Responding to an Argument Against the Tripartite Division of the Law

[frog]

I recently came across the following progressive covenantal argument against the tripartite division of the law (cf. at 9marks) in the context of addressing the Mosaic law's place in civil government.

I do not agree with his view on the threefold division of the law. But I am struggling to pinpoint the exact errors in his argument against the tripartite division; it feels like a mess of confusion to me. Examples:

• His appeal to Jesus in Gal. 4:4 to settle the meaning of the phrase "under the law" throughout all of Paul's epistles as being under the Mosaic covenant feels off.
• His discussion of Romans 10:4 but omits "for righteousness".
• Omits any discussion of the particularly relevant passages for the ceremonial law such as Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:16-17 or Hebrews.
• And more.

What are the errors in this argument?

 

[No Other Name]

Good morning, Luke. Please be clear. I am no one here. I am just a guy. That being said, your parphrases of his argument is rather unclear on the whole.

His appeal to Jesus in Gal. 4:4 to settle the meaning of the phrase "under the law" throughout all of Paul's epistles as being under the Mosaic covenant feels off.

I am not sure I follow. Are you saying - even in Romans 7 - he has no differentiation even between the "law of sin and death" and the "law of God"?

His discussion of Romans 10:4 but omits "for righteousness".

This phrasing of his argument is completely incomprehensible to me. I have no idea what you mean here.

Omits any discussion of the particularly relevant passages for the ceremonial law such as Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:16-17 or Hebrews.

Are you saying that when he approaches these verses, he sees no ceremonial law? This sentence is not even an argument at all; rather, simply a re-statement of the differing interpretations of Scripture you two are dealing with.

Please clarify. God bless you.

 

[dsanch1120]

Do you perhaps have a link to the 9Marks article? I’m having trouble understanding what the argument is

 

[frog]

That being said, your parphrases of his argument is rather unclear on the whole.

Hello Brad, it is indeed, apologies!

I was not intending to paraphrase his entire argument, but in the examples given I was trying to: (1) give examples of what seem to be errors to me (but my own thinking on the nature of the errors is muddled, hence the exact errors "feels like a mess of confusion to me") and (2) I was only alluding to portions of the argument and not intending to replicate it. I linked to this article, but the links don't seem to be displaying on the board.

I am not sure I follow. Are you saying - even in Romans 7 - he has no differentiation even between the "law of sin and death" and the "law of God"?

His first claim in the argument is that the Greek term for "law" in the Pauline epistles almost always refers to the law of the Mosaic covenant. In the footnote he does mention that it can mean the Pentateuch and maybe a principle in the case of Rom. 3:27; 7:21; 8:2. But on the main it refers to the Mosaic covenant at Sinai. He concludes this point by saying:

The point thus far is that the legislation at Sinai was indivisible from the covenant that framed and gave rise to it. It is illegitimate to divorce the Sinai covenant from its legal content, since the former is the basis for the latter, and the latter gives expression to the former. Hence, the term νόμος in Paul’s letters can be translated as “law-covenant,” since it refers to the law code of the Sinai covenant. Any discussion of Paul’s view of the law of Moses must therefore take into account the law’s inseparability from the Sinai covenant. If in Paul’s theology the Sinai covenant is deemed obsolete, so must its law code.

On the basis that (1) "law" should in general be understood as the Sinai "law-covenant" of Moses (which he argued for previously) and, (2) Paul uses the phrase in Gal. 4:4 with reference to Jesus, he argues that "under the law" means "under the covenant legislation of Sinai". The phrase "under the law" does not mean first and foremost "under the curse of the law" or "under the dominion of sin" since neither of these apply to Jesus; it can only mean those in as much as the Sinai covenant was "impotent". I believe that to be his argument for this point.

My claim was that this doesn't feel like the correct way to argue for and understand the phrase "under the law". Emphasis on "feel like" as my thoughts are unformed.

This phrasing of his argument is completely incomprehensible to me. I have no idea what you mean here.

Sorry, that should have read: 'He discusses Romans 10:4 but omits "for righteousness"'. That's still unclear though.

