Understanding Sexual Orientation Gives Us a Better Understanding of Our Sin

I really am glad that I am a member of a church that has come out with a great statement on sexual orientation before all these recent court rulings that are making marriage more of a human institution than an institution that God has given to His creatures.


One particularly great point in the report has to do with same-sex orientation and the question of what wold be the impact of finding out that orientation is more basic than only a choice to love a member of the opposite sex or the same sex.

In chapter 2, the report considers Biology, Gender, and the Biblical Doctrine of Man. Near the end of that chapter the report summarizes the chapter in the following words on page 20:

To summarize this important point: even if it were to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that some people possess a same-sex orientation through biological or sociological factors outside their own control, this would not indicate that homosexuality is part of God's intended order. It would (and, even at the current provisional stage of the scientific findings in the realm, ought to) increase our awareness of how desperate the human condition is, how utterly hopeless men are of achieving renewal simply by self-will or behaviorism, and, frankly, how imbalanced the effects of sin are throughout human experience that some people experience one area of brokenness more deeply while other people experience another more heavily.

The brilliance of this paragraph is that its teaching is so contrary to how we the majority of Western society and much of the Western church is going on this issue. Instead of sexual orientation highlighting how intolerant we were about sexual struggles, sexual orientation highlights how small we have allowed our understanding of sin's effects to be on our lives! That is, we have reduced the act of sin to only be a consciousness voluntary choice of an individual. We have lost sight of the fact that sin is so pervasive in own nature that we often forget that individuals who sin view the choice to sin as the only option available. For a mind that is unregenerate that choice only looks good. The consequences maybe bad, but those consequences might not actually come about. However, for the believer in Christ, the choice ought to be conflicted. On the one side, they don't want to displease God; but on the other side, the temptation to give into sex is so strong that it can appear overwhelming. For a bit more reflection on believers struggling with sin look at a post by Rev. Van Bemmel. Sex is a gift from God, and so that can make the struggle even more difficult. However, their is hope, and that is found in the Gospel as explained on page 22 in the following words:

Without denying or belittling the intense, seemingly irresolvable struggle that same-sex desires genuinely entail for many men and women, the testimony of Scripture is clear: "... neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality ... And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were hustified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11). It in the nature of the Spirit's transforming power to address even the deepest struggles of the human soul and to bring the power of the resurrection to bear upon them.

As Christians we should not discount the real temptations that people who identify themselves as Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders (GLBT) face when they struggle with sexual desires that we do not personally share. I think that if we were to look back at how well-known American pastors over the past 30 years have publicly addressed GLBT issues we will find that their statements do not recognize how desirable the Bible teaches that all sin is at the moment of temptation. We, as the Church, need to publicly repent of our false witness to GLBT people on the aspect of our teaching.

However, sin, as the above passage says, always manifests itself in very personal ways to each individual. The answer, however, for all sins, and our sin nature, is Jesus Christ. Through Christ, we are made right with God and given a new set of desires that make God's commands a delight. I have addressed this report in an earlier post, and would highly recommend buying a copy and reading it.

The Reason for the Ceremonial Law

I just finished reading the first part of William Symington's book On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ. This book is made up of two parts: part one, the Atonement; part two, the Intercession. Both parts are united because Jesus was the Atonement for the members of his Church and Jesus is now providing Intercession for the members of his Church on the basis of finished Atonement on the cross.

Near the end of the final section of part one, Symington writes about the Results of Christ's Atonement under seven points. Point number six is on pages 248 - 254, and is basically:

The atonement more or less affects all the divine dispensations toward our world.

Where Symington goes with explaining this short sentence is very exciting! On pages 249 - 251 Symington summarizes his entire argument up to this point that is breathtaking:

The dispensation of providence regards the atonement as its centre. Redemption is the grand central point of providence, and atonement is the central point of redemption. The whole apparatus of redemption owes its being and its efficacy to the death of Christ; and every movement of the complicated wheels of providence derives its impulse from redemption. Preceding events look forward, succeeding events point backward, and meet as in a common centre in the cross. The course of providence, for four thousand
years before the advent of the Son of God, prepared the way for this stupendous event; and the train of occurrences since only serves to follow up the great design of his coming. "The Lord reigneth — the government is upon his shoulders." " The world is. therefore, not a wandering star, abandoned in wrath, discarded from use, rushing to destruction, but is still held for a design, and turned to an account the most glorious. Its Maker has not denounced nor disowned his property. It may be a rebel, but he is still its sovereign : it may be a recusant, but he is still its Lord."*

The dispensation of mercy, in all its several stages, stands, of course, in intimate connection with the cross of Christ. Revelation, the record of these progressive dispensations, is everywhere sprinkled with the blood of atonement. History, type, prophecy, song, epistle, all breathe the sweet-smelling savor of this one theme; and their varied contents derive a character of unity from this pervading circumstance.

From Adam to Moses, the practice of sacrificing, we have seen, existed. Adam, Abel, Noah, Lot, Abraham, all presented their burnt-offerings, which, from the substance of which they consisted, and the language in which they were spoken of. appear to have been both designed and understood to prefigure the great Christian Expiation. Without this they have no meaning, no worth; but are a cruel mockery of man's misery, and a deception of human hopes.

