I was in the military, I could have been charged with this offense if I had committed it
• I am not in the military anymore, so the offense has been nullified and abolished forever to me.

There is another offense, Manslaughter (Art. 119). There is a civilian equivalent to this offense:

• However, I’m not in the military anymore. I can be charged with manslaughter if I commit it, but it won’t be an offense under the UCMJ. I’m not in the military anymore! I would be charged under the equivilent local or state statute.

What does this mean?

• Some offenses are just abolished and done with. They are not applicable to me anymore because I’m not under military jurisdiction any longer.
• Others have direct parallels to civilian life, but the jurisdiction is quite different. I am subject to the laws of Illinois, not the UCMJ.

This is a brief and simplistic explanation, but it a way forward toward understanding the relationship between the laws of the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

Here is an interesting question - which law is it that God wrote upon our hearts when He saved us?!

I used to believe and preach a trichotomized approach to Law. But over time and after sitting in on John Feinberg lectures, I came to see the Mosaic Code as the operating system of the Mosaic Covenant and not as a universal code of human conduct, not even the 10 commandments. That said, I think that many Mosaic laws can be categorized into one of the three. But there certainly are squishy ones that don’t really fit so well, and the fact that no-one in the long train of biblical history makes these sort of distinctions should give us pause from making it part of the operating system.

I like Tyler’s illustrations about UCMJ and his life as civilian.

I’ve illustrated it using references to the Articles of Confederation (1781) versus the US Constitution (1789). The Articles are part of our heritage and are informative and valuable, but they do not codify the system under which we live.

It’s entirely possible to group portions of the Law into three types for some purpose yet not separate them at all for other purposes.

When speaking of the covenant relationship God established with Israel, the Law is one, a unit. When considering what sort of stipulations it included, it’s pretty easy to see the difference between ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘don’t wear garments woven of differing fibers.’

The real question isn’t “Are there 3 different kinds of rules in the Law?” but rather, “What basis do we have for handling the different kinds of rules differently today?” More precisely, is there any NT reason to suppose that stipulations of type A continue to be binding but stipulations of type B and/or C do not?

My view is that God’s standard of righteousness is timeless and the Mosaic covenant is but one expression of it for a particular group of people for a particular space of time. The entire covenant, with all of its stipulations, regardless of type, has been superseded (Paul specifically includes the parts ‘engraved in stone’ as passing away). However, some of it’s rules are identical to God’s timeless standard of righteousness (His Law—in the higher, non-Mosaic sense).

To say it another way, “do no murder” as Mosaic covenant requirement is defunct, but “do no murder” as God’s standard of righteousness endures. (Not coincidentally, the standards of righteous conduct that endure are all repeated and reapplied in the NT… but it is not accurate to say that a piece of the Mosaic Covenant is binding today on people who are not even parties to the covenant.)

…looks to me like Tyler’s analogy of the UMCJ vs. civilian law is a good illustration of what I’m talking about.

Aaron,

You stated, “Not coincidentally, the standards of righteous conduct that endure are all repeated and reapplied in the NT.”

Would you agree that bestiality is still wrong? I don’t think that is repeated in the NT.

I think the position that we only obey laws that are repeated in the NT is a slippery slope.

Bill

It’s interesting to note that the author really misses the point about the division; it does not follow from rabbinic literature or the basic structure of the Torah at all, but rather from how Christ, Paul, and the other New Testament authors deal with the law. The moral portion of the law is largely repeated in the New Testament, while the civil and ceremonial laws are largely rebuked in places like Galatians.

We might also posit that the reason the moral law is kept and the others are not is that the ceremonial laws were intended for Temple worship—we now being the Temple and being cleaned by the blood of the lamb, it no longer applies—and that we are no longer Israel, as Tyler notes.

I would also agree that “only holding to the laws that are repeated in the New Testament” is a somewhat perilous position, but really….part of moral calculus is applying what we know (say Romans 1 regarding homosexuality as a penalty for sin) and considering what we don’t know (say bestiality) in light of what we do. That’s what we do with abortion, tobacco, most of our hard drugs, and the like, no?

The goal of using the trichotomies seems to be to identify the Moral and then use that classification as a justification of extending it to the Church age. As Larry says, compartmentalizing isn’t a valid scriptural method.

how Christ, Paul, and the other New Testament authors deal with the law.

Bert, Can you point us to the NT examples of this?

Larry, good question. For New Testament examples of where the moral law is referenced by Christ, of course you start with the Sermon on the Mount. Go also to Romans 1.

For passages which make clear that the ceremonial laws do not apply, look then to Jesus’ teaching on inner and outer cleanliness, Peter’s “Kill and eat” experience, and the book of Galatians.