I may be wrong on this point (another example of my muddled thinking which I'm seeking help to correct). It is my understanding that when people talk about Christ being "the end of the law" (which he does in his argument) it is quite important to notice Paul's qualifying phrase "the end of the law for righteousness" (Rom. 10:4). It seemed like the focus of his argument was that Christ was the "end of the law" full stop, not "end of the law" with regards to righteousness. But I might be wrong here.

Are you saying that when he approaches these verses, he sees no ceremonial law? This sentence is not even an argument at all; rather, simply a re-statement of the differing interpretations of Scripture you two are dealing with.

I am not saying that when he approaches these verses he sees no ceremonial law. I would expect as much. I am saying this:

1. The author is interacting with the threefold division of the law.
2. These verses are crucial in the formation and justification of the threefold understanding of the Mosaic law.
3. It thus seems strange to not interact with these verses, when they are seen as critical to the discussion.

I wasn't attempting to make an argument, merely point out that it seemed like a strange omission.

In conclusion, my examples were poorly worded (sorry!) and were intended to allude to his argument but not paraphrase it. Without the link to his argument, they would make little to no sense.

 

[frog]

Do you perhaps have a link to the 9Marks article? I’m having trouble understanding what the argument is

I keep trying to link it. But it is not working. The article is tilted "A Progressive Covenantal Perspective: Paul and the Tripartite Division of Moses' Law" in the latest 9marks journal.

 

[frog]

The original argument seems to depend a lot on a work by Rosner "Paul and the Law". Guy Waters has a helpful review (https://www.reformation21.org/articles/Paul-and-the-law.php) of Rosner's work that while stating some of its positive merits also points out its deficiencies.

I think there may be an overlap between the original argument and Rosner's.

 

[iainduguid]

One of the frustrations I have with these discussions (which I have regularly with reputable NT scholars) is that they frequently say "I don't believe in the threefold division of the law", whereas what they actually mean is "I think nomos is being used by Paul in a particular way in these passages". They will also say that they don't believe these distinctions are ever made in the use of nomos in the NT, which is again not the same thing as "There is no threefold division". They then often end up smuggling back in the same categories they just told you they don't believe in because, well, they are necessary after all (note the section "the reappropriation of the law of Moses" in the cited article; he's recreating the same threefold use he just argued against).

For example, ask people:
"Do you believe there are some laws in the OT that are universal for all people in all times and places?" Start with the obvious ones like "You shall not kill" and "You shall not steal"; if they claim that these laws are universal only because they are repeated in the NT, then move on to laws against bestiality. Do those laws against abusing animals have universal significance, even though not repeated? If the answer is yes, they believe in the category of "moral law" whatever they want to call it. If no, ask them how they know bestiality is wrong?

Then ask, "Do you believe that some OT laws were intended to point forward to Christ and so it would be sin for us to seek to continue them after his death and resurrection?" Again this shouldn't be too hard to prove: sacrifices are the obvious example. Unless they believe that we should still be offering a passover lamb each year, they believe in the category of "ceremonial law", whatever they want to call it.

Then ask, "What do you do with laws that seem to presuppose a setting in Israel - like the law requiring that new houses be built with a parapet around the roof (Deut. 22:8)? We built a new house in Grove City, PA, with no parapet. Were we in sin? Moreover, are those laws useless for contemporary believers, or might their be general principles that could legitimately be derived from them (general equity)? We were careful to specify ground fault interrupters on circuits in bathrooms and outside where there is a higher risk of electrocution, which fulfills the same desire to love my neighbor as the original law. (By the way, as you can see in the article that a playing down of general equity leads to them asserting that civil laws are completely abolished unless you are a theonomist, which is hardly the case). For an real NT example, see Paul's use of not muzzling an ox as the basis for paying pastors: he's using a civil law to provide a general principle that we should follow everywhere and at all times.