The Mosaic economy had innumerable rites and institutions, calculated to convey distinct ideas of propitiation and vicarious suffering. But, without the atonement of Christ, they were meaningless, useless, hurtful all. The whole system was nothing better than a pompous parade of gaudy ceremonies: a criminal waste of valuable property; a wanton infliction of unnecessary pain on sentient unoffending creatures. The atonement of Christ is what gives it all its significancy, utility, and consistency.

The peculiarity of the New Testament dispensation consists in a free, full, unhampered proclamation of mercy and salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, to all men. It is an offer of eternal life and every spiritual blessing to them that believe. "Holding forth the words of eternal life." "Come unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth, for I am God, and besides me there is no Saviour." But on what ground do these universal proffers proceed? Whence derive they their consistency, and their power, but from the perfect all-sufficient atonement of the Son of God? "We preach Christ crucified." "I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified." "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." This is the language held by its ministers; and, indeed, every individual benefit it bestows, they are accustomed to speak of in language which marks the same connection. Is it redemption? We have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." Is it reconciliation? "God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ." Is it peace? "We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Is it justification? "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." The Gospel minister's commission is sealed with the blood and stamped with the cross of Emmanuel; nor can he ever execute it, in consistency with the character and glory of God, unless he exhibit the sacrifice of Christ as the chief article of his message, the burden of his doctrine, the central orb of the Christian system which gives to every part its living energy, and binds the whole together in sweet and indissoluble union.

At one point early in the quote, Symington used an asterisk character (*) after a quote. The source of the quote is given as "Hamilton's Sermons". I have though it would be interesting to try to track down all the other works that Symington references and try to get those republished as a way to better understand Symington. But, that will have to be for another day.

There are a few interesting points to make about this long quote, so here's a few that standout to me:

• The relationship between Redemption and Providence, and then the Atonement to Redemption
• The idea of "[p]receding events look[ing] forward, succeeding events point[ing] backward, and meet as in a common centre in the cross."
• "Revelation, the record of these progressive dispensations, is everywhere sprinkled with the blood of atonement. History, type, prophecy, song, epistle, all breathe the sweet-smelling savor of this one theme; and their varied contents derive a character of unity from this pervading circumstance."
• The explanation of the sacrifices from Adam to Moses as having no meaning, no worth; but are mockeries of man's misery, and a deception of human hopes unless they were both designed and understood to prefigure the great Christian Expiation.
• Then what Symington has to say about the Mosaic economy is also helpful "... innumerable rites and institutions, calculated to convey distinct ideas of propitiation and vicarious suffering. But, without the atonement of Christ, they were meaningless, useless, hurtful all. The whole system was nothing better than a pompous parade of gaudy ceremonies: a criminal waste of valuable property; a wanton infliction of unnecessary pain on sentient unoffending creatures. The atonement of Christ is what gives it all its significancy, utility, and consistency."

It all pointed to Christ, and now we are looking back to Christ as the meaning for all the " ...  several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties." We now believe that, "[a]ll which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament" (WCF 19.3).

Can Biblical Theologians ever be wrong?

In the never ending war between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology, but only in some minds. We need to remember that the doctrine of the Trinity is not properly speaking a doctrine that an exclusively biblical theologian can logical accept. So, let's all be reminded of this simple truth by Lutherans, who typically speaking aren't all that comfortable with Systematic Theology themselves! Enjoy, and remember that all these heresies are actually Bible only folks who think we are imposing a man made system on God.

The Ground of the Universality of the Gospel Offer

I have been reading through the works of William Symington and have found it to be a very helpful study. Most people who have heard of Symington skip his first book, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, to read his second book, Messiah the Prince or the Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ. However, there is a lot of good content in Symington's first book that would be missed if readers just assume that William is repeating and expanding his prior work.

In fact, Symington was probably on his way to write a trilogy of books on the Three Offices of Jesus Christ: Prophet, Priest, and King. Dr. Symington, however, was first and foremost a pastor to himself, his family, and his church. Therefore, in the memoir written by his son, Alexander Symington, we learn that the only way he was able to write these two books was because his whole family was bedridden - On the Atonement - and he was sick - Messiah the Prince. Therefore, we should be glad with what he was able to write during quite a bit of duress in his life.

I was reading through section 11 - about the 'Extent of Christ's Atonement' - when I came to a part where Symington writes about one objection to a definite atonement being that the universal offer made of Christ in the Gospel. Symington writes about this objection on pages 209 - 214. I found a great few summary sentences that I really thought were well put on page 213:

The ground on which the universality of the Gospel offer proceeds, is the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement.  This the universal Gospel message supposes and affirms.  It is not said in the Gospel, that Christ died with the intention that all should be saved, but that his atonement is a sufficient ground of salvation to all, and that all who rest on this ground of salvation shall be saved.

I think this is a wonderful summary of the Gospel Offer. I will probably have more on Symington as I continue to read. Let it never be said that the Reformed Presbyterian Church has a problem with the Free, or Universal, Offer of the Gospel. Furthermore, let us always remember the reason for that offer: the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement not the duty of all men to believe in Christ for salvation (page 211).

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 7 - Sabbath Extracts

In part six, we concluded the main argument that Ross makes in his lecture and his book for why the threefold division of the should be continue to be the church's ongoing testimony of understanding the law of God.

