The Three-fold Division of the Law

[Martin Marprelate]

On another thread, @JonC wrote:

The Law is just, but it is also a covenant (there is no "moral Law", "ceremonial Law", "dietary Law" as it is one Law ans one covenant)

The divisions are actually 'moral,' 'ceremonial' and 'judicial.' This is my mistake rather than Jon's as I wrote 'dietary' without thinking.
Perhaps some suppose that the Three-fold division of the Law is a doctrine of the Reformed churches, as indeed it is, but its origins go back a lot further than that. Back in the 13th Century, Aquinas wrote:
'We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. 'moral' precepts, which are dictated by the natural law, 'ceremonial' precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and 'judicial' precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men.'
I have also quotations from Augustine and Tertullian if anyone wants to see them.

From the Bible, in Deuteronomy 5:22, we learn that only the Decalogue was spoken by God Himself, and only those were written on stone tablets. Elsewhere (Exodus 32:15-16) we learn that the writing of the Decalogue was on both sides of the tablets so that no more could be added. The rest of the Mosaic law was given to Moses apparently by angels (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). So the Decalogue was special. With those thoughts in mind, let's look a little further at the word of God.
1 Sam. 15:22. 'Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the word of the LORD?'
Hosea 6:6. 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.'
Proverbs 21:3. 'To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.'
Amos 5:21-24. "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savour your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings. Take awy from Me the noise of your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments. But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream." Maybe some churches today should heed these words! Isaiah 1:10-17 makes much the same point.
Jeremiah 6:19-20. "Hear, O earth! Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people - the fruit of their thoughts - because they have not heeded My words nor My law, but rejected it. For what purpose comes frankincense from Sheba, and sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet to Me.'

In the N.T. we have Hebrews 10:5 (referencing Psalm 40:6-8). 'Therefore when [Christ] came into the world, He said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold I have come - in the volume of the book it is written of Me - to do Your will, O My God.'"'
So the ceremonial part of the law is fulfilled by Christ's once-for-all offering on the cross. The judicial part of the law was abrogated by Christ in John 8:1-2. We are no longer stoning people for adultery, but rather we admonish them in our Lord's words: "Go and sin no more." The judicial law is long past and Paul bids us obey the laws of our own countries where that does not prevent us from worshipping Christ. 'Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God.....' Romans 13:1).

 

[JonC]

On another thread, @JonC wrote:

The divisions are actually 'moral,' 'ceremonial' and 'judicial.' This is my mistake rather than Jon's as I wrote 'dietary' without thinking.
Perhaps some suppose that the Three-fold division of the Law is a doctrine of the Reformed churches, as indeed it is, but its origins go back a lot further than that. Back in the 13th Century, Aquinas wrote:
'We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. 'moral' precepts, which are dictated by the natural law, 'ceremonial' precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and 'judicial' precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men.'
I have also quotations from Augustine and Tertullian if anyone wants to see them.

From the Bible, in Deuteronomy 5:22, we learn that only the Decalogue was spoken by God Himself, and only those were written on stone tablets. Elsewhere (Exodus 32:15-16) we learn that the writing of the Decalogue was on both sides of the tablets so that no more could be added. The rest of the Mosaic law was given to Moses apparently by angels (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). So the Decalogue was special. With those thoughts in mind, let's look a little further at the word of God.
1 Sam. 15:22. 'Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the word of the LORD?'
Hosea 6:6. 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.'
Proverbs 21:3. 'To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.'
Amos 5:21-24. "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savour your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings. Take awy from Me the noise of your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments. But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream." Maybe some churches today should heed these words! Isaiah 1:10-17 makes much the same point.
Jeremiah 6:19-20. "Hear, O earth! Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people - the fruit of their thoughts - because they have not heeded My words nor My law, but rejected it. For what purpose comes frankincense from Sheba, and sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet to Me.'

In the N.T. we have Hebrews 10:5 (referencing Psalm 40:6-8). 'Therefore when [Christ] came into the world, He said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold I have come - in the volume of the book it is written of Me - to do Your will, O My God.'"'
So the ceremonial part of the law is fulfilled by Christ's once-for-all offering on the cross. The judicial part of the law was abrogated by Christ in John 8:1-2. We are no longer stoning people for adultery, but rather we admonish them in our Lord's words: "Go and sin no more." The judicial law is long past and Paul bids us obey the laws of our own countries where that does not prevent us from worshipping Christ. 'Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God.....' Romans 13:1).

The issue here is that the Mosaic Law cannot be divided.

When Paul speaks of transgressing the Law (Law of Moses) it is any transgression (theft, eating pork, weaving two different fabrics together, etc). The reason is that the Law (the Old Covenant) is a covenant. To violate any of the terms of the covenant is to become a curse under that covenant.