If you agree that such "reappropriations" of the OT law are appropriate, then you have agreed in principle with the threefold division of the law, even though you have lost the terminology that helps us discuss with precision the application of any particular law, which may have aspects on more than one of these kinds of law. Then we are down to the exegesis of particular passages and what aspect o the law Paul has in view. None of which necessarily disproves their case, but puts the focus on the interpretation of particular passages, where it belongs, rather than an entirely specious dismissal of useful distinctions.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Samuel Bolton deals with these texts and argues pretty conclusively that the moral law is universal and perpetual since creation, as opposed to the ceremonial or civil laws, doing so by appealing to many arguments from Scripture. If you take the time to read the first few chapters, you'll most likely find answers to these objections here:

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/bolton/The%20True%20Bounds%20of%20Christian%20Fr%20-%20Samuel%20Bolton.pdf

 

[JD]

I remain forever thankful that the puritanboard exists. Thank you for taking the time to respond to that, Dr. Duguid. That was very helpful to me.

In my (very limited) experience they've been usually up front about the fact that their rejection of the three-fold division is because of how they believe Paul uses "Law." And they've usually wanted to apply only the general equity of the entire law as a unit. They do indeed believe in a moral law, but do not believe it has been revealed in so many words.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

A Progressive Covenantal Perspective: Paul and the Tripartite Division of Moses’s Law

Christians must call their governments to pursue and maintain a divinely-given, objective standard of morality. But Paul did not hold forth the law of Moses as this standard.

www.9marks.org

 

[No Other Name]

From the article:

"The phrase “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον, hypo nomon) in Paul’s letters also suggests that Christians are free from the entire law of Moses. In the Pauline corpus the phrase appears in eleven verses, mostly in Romans and Galatians.[8] The law in view is the law-covenant of Moses, despite the absence of the Greek article modifying νόμος.[9] What does Paul mean when he speaks of a person or group being “under the law”? Given the lexically predominant referent of νόμος as the Sinai covenant’s legislation, to be “under the law” refers to being “under the Sinai covenant’s legislation.”[10] To be “under” a law-covenant is to be a member of that covenant community, to be obligated to do and keep that specific covenant’s stipulations. Some have stressed that “under the law” means to be “under the curse of the law” or “under the dominion of sin,”[11] and Paul can certainly align the law closely with sin and death (esp. cf. Rom. 6:14–15; Gal. 3:22–23). Nevertheless, this is not the formal meaning of the phrase but rather a function of the impotence of the Sinai law-covenant. Perhaps the clearest instance of this is Galatians 4:4, where the Son of God was born “under the law.” Surely Paul did not mean that God’s sinless Son was born under sin’s dominion! Rather, Jesus was born and grew up under the stipulations of the old covenant and, as a man, was obliged to keep its commands.

Not once does Paul claim that Christians are still “under the law” in any sense. Christians are not “under the law” but “under grace” (Rom. 6:14–15). Christians have been redeemed from a life “under the law” and adopted as God’s sons (Gal. 4:4–5). In the new covenant era, to live according to the Spirit is to be free from a life “under the law” (Gal. 5:18). In these texts, Paul never indicates that Christians are still obligated to keep parts of the law of Moses but not others. Attempts to show otherwise read implicit qualifications into the text and fail to observe what Paul actually says of the law as a whole, not simply its ceremonies.[12] Paul’s consistent distancing of Christians from a life “under the law” indicates they are free from the obligation to do and keep the stipulations of the Sinai covenant."

CITATIONS:

[8] Rom. 6:14–15; 1 Cor. 9:20 (4x); Gal. 3:23; 4:4–5, 21; 5:18.

[9] The absence of the article in Greek does not necessarily make a noun indefinite. Rather, in cases in which the noun is definite from its referent in the context—in its respective Pauline contexts νόμος has the established referent of the law of Moses—the absence of the article places the emphasis on the quality of the noun (in this instance, the legislative quality of the old law-covenant). See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 244–47, who applies this also to anarthrous objects of prepositions.

[10] Rightly Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 31; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2013), 47–59, though he notes (rightly) that in some instances the phrase connotes something negative because being under the old covenant was bound up with sin.