Ross ended that part by looking at Ephesians 6:1 - 3 in light of some commentators who try to argue that Paul is not issuing an immediate call for obedience to the fifth commandment, but issuing a call from some other source for children to obey their parents. Ross ended the lecture by reaffirming that the moral law shapes our understanding of Christ's penal substitution on the cross, and by exhorting his listeners and readers that we must hold on to this doctrine to understand the Gospel.

However, I left out Ross' main two defenses of understanding Sabbath as still being the moral law, and I want to now include those sections of Ross' argument separate from the other six posts for a few reasons. The main reason being that I view Ross' examples of Christians arguing for or against the abiding validity of the Sabbath as a demonstration of the confusion that exists within the Reformed churches and the broader Christian church about how to understand all the laws that God gave in light of Christ's finished work on the cross. For me, the biggest contribution of Ross' research is about explaining that the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws are the only possible way to understand the whole of Scripture without having to sacrifice the parts of Scripture that don't fit. Therefore, defenses of any one particular commandment, while helpful, are in my opinion raising flags to get people to pay attention.

A number of Christians, however, today have trouble with how to understand the Sabbath, and furthermore, because of that problem will not consider Ross' book in the first place because of Ross' defense of the Sabbath throughout the book and in the lecture. Phil Johnson, who pastors with John MacArthur, while reviewing Ross' book cannot get past Ross' defense throughout his book of the Sabbath because of his dispensationalism and as a result the review becomes very difficult to follow and largely unhelpful. More generally, while Tom Shreiner believes that the threefold division is biblical, the presence of a commandment about the Sabbath raises questions in his mind about how to understand the division; Justin Taylor, while commending the threefold division, nevertheless does not think it "fully works" because of the commandment about the Sabbath. My point in separating the substance (problem) from the demonstration of the problem is that the argument for the division needs to be considered before some people will consider rather or not the Sabbath applies to belevers today or it does not.

There are other books which defend the Reformed position on the Sabbath, but none of them currently include much of a defense of the threefold division, but Ross' book does both because Ross believes, and I agree, that the rejection of the Sabbath and the threefold division are linked together. Just because, however, the link exists does not mean there is only one way to defend both truths. Ross chooses to lead out his defense of the threefold division by showing where the most heat against the doctrine is currently being generated. I, however, think it might be more helpful to lay out the doctrine then show how it practically affects other doctrines. I think it is more helpful because, as has been shown, the threefold division has had many different attacks from other angles in the past, that do not only originate with a rejection or acceptance of the Sabbath.

Despite whatever differences I might have with Ross about the structure of his presentation, I do agree with Ross about the abiding validity of the Sabbath for the Christian.

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

I will break this up into two parts in my one post and note where in the lecture the two different sections the extracts are from in the lecture. The first part is from the Introduction in the lecture.

----------------

According to Tim Keller, nearly all presbyters in the PCA subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 'with only the most minor exceptions (the only common one being with regard to the Sabbath).' (pg. 5)

If, however, such an exception amounts to a wholesale rejection of the Confession's approach to the Sabbath, then Ross suspects the Westminster Divines might have thought that to call it minor was probably understatement. (pg. 5)

If the WCF were a garment, you would not want to pull this thread, unless you wanted to be altogether defrocked. (pg, 5)

Ross wonders if the reason why some people pull at this thread is because they regard the Confession as more of a straightjacket than a garment. (pg. 5)

Unbuckle the Sabbath, and as far as Reformed Theology is concerned you are well on the way to mastering theological escapology. (pg. 5)

If this sounds like overstatement to rival Keller's understatement, Ross wants to remind his listeners that biblical law, with its Sabbath, is not an easily dispensable part of our doctrinal infrastructure. (pgs. 5, 6)

You cannot perform a precision strike on the Sabbath without producing an embarrassing amount of collateral damage. (pg. 6)

You cannot strike out the Sabbath without shattering the entire category of moral law and all that depends on it. (pg. 6)

If the Shorter Catechism represents Westminster theology in its most practical form, it would seem that any expurgation of biblical law from the theological framework it expounds, should lead to its complete unraveling. (pg. 6)

----------------

The next part is from the section titled Jesus and the Gospels

----------------

One thing that does not appear in Matthew 5 is anything about Jesus' attitude to the Sabbath.

It's often assumed that Jesus disregarded the Sabbath and that the Gospel writers conveyed that.

But Ross thinks Géza Vermes is right, if the evangelists were seeking to do that 'they did a pitiful job'. (pg. 173)

Even the authors of From Sabbath to Lord's Day have to agree that Jesus did not brake the Sabbath. (pg. 167)

Ross think there is little point in going into detail with the book because of their conclusion in a summary written by Andrew Lincoln for the book (pgs. 171 - 172):

The veiled nature of Jesus' ministry accounts for the slight ambiguity in regard to His relation to the Sabbath and for the fact that for a time in the early church there were those who continued Sabbath observance while the full implications of the entry to the new age accomplished by Christ were being worked out.