Every man who has been under the Law (Law of Moses) has become a curse under the Law because they have violated the Law. The Jews did this through their disobedience and became a curse. This was done to Jesus, for He was hung on a tree.

BUT there is a more significant law, which is God's law (the law of Christ). This is the righteousness of God.

God's law (God's righteousness) goes beyond rules to follow (do not kill, do not commit adultery) by showing what we must be - our heart, mind and spirit (do not hate, do not lust).

An unrighteous man can refrain from violating the Ten Commandments, but this will not make him righteous. The Law shows man his sin (there are 613 commands in the Law - an unrighteous man cannot love God and his neighbor).

But under God's law (the law of Christ) we fulfill the law. We do not hate, we do not just, we love God with all our heart, soul and strength. We love our neighbors as ourselves.

If we obey God's law (the law of Christ) then we do not need to be concerned about the Law (Law of Moses) which has not been in effect for 2k years.


The moral aspects of the Law (Law of Moses) still shows us our sin. But it is not a summary of God's righteousness (it is a summary of man's failure).

Instead the best summary of God's righteousness is God's law (the law of Christ). If we follow Christ then we fulfill all of the Law. When we violate God's law the Spirit teaches us, God disciplines us, Christ advocates for us, we repent, we are forgiven, we move "from glory to glory".


@Martin Marprelate , you and I agree on a lot when it comes to the Law (Law of Moses) and God's law as it applies to men. But we disagree on some points. You view the Decalogue (Aseret Hadibrot) as a summary of God's righteousness while I view God's law (the law of Christ) as God's righteousness because it is a deeper law (it is ontological and descriptive rather than prescriptive).

I need to add -

We know Paul was not talking about the "moral law" in Galatians 3 but instead the Law of Moses (the Old Covenant - the entire Law) because not only did he say the Jews disobeyed and became a curse but also that Jesus was made a curse under this Law by being hung on a tree.

Being hung on a tree was not a curse of a "moral law", but it was under the Old Covenant (the Law, the Law of Moses).

@Martin Marprelate noted (and I agree) that all are under God's law but Gentiles were not under the Law (the Law of Moses).

Yet Jesus was made a curse under the Law to redeem those from the Law who were curses under that Law. He became a curse under the Law by being hung on a tree (which is a curse under the Law of Moses).


The Law that was a "certificate of debt" that was "canceled" was not God's law (the law of Christ, God's righteousness) but the Law of Moses. It was canceled by being fulfilled (it is no longer in effect). But it is fulfilled in Christ.


The New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was a certificate of debt consisting of 613 commandments. It was prescriptive (do thos, do that). The New Covenant is descriptive (it is ontological, "be this").

The Law commanded unrighteous men to do only righteous things, and man's failure showed them they were unrighteous.

God's law (the law of Christ) transforms men so that righteous men by their new nature's do righteousness.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Sorry.... I just realized this was a different thread (I was just viewing responses).

I am not sure that it matters greatly what we call the categories (I have seen theologians divide up the Law under both categories you mentioned). I view "ceremonial, judicial and dietary" as not inclusive enough, but I am not sure that judicial adequately covers as dietary was more concerned with purity (which is not exactly moral, ceremonial or judicial).

But, all of the Law was considered judicial (not all moral, but all judicial in terms of divine justice/righteousness).

I think it is important to keep in mind that dividing up the Law into categories is a more modern method. Any violation - even those that were other's actions, like hanging on a tree - resulted in becoming a curse under the Law.

No flesh was justified under the Law (not even Christ, for He was made a curse as well under the Law). Punishment under the Law was temporal (designed to keep Israel a holy people rather than focused on the one being punished).

 

[JonC]

Again, @Martin Marprelate , my apology for mistaking this thread as responses to another. I'll continue by addressing the OP.

Perhaps some suppose that the Three-fold division of the Law is a doctrine of the Reformed churches, as indeed it is, but its origins go back a lot further than that.

I doubt many believe the Reformed churche were the first to divide the Law.

The Catholic Church is often credited with developing "Christian philosophy" or "Christian ethics" by being the first to divide the Law (the Old Covenant).

But I think we can assume by Paul's instance that the Law was a covenant which vpuld not be divided that men had been doing this before the Catholic Church existed (otherwise, why emphasize what was not being debated).

...only the Decalogue was spoken by God Himself, and only those were written on stone tablets. Elsewhere (Exodus 32:15-16) we learn that the writing of the Decalogue was on both sides of the tablets so that no more could be added. The rest of the Mosaic law was given to Moses apparently by angels (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). So the Decalogue was special.

The problem with your post is that it considers dome of God's words less than others. If God communicated His words through His angles thise words are no less God's words.