[11] For “under law” as “under the dominion of sin,” see Bahnsen, “Theonomic Reformed Approach,” 106–07. Douglas Moo (“The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View,” in Five Views on Law and Gospel [ed. Wayne G. Strickland; Counterpoints; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999], 366) suggests it refers to being under the power or regime of the law.

[12] On 1 Corinthians 9:20, Bahnsen (“Theonomic Reformed Approach,” 107–08) claims Paul must have had only the ceremonial law in mind since Paul wasn’t free to break the Decalogue. In response, perhaps Paul had in mind primarily his adherence to the Jewish food laws and calendar when describing his ministry among the Jews, but if so, that is only because those elements were some of the most recognizable evidences of a life “under the law,” not because the phrase “under the law” itself admits any limitations or divisions within it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One of the frustrations I have with these discussions (which I have regularly with reputable NT scholars) is that they frequently say "I don't believe in the threefold division of the law", whereas what they actually mean is "I think nomos is being used by Paul in a particular way in these passages". They will also say that they don't believe these distinctions are ever made in the use of nomos in the NT, which is again not the same thing as "There is no threefold division". They then often end up smuggling back in the same categories they just told you they don't believe in because, well, they are necessary after all (note the section "the reappropriation of the law of Moses" in the cited article; he's recreating the same threefold use he just argued against).

For example, ask people:
"Do you believe there are some laws in the OT that are universal for all people in all times and places?" Start with the obvious ones like "You shall not kill" and "You shall not steal"; if they claim that these laws are universal only because they are repeated in the NT, then move on to laws against bestiality. Do those laws against abusing animals have universal significance, even though not repeated? If the answer is yes, they believe in the category of "moral law" whatever they want to call it. If no, ask them how they know bestiality is wrong?

Then ask, "Do you believe that some OT laws were intended to point forward to Christ and so it would be sin for us to seek to continue them after his death and resurrection?" Again this shouldn't be too hard to prove: sacrifices are the obvious example. Unless they believe that we should still be offering a passover lamb each year, they believe in the category of "ceremonial law", whatever they want to call it.

Then ask, "What do you do with laws that seem to presuppose a setting in Israel - like the law requiring that new houses be built with a parapet around the roof (Deut. 22:8)? We built a new house in Grove City, PA, with no parapet. Were we in sin? Moreover, are those laws useless for contemporary believers, or might their be general principles that could legitimately be derived from them (general equity)? We were careful to specify ground fault interrupters on circuits in bathrooms and outside where there is a higher risk of electrocution, which fulfills the same desire to love my neighbor as the original law. (By the way, as you can see in the article that a playing down of general equity leads to them asserting that civil laws are completely abolished unless you are a theonomist, which is hardly the case). For an real NT example, see Paul's use of not muzzling an ox as the basis for paying pastors: he's using a civil law to provide a general principle that we should follow everywhere and at all times.

If you agree that such "reappropriations" of the OT law are appropriate, then you have agreed in principle with the threefold division of the law, even though you have lost the terminology that helps us discuss with precision the application of any particular law, which may have aspects on more than one of these kinds of law. Then we are down to the exegesis of particular passages and what aspect o the law Paul has in view. None of which necessarily disproves their case, but puts the focus on the interpretation of particular passages, where it belongs, rather than an entirely specious dismissal of useful distinctions.

This is so well stated.

Turning my attention to something else I grorw frustrated when I read it, is an inability for seemingly mature people to be able to see that Paul does not use the word "Law" in an identical sense in all places in the NT. It's been pointed out that Paul did not have a term for "legalism" as we do and he thus often talks about the use of the Law that is legalistic and depends on the power of the flesh that is set over and against the grace of God. This does not mean that the Mosaic Law itself is against grace but that a wrong conception of the place of the Law is against it. He also talks about the Law of sin and death as the principle of our dominion under the flesh apart from Christ. Finally, he'll talk about the Law as, well, the Law and even hands the Law "over" as it were from Moses to Christ as we obey Him.

I suppose it's frustrating to me because it's hard to imagine how someone has to work to miss the point that Paul is making in these texts.