Ross contends that Lincoln's conclusion makes little sense. In fact, it is inexplicable considering the dates for the Gospels range from A.D. 50 - 150. How much tome did they need to work things out? (pg. 172)

If Mark clearly understood that Jesus had declared all foods clean, why did He choose to leave his readers in the dark over so fundamental an issue as the Sabbath? (pg. 172)

Until someone does better than raise the anti-Sabbatarian case from the Gospels from the 'pitifil' to the ambiguous there is little to gain be engaging in this discussion.

The evangelists represent Jesus as a Sabbath-keeper, who does not undermine the ordnance by word, action, or yet-to-be-understood personal claims. (pg. 173)

----------------

While in this section Ross does not specifically deal with the Colossians 2:14 - 15 passage which both are the given reason for Taylor and Dr. Schreiner's caveat about the threefold division Ross did address the Colossian text in part five. Since I don't want to make in seem like I'm only picking on the Gospel Coalition or Baptists, I need to also include the Lutherans' Dr. John Theodore Mueller and Dr. Francis Pieper. Both men wrote very popular and still used works on Christian Dogmatics. Near the bottom of page 213, Dr. Mueller rests his entire case on the Ten Commandments not being identified with the moral law on the sole argument of the Sabbath commandment being the ceremonial feature of the Ten Commandments. Since Dr. Mueller's one-volume work is based on Dr. Pieper's four-volume work I assume that both men agree on this argument, but have not yet verified Dr. Pieper's position in print.

Now I'm really done with the whole lecture, but I do want to ofter a bit more coverage of Ross' book in relation to some other controversies in the Reformed world. One of, which, is about a claim made by a few Westminster California professors about the application of the first four commandments to the other nations than Israel in the time of the Old Testament.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 6 - Conclusion

In part five, we finished looking at the changes that took place to the law after the temple veil was torn in two pieces when Jesus died by surveying the letters that the Apostles wrote to the churches about how to understand and apply the Old Testament (OT) writings to their new situation of living in between the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ.

We saw, where in the New Testament (NT) the category of ceremonial law is demonstrated, and we saw why the Westminster Divines conclude that this part of God's law is abrogated. Furthermore, we saw that the civil laws entail the laws that God gave are neither ceremonial or moral; these laws had a temporal standing for the Jewish nation that still speak even though they and their penalties have expired with the nation of Israel being the exclusive theater of God's redemptive work. Lastly, we saw, that in spite of some older and more recent attempts to explain the Ten Commandments as not being an ever binding rule in this present age that the moral law is ineffably inscribed on human hearts and binding on all people everywhere regardless of time or place.

The following notes are from a March 2010 address delivered by Philip S. Ross. He also published a book on the same topic.

As with my other posts, here's the bird's eye view on all the posts in this series:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

----------------

Ross wants to conclude by considering the most prominent example of a single commandment cited in the context of a ethical exhortation: Ephesians 6:1 - 3. (pg. 341)

Ephesians 6:1 - 3, in Ross' opinion which he seeks to prove, is difficult to interpret in any other way than as an immediate call for obedience to the fifth commandment. (pg, 341)

It is interesting to how two contributors to From Sabbath to Lord's Day deal with Ephesians 6:1 - 3 because From Sabbath to Lord's Day is an anti-Sabbatarian manifesto. (pg, 341)

De Lacey, for example, is at pains to distance the call for children to obey their parents as coming from the Decalogue. (pg. 341)

His fellow contributor, Andrew Lincoln, is equally keen to disentangle Paul from the ten words claiming that the Apostles appeal is to a 'general sense of what was fitting and right.' (pg. 341)

When it comes to the promise in the commandment 'it is more likely to have been penned by a Jewish Christian follower.' (pg.342)

What choice does he (Lincoln) have? If the Sabbath is dismissed on the basis that Christ has fulfilled the concept of rites tied up with the Sabbath, if the Sabbath is more already than not yet then the promise in Ephesians 6 should not by there. (pg.344)

Even assuming a high degree of typology in the fourth commandment it is the same basic theme that is explicit in the fifth [commandment]. (pg. 344)

This promise (of the fifth commandment) is there (in Ephesians), because Paul sees its fulfillment as sufficiently not yet. That the promise and the moral law that accompanies it is still binding. (pg. 345)

In an article on penal substitution, Don Carson says that recent works on the subject have shown 'that historic Christian confessionalism will not roll over and play dead.' [Apparently, the Gospel Coalition's web site no longer hosts Carson's original post; however, there are number of blogs that do, so I have chosen to link to one of those blogs] (pg. 353)

If Hugh Martin's link between a person's view of the distinctiveness of the moral law and the view of how to understand the Atonement is correct then the threefold division of the law does not, and should not, roll over and die either if the source of Christian confessionalism is Scripture. (pgs. 352 - 353)

----------------

That's it, the end of Ross' case for the Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law. Many members of the Westminster Assembly around the 1630s and 40s made similar defenses of the Threefold Division in there day, here's a list of some of the ones that I thought were the most helpful in understanding the proof texts and the wording of the Confession of Faith. However, I am not entirely done with Ross' book, or the lecture. I have purposefully left out Ross' two specific defenses in his speech about the the doctrine of the Sabbath and chosen to put those in the next post in this series. I'll explain my reasoning in that post. Ross also has a few comments in his book that are very interesting in light of the controversy around the doctrine of the Two Kingdom's that I want to share and comment upon.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 5 - The Epistles of the Apostles

In part four we began looking at what, if anything, changes after the rending of the veil once Jesus died on the cross with a focus on God's Law? We considered on that post the Book of Acts, paying attention to Luke's quoting of the Decalogue and the Apostolic decree of Acts 15. We found out that Luke's references to the Decalogue were in harmony with the Ten Commandments still being valid, and that the Apostolic decree does not give of new way of understanding the Decalogue but it does give us a example of Christian behavior.