In Leviticus these commands you consider less than given by God Himself were given this way -

"Then the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them..."

Paul emphasizes the covenant nature of the Law (disobedience is to become a curse under the Law, Christ became a curse under the Law not by violating one of the Ten Commamdments but by being hung on a tree).

When asked about the Law and God's commandments, Jesus drew on Leviticus (what you are saying was not God's law) to give the two greatest commandments.

In Ezekiel the Law thar Israel violated were not one of the Ten Commandments but instead by adopting the statutes of their neighbors.

The Law is one covenant. If the Law were just the Ten Commamdments then Christ was not made a curse under the Law.


Your extraction of the 10 commandments as being the Law (minus God's statutes) is incorrect. The Law was God's commandments AND statutes (this is the "certificate of debt", not just ten of God's commandments but all 613 of God's commandments along with His statutes in the Old Covenant).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it is important to keep in mind that dividing up the Law into categories is a more modern method.

May I ask what you mean by "modern"? I quoted Thomas Aquinas who does not seem very modern to me, but perhaps he does to you. Whom would you regard as non-modern? Augustine? Tertullian? How about Barnabas? Just let me know and I'll give you a quote.

Other parts of your posts I will reply to as I have time. Since writing the O.P., I have been deluged with work for my church, especially the church plant which I am heading up. Had I realised how busy I shall be I would have delayed posting. But I think the issue is an important one, so I will continue it. One other point:

Your extraction of the 10 commandments as being the Law (minus God's statutes) is incorrect.

It would be had I claimed it. What I have previously written is that the Decalogue is a summary of God's eternal Law.

 

[JonC]

May I ask what you mean by "modern"?

Obviously I do not mean that dividing the Law itself is modern. I already said that Paul's insistence that the Law cannot be divided implies that some were trying to do such otherwise he would not have addressed it.

I mean the method itself (I probably should day the use...maybe).

It is one thing to say the Law can be viewed in three or four categories and yet another to divide the Law itself into separate categories.

The Law that Christ delivered those under the Law in order to bring the blessings to Gentiles made Him a curse for bring hung on a tree.

Hanging a man on a tree indicated a curse under what the Bible calls "the Law" (it is a statute, not one of the Ten Commandments).

That was the Law I was speaking of.

It would be had I claimed it. What I have previously written is that the Decalogue is a summary of God's eternal Law.

No. The Ten Commamdments are a part of the Law which was canceled. God's righteousness is not canceled.

The Bible gives us God's law (Christ's law). It is more significant than obedience as it is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

1. "Thou shalt not kill". Murder violates one of the Ten Commandments.

2. God's law (the law of Christ) tells us that if we have hate in towards another we are guilty.


Do you really not see the significance?

Under the Ten Commandments you could hate as long as you did not act on that hate.

The Law showed us our sins based on our actions

God's law says not to have hate in our heart for another. The Law is never violated if the source of all transgressions are not present to manifest those actions.

This is one reason the 10 Commanments is far from a summary of God's righteousness. There are other parts of the Law, also, which show us aspects of God's righteousness not present in the Big Ten.
Then you have God's righteousness throughout the Old Testament that have absolutely nothing to do with the Law, much less the Big Ten.


God's law itself is a summary of His righteousness. You are looking at the wrong law.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Obviously I do not mean that dividing the Law itself is modern.

I rather think you said it was.

I already said that Paul's insistence that the Law cannot be divided implies that some were trying to do such otherwise he would not have addressed it.

How about Galatians 6:15? 'Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what counts.' Under the Mosaic Law, no one could eat the Passover without being circumcised (Exod. 12:43ff). Now circumcision is done away with, but the Commandments remain.

I mean the method itself (I probably should day the use...maybe).

You will have to translate this into English for me. I don't know what you mean.

It is one thing to say the Law can be viewed in three or four categories and yet another to divide the Law itself into separate categories.

The Law that Christ delivered those under the Law in order to bring the blessings to Gentiles made Him a curse for bring hung on a tree.

Again, you need to be clearer; what are you saying?

Hanging a man on a tree indicated a curse under what the Bible calls "the Law" (it is a statute, not one of the Ten Commandments).

That was the Law I was speaking of.

This was part of the judicial law, and it was abrogated by the Lord Jesus as I explained. You are correct that it was not a part of the Decalogue.

No. The Ten Commamdments are a part of the Law which was canceled. God's righteousness is not canceled.

The Bible gives us God's law (Christ's law). It is more significant than obedience as it is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

1. "Thou shalt not kill". Murder violates one of the Ten Commandments.