 

[JD]

This is so well stated.

Turning my attention to something else I grorw frustrated when I read it, is an inability for seemingly mature people to be able to see that Paul does not use the word "Law" in an identical sense in all places in the NT. It's been pointed out that Paul did not have a term for "legalism" as we do and he thus often talks about the use of the Law that is legalistic and depends on the power of the flesh that is set over and against the grace of God. This does not mean that the Mosaic Law itself is against grace but that a wrong conception of the place of the Law is against it. He also talks about the Law of sin and death as the principle of our dominion under the flesh apart from Christ. Finally, he'll talk about the Law as, well, the Law and even hands the Law "over" as it were from Moses to Christ as we obey Him.

I suppose it's frustrating to me because it's hard to imagine how someone has to work to miss the point that Paul is making in these texts.

John Murray covers this issue well in his commentary on Romans 2-3.

 

[No Other Name]

I suppose it's frustrating to me because it's hard to imagine how someone has to work to miss the point that Paul is making in these texts.

I fear some are reading Romans through progressive/NCT scholarly sources and are satisfied to not need to be doing any more work than that.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I think this is the article that is being referenced in the original post:

https://www.9marks.org/article/a-pr...ul-and-the-tripartite-division-of-mosess-law/

 

[Poimen]

The problems with this approach have to do with what the article ignores and assumes:

1) That law always means "Mosaic law" in toto. One wonders to what degree Gentile believers are/were obligated to keep ceremonial laws before their conversion if we are going to say that they are no longer under that law.

2) If Gentiles were/are under the law and it exposes their sin for which Jesus died, then surely any action contrary to that law after redemption is sin and they have an obligation to avoid it. Call it what you will, but Moses' precepts in that sense then are still binding. He dismisses Romans 2:14 as hypothetical but it does not matter if it is hypothetical or not: what matters is that the Gentiles have a relationship to the law by virtue of an inward witness.

He says "In its zeal to uphold the law of God, the tripartite view dims the glory of the new covenant, in which we find God’s final and definitive covenant legislation written on his people’s hearts." But surely the promise in Jeremiah 31:33 refers to the placing of the Ten Commandments in the ark of the covenant itself, as distinguished from the other laws of Moses?

Witsius observes how Paul and James cites the law particularly or by precept in Romans 13:9 and James 2:8,11 “in the same terms in which they were delivered by Moses to Israel.” He especially points out from Ephesians 6:2 where Paul points to the promise as well as to order, first commandment with a promise. “if the decalogue, as it was formerly delivered to the church of Israel, did not concern Christians, that argument of the apostle, would have no force with Christians.” (Book 4, Chapter 4)

3) He does not address the arguments for the distinctions between the commandments which even the Old Testament itself teaches: Psalm 40:6. See also

Covenant Theology and the Moral Law

In regards to the covenant theology position can someone show me in the Bible where the moral law is revealed as the moral law? Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk

puritanboard.com

Beza's argument is also worth pursuing:

“And this very learned author [ed. Beza] himself has elsewhere observed, that the words חקים תודה ומשפטים, law, statutes, and judgments, are often synonymous; but whenever they are thus joined together, they are distinguished from each other by a peculiar signification, and that by תקים, is understood the moral law, by תקים, the ceremonial, and by משפטים, the forensic law.” (Witsius, Book 4, Chapter 4)

4) That there was no law that predated the covenant at Sinai. Consider the commandments regarding the Sabbath (Exodus 16) and God's statement about Abraham (Genesis 26:5). Moreover, the argument ignores Reformed teaching on the pre-fall covenant, and the place of natural law.

5) That the law given at Sinai was a covenant. He says "It was never intended to be an everlasting law-covenant " Many Reformed scholars do not adhere to that view. Witsius for example says that it not was formally a covenant of works or grace but a covenant of sincere piety for national Israel which assumed the existence of both covenants.