The current post is about how the Apostles in their writings to various churches understood and applied God's Law to those particular saints. Of course, even though the Apostles were addressing particular concerns at a particular time we must remember that "[a]ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that that man of God my be competent, equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:16-17). In addition, we must remember that we are living in the same age as the saints who Paul, Peter, James, Jude, the author of Hebrews, and John were addressing. The issues are still relevant for today's church, because their writings were primarily addressing the spiritual issues of their day in light of Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension. In this part of Ross' address we will see the threads of the previous four parts come together to clearly demonstrate that the Threefold Division is the Apostolic teaching of the entire Bible.

As a general reminder, these notes that I took are based on Philip S. Ross' March 2010 address to a Presbytery. Later on that same year, Christian Focus Publications published a book length treatment of Ross' research into the Threefold Division of the Law. This is part five of a seven part series.

Here's how I have broken down Ross' address into seven parts:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

----------------

Some passages that are relevant to the three categories of the threefold division. (pg. 266)

The study of Paul the law is an area of interminable debate, but much of those debates aren't directly relevant to this precise issue. (pg. 265)

The New Perspectives on Paul challenges the centrality of moral law in confessional soteriology more than it challenges the details of the threefold division. (pg. 266)

Beginning with ceremonial law, which the confession speaks of as 'typical ordinances' and 'moral duties', there are solid grounds to say that Hebrews 9 makes a purposeful and unavoidable demarcation of cultic laws. (pgs. 266 - 267)

This is not a demarcation, as certain scholars claim, that Hebrews imposes on the law but one that's derived from the law. (pgs. 266 - 267)

From the ceremonial law's first deliverance to Moses, they were intended to be shadows that proclaimed the existence of heavenly things and good things to come; the reality of Christ. (pgs. 267 - 275)

The same vocabulary emerges in Colossians 2:16 - 17, where Ross rejects the view arising from the hypothetical Colossian heresy that this passage refers to extra-Mosaic practices. The use of cult prostitutes, for example, can hardly be a shadow of things to come. (pgs. 273 - 275)

Rather the food and drink in view envisages all the dietary laws of the Old Testament (OT) and the OT usage itself suggests that 'Sabbaths' in that context serves as shorthand for the activities of those days and not the day itself. (pgs. 276 - 278)

The verses in Colossians 2:14 - 15 and Ephesians 2:14 - 18 speak of a wall of separation and of the breaking down of ordinances. (pgs. 279 - 280)

Commentators will argue that these two passages either refer to expansions of the law or to the law as a whole. (pgs. 280 - 284)

However, the law as a whole did not divide and why would God need to abolish man made laws at all?

Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 may emphasize different things, but both deal with the laws of separation, which have gone with the rent veil. (pg. 284)

The veil was rent because of what Peter tells us about in 1 Peter 1:19 'the sacrifice of the lamb without blemish'. (pgs. 290 - 292)

Many theologians, following German theologians, dismiss the idea of vicarious suffering, rejecting any link between Peter and Leviticus, or arguing that in the Leviticus passage there is no idea of the transference of guilt to the goat. (pgs. 287 - 288)

Place taking is, however, central to Leviticus and to Isaiah 53, the lens through which Peter reads Leviticus, and if Jesus is a lamb without blemish his fulfillment of ceremonial law must depend on moral fulfillment. (pgs. 288 - 291)

For Peter, as for Matthew, Christ's fulfillment is moral, soteriological, and eschatological. (pg. 286)

As said earlier, the confessional approach to ceremonial law was not so crude that they failed to recognize that it also spoke of moral duties. (pg. 292)

These, 'moral duties', are the implied moral demands of ceremonial law that we see, for example, in 1 Corinthians 5 which calls on Christians to be what they are: the unleavened bread symbolizing discontinuity and a break with the past. (pgs. 292 - 293)

In such cases, Paul preserves inviolate the core significance of the ritual law while maintaining it is not binding. (pg. 295)

What the threefold division calls judicial, or civil, laws exist almost by default in the Epistles. (pg. 296)

But do they (the Epistles) support the idea that God always intended those laws (judicial) to have temporal standing? (pgs. 296 -298)

The mere fact that the Apostles called for Christians to submit themselves to secular authorities suggests as much, although that does not mean they (judicial laws) are irrelevant. (pgs. 298 - 299)

Hebrews shows us that although the penalties may have expired, they still speak. (pg. 299)

Paul's reference to oxen, 1 Corinthians 9:8 - 10, shows that the general equity of the law still applies. (pg. 300)

For God does not care about oxen, which is why Paul's point depends ultimately on the Decalogue substructure that undergirds the quotation Deuteronomy. (pgs. 304 - 306)

In that context, in Deuteronomy, the themes of integrity and contentment unite the ninth and the tenth commandments. (pg. 303) [As an aside from Ross, for a moment,  this would be numbered the eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments in both the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches. Both Lutherans and Roman Catholics along with others Christians throughout the centuries have separated the tenth commandment into two commandments numbered nine and ten. The Reformed tradition along with other Christians throughout the centuries have maintained a slightly different numbering of the Ten Commandment which means that Ross is talking about the commandment to not lie and to not covet.]