2. God's law (the law of Christ) tells us that if we have hate in towards another we are guilty.

No. Christ in Matthew 5 is giving us the true interpretation of the Decalogue. It is not enough simply not to kill; we must not hate. It's not enough not to commit physical adultery; one must not look with lust at someone he's not married to. By extension this also applies to pornography, including the internet variety. But the Lord Jesus makes it clear that He is not giving a new law, but applying correctly the commandments not only to actions, but to the heart (Matt. 5:28).

 

[JonC]

I rather think you said it was.

I understand you think that. The reason is you pulled out one sentence from my argument and invented a meaning of your own.

You do the same with the Bible. You pull put one verse from a book and redefine that verse.

But the truth of the matter is that it is obvious that I was not saying dividing the Law itself was modern as I said that I believe Paul's adamant that the Law is either all or nothing implied some in his day were trying to divide the Law.

What they were adding to God's law was not moral aspects of the Law (they are already present in God's law) but ceremonial commandments.

Christ in Matthew 5 is giving us the true interpretation of the Decalogue.

Lol... no. "Thou shalt not kill" does not need interpretation (except in translating it to English).

We know this because God prescribed punishments for violating the Law, and there is a different punishment for violating God's law.

We also know this because of Christ's own words (that instruction was from the Sermon on the Mount). Jesus was not talking of the Law (except that it cannot impart righteousness) but actual righteousness (their righteousness - which is not imparted by the Law - must surpass that of the Jewish leaders).


You are doing all you can to reject the God's law (the "law of Christ"). I am not sure why and I do not know that your reasons matter.

You assume that the New Covenant is incomplete without adding to it parts of the Law (and parts of the Law of your choosing). You are wrong. The New Covenant has the Old one covered. God does not need your help to come up with a hybrid version.

 

[JonC]

What is missing here is the fact that all of the Law was the moral Law for those under the Law.

Breaking the Sabboth, eating shrimp, weaving together two different fabrics... these were all moral violations.

God did not leave defining morality to human philosophy.

It was a curse or a blessing. No in-between. No "well, at least you did not kill somebody" kinda thinking.

Steal? You are a curse. Eat shrimp? You are a curse. Be hung on a tree? You are a curse.

But God's law fulfills the Law. God's law is His righteousness. The Law does not matter if one is obedient to God's law because the Law would be fulfilled.

@Martin Marprelate , at the end of the day you are so obsessed with the shadows of what was to come that you cannot grasp what is already here.

 

[JonC]

Since all of this started in a discussion of Galatians, maybe that would be a good place to go.

Paul, in talking about everyone under the Law becoming a curse, said that Christ became a curse under the Law to deliver men from the Law, for Christ was hung on a tree.

The easiest thing to do in considering whether Paul was talking about the Ten Commandments, God's law, or the Law (the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant) is to consider these three in relation to the passage in Galatians.

1. Was Paul speaking of God's law? Being that this law was canceled and no longer applies to us, I would say "no". As Christians we may not be under the Law (the Old Covenant) but we certainly are under God's Law. God's law (Christ's law) is eternal. It is not a covenant (do this and get blessings, do that and be a curse). It is God's own righteousness. And it fulfills the Law (to include the Ten Commandments).

2. Was Paul speaking of the Ten Commandments? We'll, whatever this Law is Jesus Himself was a curse under it. Paul was referencing Deuteronomy 21:23.

Under the Law Paul was speaking of, a man who was hung on a tree was a curse. Hypothetically a man could live his entire life without transgressing any of the 613 laws, but if falsely accused and killed, then hung on a tree (or, although no penalty used hanging as punishment, hypothetically if he was executed by hanging) he would be a curse under the Law.

Rather than searching all of Scripture to find out if not being hung on a tree is in the Ten Commandments, let's just go to the Big Ten.

(1) No other gods before me
(2) No idols or carved images
(3) Do not misuse God's name
(4) Keep the Sabbath day holy
(5) Honor your father and mother
(6) Do not murder
(7) Do not commit adultery
(8) Do not steal
(9) Do not give false testimony
(10) Do not covet what belongs to your neighbor

Well, apparently "Do not be hung on a tree" is not one of the Big Ten. And sins not on the Big Ten (like over confidence leading to not paying attention to what a priest says) gets you stoned and hauled up on a tree. You become a lesson for all of your over confident friends as they see your accursed self swinging in the breeze.

So not only is getting hung on a tree not one of the Big Ten, but you can get dead and a'hanging for sins not in the Big Ten. Not all 613 commands carry the death penalty but 37 of them do.

Therefore my answer to the question "was Paul talking about the Ten Commandments by his use of the Law in Galatians" is "no".

3. So what was Paul talking about when he speaks of the Law in the Galatians verse? The only remaining opinion would be my guess - the Law of Moses (really the Law given through Moses) or the Old Covenant.