6) Last but not least, the article is written, in part, as a reaction to theonomy which is itself is a tertium quid. The author cannot be faulted for that since he states that at the outset, but since he is reacting to modern arguments (and interlocutors) he, or at least the sympathetic reader, misses the larger context of and & historic material of Reformed persuasion concerning the law.

 

[frog]

One of the frustrations I have with these discussions (which I have regularly with reputable NT scholars) is that they frequently say "I don't believe in the threefold division of the law", whereas what they actually mean is "I think nomos is being used by Paul in a particular way in these passages". They will also say that they don't believe these distinctions are ever made in the use of nomos in the NT, which is again not the same thing as "There is no threefold division". They then often end up smuggling back in the same categories they just told you they don't believe in because, well, they are necessary after all (note the section "the reappropriation of the law of Moses" in the cited article; he's recreating the same threefold use he just argued against).

Thank you very much Dr. Duguid! Your post was very illuminating.

If their "reappropriations" are in principle very similar categories, then what is the purpose of their enterprise?

When I looked at another article against the threefold division in the journal (cf. "Relating Moses' Law to Christians" by DeRouchie) there is a figure at the bottom of how Christ affects the law. Unclean foods are no longer binding. Laws against adultery are binding. Parapet building is binding in as much as it is the care of neighbour. But Sabbath is "transformed" to sustained rest. The first three would seem to agree with the threefold division; ceremonial law abrogated, moral law remains binding, judicial law in its general equity remains binding. But the last seems to diverge.

Is this all about the Sabbath?

 

[frog]

The problems with this approach have to do with what the article ignores and assumes:

Thank you Rev. Kok those points are really helpful!

3) He does not address the arguments for the distinctions between the commandments which even the Old Testament itself teaches: Psalm 40:6.

In another article, in the same 9marks journal but by a different author, titled "A Progressive Covenantal Perspective: Theonomy and Moses' Law" DeRouchie does talk about this point.

He notes that though the call to love is always more foundational than ritual, he still concludes:

Nevertheless, the Old Testament never distinguishes moral, civil, and ceremonial laws in the way the threefold division proposes. Leviticus 19, for example, shows little distinction between laws for it mixes calls to love one’s neighbor (vv. 11–12, 17–18) with various commands related to family (vv. 3a, 29), worship (vv. 3b–8, 26–28, 30–31), business practice (vv. 9–10, 13b, 19a, 23–25, 34b–36), care for the needy and disadvantaged (vv. 9–10, 13–14, 33–34), criminal and civil disputes (vv. 15–16, 35a), and ritual matters (v. 19b). Moses made no attempt to elevate certain laws over others.

But I don't understand how his last sentence comports with his claim of the primacy of morality, since that would seem to elevate certain laws over others.

With that aside, how would you respond to his objection that Leviticus 19 does not seemed organised around the moral, ceremonial, civil distinction but has all of these laws mixed throughout?

Beza's argument is also worth pursuing:

This is interesting. I have read through Philip Ross's work "From the Finger of God" and I thought he suggested that these words should not be understood as referring to moral, ceremonial and judicial; contra Beza. Is that correct or have I misunderstood Ross?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

how would you respond to his objection that Leviticus 19 does not seemed organised around the moral, ceremonial, civil distinction but has all of these laws mixed throughout?

I've no intention of answering in place of Poimen, but would like to offer my thought here. The quoted author merely assumes that a theory embracing a 3-fold (analytical) division of the law must have some sort of trouble dealing with Lev.19, which in his mind surely must arise when this chapter intersperses laws of presumably the three varieties shuffled like cards in a deck. Does the author propose any kind of reasoned approach to the Lev.19 collection? Does he assume the listing is ad hoc, a miscellany of sorts?

Prior to hauling out such a passage just to set it down and declare its self-evident refutational power, based on nothing but its unexamined composition, perhaps the author could have spent some time with a stack of commentaries on Leviticus, or perusing more refined studies of comparative ancient legal concatenation. Why is Lev.19 in the text of the book, why is it positioned in the Pentateuch the way it is, and what is the internal structure of the collection? The author's argument (it seems to me) is contingent on accepting that there is really no rational conclusions to be gained from contemplating such questions, which would then have further bearing on the "fruitless" analysis that recognizes three general categories of law within the Siniatic legislation.

