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

[Greg Long]

Wayne, doesn’t that passage pretty clearly say that we are released from the Law and no longer bound by it?

It does, indeed. We are not “under the law.” I only said that because it is “holy, righteous and good” it is a worthy guide. If God thinks it is holy, righteous and good, it is a manifestation of His nature and moral will.

I’ll go back to the Westmintser Confession again, not because I’m a creedalist. I’m not. But the great creeds often state things wonderfully well. It simply affirms that the moral law, which is reflected in the Ten Commandments, is binding. In some sense all Christians agree there is a moral law that is binding, I think this discussion is about whether the Mosaic Law contains important aspects of that moral Law. I think it most certainly does..

vI. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to 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.

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, 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 thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a 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.

VII. Neither are the forementioned 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, requires to be done.

I just can’t find much wrong here, and it seems to fit Paul’s understanding of the Law as giving definition to love, which is the law of Christ. (Rom 13:8-10)

Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

He seems quite concerned that as a matter of sanctification, we “fulfill the law” in this way.

As I consider the law, I first look a the commands given to Noah and then look at those given to Moses. We are all descended from Noah. At the time the law of Moses was given there were also many descendants of Noah on the earth besides the Hebrew people but they were not all given the Hebrew law. They were however allowed to become proselytes and become Hebrews. It seems that there were actually 2 options for the Gentiles of the OT who became proselytes. They could be a proselyte of the temple by being circumcised and obeying all of the Mosaic law, or they could be a proselyte of the gate and simply dwell among the Hebrews only having to obey the law given to Noah.

As we come to the New Testament we find the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, and what they did reaffirmed the law of Noah. The point is that God had expectations for man even before Moses and He has expectations for us today, but the law of Moses is no longer in effect. It was in effect for the specific purpose to lead us to the savior. Let us also remember as we read the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of the Gospels (with the exception of the final chapters), that Jesus was speaking to a Hebrew audience who were still under the OT law since He had not yet gone to the cross. His preaching was further showing us how much we needed a savior.

[Wayne Wilson]

Aaron Blumer wrote:

In the case of the Romans quote, I’m not sure Paul is even talking specifically about Mosaic Law there, but rather God’s standard of righteousness in general… which always condemns us, regardless of OT or NT expressions. But even if he is referring to Moses, his pt. is that as a standard of righteousness the law is good and holy and reveals that we are not. He isn’t teaching there that some portion of the Mosaic Covenant stipulations is still binding.

Aaron, I’m not understanding how you could think Paul wasn’t talking about the Law of Moses in Romans 7. Can you explain that view a bit more? He references it directly several times and speaks of when the commandment came. How can that square with a “general” standard of righteousness?

6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.”

I’m afraid I’ve only got a pretty weak answer to that one. My phrase by phrase study of the passage was a while ago. But I recall thinking that in places he spoke of “law” (there is frequently no def. article in the Greek… so I’m not sure “the law” is really even a good translation) in ways far to broad to refer specifically to Moses… and in other places speaks specifically of Moses. I suspect that the ref’s to the 10 commandments are illustrative of God’s standard of righteousness. After all—see Jesus and also other epistle texts—covetousness is not a specifically Mosaic prohibition.

If the view is correct that the Mosaic Cov’t Code is an expression of a higher law, it’s not a huge leap to see Paul using bits of Moses to make a point about the higher law. (Part of the problem is that by the time you get to Rom. 8 you have the Spirit effectively producing obedience to “law” in believers.)

Edit… here’s part of the Rom. 8 text. Note that “law” is used here in two necessarily-different senses:

2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:2-4, ESV2011)

Applying the Law to NT believers is what is hard. All Scripture….including the Torah is inspired AND profitable (2 Tim. 3:16-17); it is meant for us to study and use – and therein lies the complexity.

The approach I used when preaching through Deuteronomy was to look for underlying principles that were also evident in other passages of Scripture. In the case of the 10 commandments, for example, we’re most there already in passages such as Gal. 5:14 and Rom. 13:9-10 (and James 2.8). So I think these show us a pattern.

We see similar things done with Deut. 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Tim 5:18.

But the process is a bit more difficult with passages like, say, Deut. 23!