This post is the second in a series of 4.
The Tripartite Division of the Law is Not Arbitrary
It is claimed that the tripartite division is an arbitrary set of distinctions imposed upon scripture, and so shouldn’t be used to determine the exegesis of a passage. If Paul was not aware of the distinction between moral, civil and ceremonial, then how could he employ that distinction in his letters?
The problem is so many people presuppose this point: that the division is a set of extra biblical categories and not derived from scripture itself. The classical Reformed view on the law is then simply dismissed. I’m not going to attempt to construct an air tight case for the tripartite division which destroys all possible disagreement – but I do want to demonstrate that it cannot be simply dismissed on the basis that there is no biblical case to disagree with in the first place.
1. In scripture, unity does not rule out diversity. It is often argued that because the law is a united whole, and is spoken of as such, it cannot be considered to be made up of three parts. I reply, there are not three parts, there is one united law, but within that unity there is diversity.
Deuteronomy testifies to the unity and diversity of the law by referring to both at the same time, take Deuteronomy 6:1 for example (ESV):
Now this is the commandment [singular], the statutes and the rules [plural]…
The diversity is not only expressed in the plural, but also in the use of different terms to describe the content of the law. More on that in a moment, but the point here is simply that diversity exists and is not logically ruled out by unity.
2. The Old and New Testaments recognise hierarchy within the Mosaic Law. There are clearly distinctions made between different types of commandments. The most often cited example would be Hosea 6:6:
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
The term “sacrifice” here is associated by Jesus with a wider category of legal demands. So, love for sinners is desired rather than ritual purity from contamination by them (Matt 9:13); later kindness is desired, not Sabbath observance (Matt 12:7). Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for failing to recognise this hierarchical distinction within the law, and he does not seem to think Hosea 6:6 only refers literally to sacrifices, but a more general principle.
David clearly recognises a distinction between the act of sacrifice, and the heart attitude of repentance (Psalm 51:16-17).
3. Scripture itself uses different words to describe different commandments, recognising that different commandments have different qualities. Jonathan F. Bayes has written a great essay on the threefold division of the law and makes the point about scripture’s language very clearly (while you’re there, you may want to check out more stuff from the Christian Institute – great Anglican public theology).
He uses the example of Deuteronomy 5:31, which has the three most common words that are used to distinguish between the different aspects of the law:
I will tell you the whole commandment and the statutes and the rules
One must be very careful when doing word studies, but they can render very fruitful results if done responsibly. In his excellent exposition of Psalm 119, Bible Delight, Christopher Ash similarly demonstrates how the eight words used to refer to God’s Law in that Psalm each carry different nuances, and are used together to convey a variety of ideas (pp 32-42).
Now at different points of scripture the different terms for God’s law may be used (a) as synonyms of each other, (b) to emphasise different aspects of the law, or (c) to refer to different qualities within the law. Even as early as Moses’ description of Abraham we have these different terms being deployed to describe his obedience (Gen 26:5).
4. Paul clearly assumes divisions between moral and cultural laws. In Romans 2, Paul demonstrates how all people are condemned: those under the law are condemned by the law; those outside the law will perish because they do not have the law (which is the route to life).
Spiritual life does not consist in becoming a Jew and getting under the law. Neither does it consist in becoming a Gentile and getting out from under the law. Paul shall argue that salvation comes through Christ, whom will fulfil the law to provide salvation.
“Law” is always the route to salvation, but only if it’s obeyed. Gentiles can’t obey it because they don’t have it. Jews can’t obey it because they’re sinful. Christians have obeyed it, because Jesus has obeyed it for them.
As part of his argument in Romans 2, Paul distinguishes between two aspects of the law, verses 14-16:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Notice: (a) There is a distinction between the law the Gentiles do not have, and yet what is written on their hearts; (b) Yet this is simultaneously the same law; (c) This law is the basis for the final judgement.
Paul assumes a distinction in the law between the moral (the normative role of the law as the basis upon which all will be judged) and the cultural (the law’s role in distinguishing Jews and Gentiles). Yet it is the same law being talked about.
5. Whatever the hermeneutic of the New Testament, the end result is a tripartite application of the Law. It is true that the tripartite division has been wrongly used by people within the Reformed tradition. Sometimes it has been too liberally employed as “the” mysterious key to bridging the biblical theological jump from Old to New Testament without enough exegetical control.
I don’t think Calvin does treat the tripartite division as biblical theology’s hermeneutical key (as I’ll try to show later), but I want to argue here that whatever the hermeneutic used by the New Testament: the end result is the tripartite division. Let’s see some examples.
Some laws have become adiaphora, such as circumcision (Gal 6:15), food laws (Rom 14:6, 13-14), holy days (Rom 14:5-6). We might also include purity rites and the Nazirite vow, as it seems Paul was free to continue to obey these (Acts 21:23-24). These things are only treated as gospel issues when they are turned into something more than adiaphora.
Of course some laws have already – before the advent of the New Testament – begun to be abrogated. Such as laws regulating Israel’s government, and monarchy. Paul feels free to make a tactical decision to appeal to the Roman courts over-above the Jewish courts (Acts 25:1-12).