We would also think of the two witness rule quoted in 2 Corinthians 13 and 1 Timothy 5. (pgs. 304 - 306)

It is a straightforward application of Mosaic equity, but it does not demand literal application of the law since it (the two witness rule) too depends on the substructure of Deuteronomy. (pgs. 305 - 306)

Deuteronomy at the point of being quoted is concerned with the preservation of life. (pg. 305)

Such examples indicate that the Westminster Confession's 35 words on judicial law do not comprise an imposition upon Scripture, but reflection of biblical teaching. (pg. 308)

For many Christians the threefold division's most controversial claim is that the moral law, the Decalogue, is an ever binding perfect rule of righteousness and an obligation, which for Christians, is strengthened by Christ in the Gospels. (pg. 308)

When you think of Epistolary passages that support this (the Decalogue as an ever binding rule of righteousness) you might mention 1 Timothy 1:8 - 11; Romans 13:8 - 10; or James 2:8 - 11, and you would be right to do so. (pg. 341)

Despite the reluctance of someone like Douglas Moo to see royal law as a specific reference to the Mosaic law. (pg. 336)

Perhaps all that such reluctance shows is that by the time we come to the Epistles, whatever our position, the interpretive frameworks that we have developed play a decisive part in our exegetical conclusions.

In the Apostolic illusions to the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8 or James 2:19; in the call to love our neighbor in Romans 13 or Galatians 5 we hear an echo of Christ's voice, we hear Apostolic agreement with the principal that the two greatest commandments are a précis (meaning: 'a type of summary of abridgment) of the Decalogue. (pgs. 334 - 341)

For some interpreters, any notion of Apostolic agreement with the law is unthinkable - Paul was schizophrenic at best, about as constant in his affections for Moses as was Saul for David. (pgs. 308 - 318)

According to Heikki Räisänen, Paul's view of the law is 'full of difficulties and inconsistencies'. (pg. 309)

Ironically, Räisänen is so convinced that the Mosaic law consists of different elements that he thinks the threefold division handles the material better than Paul (pgs. 309 - 310)

A Dutch Reformed minster, T.E. Van Spanje, has produced a lengthy answer to Räisänen's charge of theological schizophrenia, but we should not be afraid to see tension in Paul's attitude to the law. (pg. 310)

If his (Paul's) view of divine revelation is rooted in the Old Testament we should expect tension, but that's not the same as inconsistency.

The idea that divine revelation may bring blessing or curse, brokenness or hardness, life or death, weaves its way from the Pentateuch through the Psalms and Prophets into the Gospels where the same word that cuts off every dead branch and prunes every live branch and weaves its way into the Epistles. (pgs. 311 - 313)

In 2 Corinthians 3, the law brings a deadly holocaust to the Jewish people that cannot be ended unless the life giving Spirit intervenes (pg. 313)

It is no negative commentary on the law, but recognition of the law's impotence to bring life and lasting glory.

The tension continues in the new order, the law will still kill you if you read it with a veil and new covenant ministry that may be the fragrance of life to some is the odor of death to others - it produces its own holocaust. (pg. 314)

Paul is not the only one to be charged with hostility to the law. (pg. 314)

In the eyes of Michael Morrison, the author of Hebrews has no place for the law at all since law in Hebrews quotation of Jeremiah 31:33 found in Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 should be understood in the widest possible sense as instruction. (pgs. 314 - 315)

Jeremiah, however, will not let Morrison off with the charge (of the law having no place in the book of Hebrews) so easily. (pg. 315)

When the prophet speaks of 'My law' the context is suggestive of Sinai and Jeremiah 31:33 is, Ross believes, addressing the same commandments as at Sinai. (pgs. 315 - 316)

These 'ten words' are the only laws that God inscribes. (pg. 316)

Hebrews is not talking about a redrafted morality. That is not what makes the New Covenant 'New'. (pg. 316)

It is not 'new' because the New Covenant believers' obedience is qualitatively superior to Abrams'; it is all about Jesus Christ. (pg. 317)

This covenant is better because it is enacted upon better promises, not necessarily those promises) contained within it (new covenant), but those promises made to Christ, 'You are a priest forever', God will not change His mind, Christ's priesthood will not fail. (pg. 317)

All the circumcised hearts in the cloud of witnesses, every law inscribed heart in which the Father makes His home is only so because of our Mediator. (pg. 318)

Far from rendering obsolete the laws inscribed in stone His all eclipsing priesthood makes them a lively script that will never pass away. (pg. 318)

Part of the argument in the WCF for ever-binding moral law is that this law is ineffably inscribed on human hearts. (pg. 318)

Romans 2:15, which speaks of Gentiles who have the work of the law written on their hearts, is a key passage. (pg. 318)

But what Gentile hearts?