Israel as a nation might benefit in any number of imagined ways from the Lev.19 collection particularly, or some other similar collection drawn up by an uninspired person. That such a thing might partake of the full spectrum of legal application does not strike me as any kind of substantive challenge to the analytic categorical distribution of various constitutional provisions. If we came to Lev.19 thinking the only "tool" for our study was the "hammer" of 3-fold division, maybe we would be frustrated by its lack of utility in the moment; but who among the Reformed claims that's the right tool to use there?

Lev.19 is not a rock that needs smashing up into component crumbs, the better to see it for what it is. I can see Lev.19 as a composite collection, comprised of laws of various categorization, which are united in a unique teaching purpose not reducible to its subdivided components. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. That's all I need to refute the allegation that the 3-fold division thesis is rendered null by the mere existence of Lev.19.

 

[iainduguid]

To add to Bruce's excellent points, it always seems to me that there is a strong element of Biblicism in this approach: if the Bible is not ordered according to certain categories, those categories must be dismissed. I've often wondered what happens to the doctrine of the Trinity, if approached similarly to the threefold use of the law. If the Bible never uses Chalcedonian distinctions, are they automatically illegitimate? What do you put in their place?

 

[Poimen]

Thank you Rev. Kok those points are really helpful!


In another article, in the same 9marks journal but by a different author, titled "A Progressive Covenantal Perspective: Theonomy and Moses' Law" DeRouchie does talk about this point.

He notes that though the call to love is always more foundational than ritual, he still concludes:

But I don't understand how his last sentence comports with his claim of the primacy of morality, since that would seem to elevate certain laws over others.

With that aside, how would you respond to his objection that Leviticus 19 does not seemed organised around the moral, ceremonial, civil distinction but has all of these laws mixed throughout?


This is interesting. I have read through Philip Ross's work "From the Finger of God" and I thought he suggested that these words should not be understood as referring to moral, ceremonial and judicial; contra Beza. Is that correct or have I misunderstood Ross?

Bruce and Iain make some helpful points. I also would concede the author's point concerning a lack of organization of the laws in Leviticus 19, but I do not think it is fatal to the traditional view.

Indeed we would expect that the revelation of law to Israel would be, at times, a composite or indivisible whole since they had no liberty to dispense with the legislation being a covenanted nation whose very existence and governance was directly under God's control and guidance (recalling to mind Paul's argument in Galatians 4 that the law functioned as a tutor for a people whose state, at that time, was that of immaturity). But that does not set aside where the Ten Commandments are clearly seen as foundational and distinct from the rest of the legislation (N.B. distinctly counted Exodus 34:28 cf. Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4), anymore than Paul's understanding of how Abraham was justified in Romans 4 obscures James' perspective in chapter 2 of his epistle.

Concerning Mr. Ross, I do not know him nor am I familiar with his work. I inserted Witsius' reference to Beza as something that would be worthy of consideration though admittedly I have not pursued his line of thought myself. But even if it were to be founding wanting, I think the data still supports the traditional view.

 

[frog]

Thank you Bruce, your post was very helpful.

The quoted author merely assumes that a theory embracing a 3-fold (analytical) division of the law must have some sort of trouble dealing with Lev.19, which in his mind surely must arise when this chapter intersperses laws of presumably the three varieties shuffled like cards in a deck.

What do you mean by analytical division?

To add to Bruce's excellent points, it always seems to me that there is a strong element of Biblicism in this approach

That's quite interesting. Do you know where I could read more about Biblicism and its Scriptural alternative?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What do you mean by analytical division?