Hebrews argues that the entire cult was abrogated by Christ (Heb 10:9). How can it be that the cult is abrogated, and Christians are taught to dissociate themselves with the cult and the earthly Jerusalem (Heb 13:9-16; Gal 4:21-26), and yet as we saw Paul can continue to obey various purity rites (Acts 21:23-24)? Some sort of distinction is made between these laws as the New Testament applies them to believers lives.
Finally, Paul clearly applies the law to believers lives expecting it to be obeyed. Not just the commandments which were affirmed by Jesus (Eph 6:1-3), but also seemingly obscure commandments, such as in 1 Cor 9:8-10:
then explainsDo I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing the crop.
Paul clearly thinks the law speaks to Gentile Christians authoritatively. This commandment abides for them. It’s no good arguing that this is an apostolic reinterpretation of the commandment as Paul is referring to the law as a higher authority above himself – here he does not merely speak on human authority because scripture pronounces on the matter. Paul is confident of his authority as an apostle, but that is not his argument here.
Neither can we say that we cannot ever figure out how the Corinthians understood the verse – because Paul explains it for us and it’s pretty straightforward. Paul treats the law like an ANE law code (which it is) – it demonstrates a principle, ANE legal culture did not spell everything out in minutiae as we do in the West today (no paper you see).
The real concern of the law is with people, not oxen. Even though the principle is illustrated using oxen, it is rightly and properly applied to men and women. Paul even spells out the principle: he who does the work should get the reward.
In the NT, some OT laws are treated as ceremonial depictions of Jesus. Some of them are treated as distinctly Jewish, either cultural or legal. Some of them are treated as abiding and authoritative, even for Gentile Christians.
6. The commands of the New Testament themselves contain elements which are moral, civil and ceremonial. It’s argued that even if we can see evidence of tripartite distinction in the law when we look at it with the hindsight of the NT, the Jews would never have been able to make such distinctions before Jesus. For them the whole law was given from God. It is then argued that this opaqueness remains for us also – therefore we can only “categorise” laws that are explicitly mentioned in the NT.
But this does not ring true of New Testament law. Any evangelical will recognise that there are distinctions of importance, nature and quality in the commands of the New Testament, even though scripture never explicitly outlines the categories for us.
What about the “command” to repent and believe in Jesus. Is faith a “command” – a “law” – just like any other? No. That has been suggested in evangelical circles recently by the New Perspective and the Federal Vision, and many of us in response have drawn clear distinctions between the command to believe and the commands to live ethical lives. Right distinctions, but not distinctions that the NT explicitly draws for us. We’re just being adults, and recognising that the gospel makes such distinctions necessary and possible.
Or what about the Great Commission?
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
The Salvation Army evangelise and teach, but they do not baptise. Many Anglo-Catholics and liberals baptise, but they do not evangelise and teach. Tell me, Evangelical, are they both in equal error? No!
I think the Salvation Army are wrong to teach but not to baptise, but that is nowhere near as serious as baptising but not teaching. But does the Great Commission explicitly say this? No. But just like for the Israelite regarding the Mosaic law, the shape of salvation teaches me to recognise the difference between different commands in the NT law.
In the NT we have:
Moral commands: e.g. sexual ethics (1 Cor 5); instructions for marriage and relationships (1 Cor 7); and for family life (Eph 5:22-6:9); personal moral conduct (Rom 12; Eph 5; Col 3); instructions for engaging with society (Rom 13:1-7).
Judicial commands: e.g. instructions for dealing with disagreements in relationship to the church leadership (Matt 18:15-20); specific requirements for the conduct of meetings (1 Cor 14); including instructions which depend on gender (1 Cor 11; 1 Tim 2).
Ceremonial commands: baptism and the Lord’s Supper
These distinctions clearly exist, and they determine how we treat the particular issue, its importance, its relevance, what sphere it needs to be dealt with in, etc. Disagreements over gender roles in church meetings, for example, are very different from disagreements over sexual ethics.
I’m sure we could find more examples. There are clear distinctions in New Testament law, which are not explicitly outlined in the New Testament. Yet we know what those distinctions are and consider them crucial. The Israelites did not need three big tick lists to distinguish between moral, civil and ceremonial. Neither do we.
7. Wisdom is the hermeneutical tool needed to distinguish to what extent different laws are moral, civil, or ceremonial. This involves deriving hermeneutical principles from scripture shaped by the nature of God and his salvation (e.g. the outstanding work of Christopher Wright). Just about no area of exegesis or Christian discernment can be done with a clear grid which applies flatly in rigorously black and white terms everywhere. Similarly, you can’t specifically fit different laws directly and neatly into the different categories. That doesn’t mean the categories aren’t useful or biblical.
Even if you disagree with what I’ve said here, at least we must acknowledge that there is a biblical case to be made for the tripartite division. I hope I have at least demonstrated that the tripartite division can’t be simply dismissed as arbitrary. There is at least a scriptural case that needs to be refuted.
No Comments