'Not any Gentile hears,' says N.T. Wright, Jewett, and Gathercole, 'Paul is talking about Gentile Christians'. (pg. 318)

Gathercole's defense of this view is the most comprehensive, but Ross believes is seems inconceivable that there could have been Gentile Christians who were, as Gathercole says, 'actually not hearers of Torah at all'. (pgs. 319 - 320)

Just how did these Christians manage to avoid the Psalms, the Prophets, the Sermon on the Mount, and debates about the law? (pg. 320)

Why should the idea that all people, in some sense, do what the law requires have been foreign to Paul?

Surely, in view of the Pentateuch's assumptions about the law, that the laws of Sinai were self-understood from the beginning, it would have been natural for him (Paul) to think like that.

In fact, the suggestion from Akio Ito that Paul may have been alluding to Deuteronomy 30:14 may support that point, especially if Matthew Henry was right to see in the text of Deuteronomy a reference to 'the law of nature, which would have been found in every man's heart, and every man's mouth, if he would but have attended to it.' (pg. 322)

So Paul, then is reflecting Scripture-wide presuppositions about the Decalogue. (pg. 323)

Paul is, as John Murray says, answering 'the question arising from verse 12, namely: If the Gentiles are without the law, how can they be regarded as having sinned?' (pg. 323)

How else can we make sense of verses 15 - 16 of Romans 2? (pgs. 323 - 324)

It is not Gentile Christians who will be in turmoil on that day, but unbelievers, who having suppressed the truth find exposed upon their hearts an inscription of the law that reason could not erase and darkness could not hide. (pg. 324)

On this understanding of Romans, the opening section of chapter 19 of the WCF provides a coherent expression of Apostolic teaching. (pg. 324)

When that day comes when God judges the secrets of men's hearts by what standard will He judge? On what basis will men be convicted of their sin? What is sin?

Strangely enough, you might get a more conservative definition of 'sin' from a lexicographer than a theologian.

While the Oxford English Dictionary happily defines 'sin' as 'transgression of the divine law' some NT scholars prefer the generality of 'evil' or 'iniquity'. (pg. 325)

Even when the passage involved is 1 John 3:4. which defines 'sin' as transgression of the law, or lawlessness, Stephen Smalley wants to argue that the connection between sin and lawbreaking in the OT is not strong. (pgs. 325, 327)

None of the attempts to separate lawlessness from law are convincing. Especially when the alternative definition of sin that these writers generally propose, such as, 'opposing God' describe things that are transgressions of the law anyway. (pgs. 328 - 329)

Not only does John define sin as lawbreaking; James 2:8 - 12 indirectly defines sin as transgression of law from the Decalogue, or the summarizing great commandments. (pg. 329)

Sin is not a roughly defined problem.

Righteousness is not a fluctuating ideal.

The great Day of judgement will be according to the self-understood norms of the Decalogue, and that is an implicit assumption in Romans 2 and elsewhere.

When Romans 1 meets a litany of iniquities with unvarying response of judgement none of those death-deserving deeds go beyond established or plausible applications of the Decalogue. (pg. 332)

The only lawgiver and judge employs no double standard.

----------------

So, there you have it. The threefold division is biblical and comes to full expression in the Epistles. However, it is important to note all the threads that begun in Genesis up through Acts in the previous four parts that lead to the full revelation of how we need to understand God's law. The next post, on this topic, will be a much shorter conclusion of the entire address. This part covered chapter seven in Ross' book, which is 85 pages.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 4 - The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts

In part 3, we Ross introduced the majority of the remaining time of his lecture by framing his discussion around the following two questions:

1. What may we conclude from the Gospels? - From the words and deeds of  Jesus up to the point where the veil was torn.

2.What, if anything, changes after the rending of the veil? - What do the Apostles and their Epistles have to say to all this?

We dealt with the first question in its entirety in the last post. This post is the first half of Ross' answer to the second question dealing with the events in the Book of Acts focusing on how the church viewed God's Law in light of Jesus' mission being accomplished. The last post was about how Jesus talked about the law in his Sermon on the Mount and how Jesus demonstrated in his actions that the purpose of the purity laws were to show Israel's separation from the other nations which was coming to an end with the temple veil being torn in two when Christ died.

Jesus' entire earthy ministry was a life in conformity with the law. His teachings highlighted that obedience to the law was not conformable to the terms that the receivers understood, but that God's laws came with their own terms of obedience which were not being followed in Jesus' day. Ross, finally, pointed out that the embryonic form of the threefold division appearing in the Old Testament (OT) was not overturned by Jesus' life or teaching.

Now, Ross will be contending that the Evangelists will be confirming those same presuppositions through the book of Acts and their Epistles throughout the rest of the New Testament (NT).