I mean (similar to how it was previously put by Dr Duguid, if in other words) that the 3-fold division of the Law is an analytic tool for studying the law. No one ever looked for a verse in Exodus or Deuteronomy where Moses wrote that the fundamental Israelite legal corpus could be neatly broken down into three lesser collections. If one rejects the 3-fold division, what's he left with? A dense singularity of revelation that defies interpretation, and may be conveniently ignored on the basis of a simplistic regard for the introduction of a New Covenant and some Pauline commentary. What about the typological utility of the ceremonials? The writer of Hebrews includes a couple chapters that bear witness to Old Covenant ceremonial typology pointing to Christ, but he's inspired--so just stick with the NT? Perhaps some people are content with generally accepting that the Old Covenant pointed to Christ, with meager interest in how the signs manifested beyond a few NT hints; but if they are curious, they are going to need a conceptual tool that will help them navigate the intricacies of the revelation at Sinai.

Certain complete laws, especially if complex, might partake of two or even three of the categories we've come up with. No one doubts that the judicial laws of Israel were predicated on the moral law, which is where we obtain the concept of the "general equity" that undergirded them, and is that substance which "may require" some modern expression in a comparative fashion (because "the moral law doth forever bind all") though the judicials themselves are dead (expired). This dependency is observable e.g. in the "Book of the Covenant," Ex.20:22-23:33, in which the moral cornerstone (Ex.20:1-17) is in a general way developed according to the original Ten Commandments; or consider the series of Moses' sermons recorded in Deuteronomy (see J.Currid's commentary for his outline of Deuteronomy) which again have discernible relation to the foundational delivery by the Voice of God rehearsed in Dt.5:6-21. Some judicials of Israel could well-fit a primary relation to more than one moral command; e.g. kidnapping or man-stealing (Ex.21:16; Dt.24:7), is it a primary violation of the moral law in the 6th commandment, or the 8th, or some other? In the Ex. instance, the prohibition is grouped with several other laws clearly tied to decisions relating to murder or manslaughter. Perhaps, we should justly conclude that robbing a man of his liberty is not far removed from robbing him of life.

Non-covenant nations, then or now, shouldn't adopt laws against kidnapping because Israel had such in its constitutional law frame; but because a properly legally defined kidnapping is a plain violation of essential, universal morality. A summary of God's moral law in Ten Commandments formed the cornerstone of Israel's social order. With our God-given minds, we are able to recognize that's the function of those few words, and we give it the name "moral law." We can distinguish between those (also, the manner in which they were delivered) and the rest, some which were chiefly oriented to human relations, others which were chiefly oriented toward religious observance and national/covenantal distinction. The 3-fold division is an analytical tool that helps us gain appreciation for the covenant our faith-fathers lived under prior to Christ's advent.

 

[iainduguid]

That's quite interesting. Do you know where I could read more about Biblicism and its Scriptural alternative?

Well, the opposite of Biblicism is simply good Systematic Theology, so any text that introduces a proper Reformed understanding of Systematic Theology should help. You could start with John Murray's essay "Systematic Theology" in volume 4 of his collected writings. To be sure, there is always a danger of ST becoming divorced from its Biblical foundations and ending in unfruitful speculation, but the logical impetus of ST that gathers the diverse fruits of exegesis into an organized and unified whole is not to be devalued.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I always enjoy reading Bruce and Iain.

The problem with Biblicists is that they'll always ask for a specific Bible verse that proves the Trinity or some other doctrine they don't like, but then they'll develop some sort of teaching that is systematic and make themselves immune to the charge because they are just being "Biblical".

We don't say that God is any of His attributes based on a single text, but because you pick up things after spending time with anything. You notice what He says. You notice how He acts and then you start putting things together.

It's a rather lazy charge to simply say that God nowhere reveals His Law as tri-partite. Anyone who writes that might otherwise be a decent teacher but, on that point, it's a really dumb objection.

I write this even as I've taken up a book that a Pastor friend gave me on the Book of Ecclesiastes. In the middle of listening to it, I started to reflect on all the places in the Scriptures where a writer has his gaze on the things of this world and then looks "up", as it were, from what is happening and his reason returns to him. It made me realize how much Biblical knowledge lacks wisdom because God has interspersed wisdom in such a way that it requires a mixture of searching, time, and obedience. You won't find that in a single verse of Scripture, but it's Biblical.