As with the previous three posts and next three in this series, here's the big picture of where this current post fits:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

----------------

The book of Acts provides indications of the Apostles' approach to the law and gives us some narrative background to the Epistles. (pgs. 239 - 240)

Some say Luke was zealous for the law, while Evangelicals, such as Craig Blomberg, are happy to think Luke saw the law as nothing more than 'a cultural phenomenon'. Neither approach is satisfactory. (pgs. 241 - 242)

Throughout the book of Acts we encounter Christian thinking that presupposes the validity of the Decalogue. (pgs. 243 - 244)

For Luke, the Jews were the real transgressors of the Decalogue's precepts. (pgs. 242 - 243)

Luke quotes several laws outside of the Decalogue, but Ross only has time to address one instance in Acts. (pgs. 247 - 254)

Peter's reference to Deuteronomy 10:17 in Acts 10:34. (pgs. 248 - 250)

Peter's use of Deuteronomy shows how he took that one law in its context and began to see that not only are all animals fundamentally clean, but that all people are equal. Peter understands that the abolition of food distinctions means that national Israel is no longer the exclusive theater of Divine love. (pg. 249)

From where Peter now stands Deuteronomy's declaration of God's love for the sojourner may always have been indicative of the temporality of the separation laws. (pgs. 249 - 250)

The most complex legal issue in Acts seems to be the Apostolic decree of Acts 15. Partly because of differences in biblical manuscripts that the church has used throughout history. (pgs. 254 - 257)

Richard Bauckham gives exhaustive arguments for the decree being based on Leviticus 17 - 18, but Ross thinks his arguments are unconvincing. (pgs. 257 - 261)

The decree is only really complex when people are determined to interpret it either as liberation from the law, or imposition of the law. (pg. 261)

In the end, the basis for the decision was that it seemed good to us. It was no more a legal decision than the council's decision to send out Paul and Barnabas, or Luke's decision to write his gospel. It seemed good. The rationale was unity. Church unity was more important than absolute liberty. (pgs. 261 - 263)

The decree does not give us a hermeneutic of biblical law but a example of Christian behavior. (pg. 262)

In the end, all we can say about Acts is that it assumes the principles of the Decalogue. It gives good reason, at points, to support the confessional statement of cultic and judicial law, but the decree and the accounts of cultic obedience are legally neutral. (pgs. 263 - 264)

----------------

The notes above are a summary of chapter 6 in Ross' book which is 25 pages long. The next post in this topic will continue to address the changes in the law after Jesus' death as found in the Epistles of the Apostles.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 3 - Jesus and the Gospels

In part 2, we sketched out five presuppositions that run throughout the entire Old Testament (OT) that point the law given through Moses as not being an uniform united body of law. Ross concluded the second section by contending that if we don't see these distinctions that we will not, and cannot, make proper sense of the teachings of Christ in the four Gospels, in the Apostolic events in the Book of Acts and the Epistles written by the Apostles when they write about the law.

In this part we will focus on the words of Jesus as found in the four Gospel writings and try to understand how what Jesus says about the law and does during His first coming further develops the five observations made about the OT law.

These notes are based on an address that Phil Ross delivered to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales in March 2010.

Here's where we are in this series of posts relative to where we have been and where we are going:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

----------------

Ross wants to look at the teaching of Christ and the Apostles concerning the law in two parts divided chronologically by the veil of the temple that was torn in two (pg. 187):

1. What may we conclude from the Gospels? - From the words and deeds of Jesus up to the point where the veil was torn.
2. What, if anything, changes after the rending of the veil? - What do the Apostles and their Epistles have to say to all this?

We will in this post address the first question and then over the course of following two posts Ross will address his second question.

Jesus' subjecting himself to the law was basic to his humiliation.

One passage matters above all others when it comes to discussing Jesus' attitude to the law, namely Matthew 5.

Some say we should take the word commonly translated 'abolish' in a absolute sense. (pgs. 195 - 197)

Others use the word commonly translated 'fulfill' to determine that 'abolish' means anything but abolish. (pgs. 197 - 199)

When translators/interpreters focus on the lexical definition of 'fulfill' it generally leads them to seeing Jesus' fulfillment of the law and the prophets in the following three ways (pgs. 201 - 202):

1. Eschatological - He fulfills the law by his teaching.
2. Soteriological - He fulfills the law by bringing salvation.
3. Moral - He fulfills the law by doing what the law commands.

Ross doesn't want to suggest totally disregarding the lexica, but contends that we will understand Jesus' words when we read them with the church, in the context of Matthew as a whole, and with the OT background in view. (pg. 199)

Pope Leo the Great and John Calvin may not have had much in common, but they both thought it was proper to connect the sermon on the mount with Jeremiah's new covenant prophecy. (pg. 199)

Their case is strengthened if we also accept that Jesus fulfilling the law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17 is a piece of his fulfillment of all righteousness in Matthew 3:50. (pgs. 199 - 200)

We might hear echos of this relationship when we line up the voice that says 'This is my beloved Son' with the same voice in Jeremiah 31:20 saying 'Ephraim my beloved Son'. May we not then see Jesus standing with his people, and in their place, 'here's the beloved Son that Israel failed to be. (pg. 200)

Read Matthew 5 in that context and we may then see Jesus' fulfillment of the law as eschatological, soteriological, and moral. (pg. 202)

To illustrate the relationship between the elements in Matthew 5 and Jeremiah 31, Ross wants to call attention to the following four components in Jeremiah's prophecy. (pg. 203)

1. 'I will put my law within them' - According to Deuteronomy 6:4 - 9 the law was always meant to be internalized. Jesus promotes this intention as he calls for obedience to the great commandment, he promotes it in his exposition of the law throughout Matthew 5, and He fulfills it by exemplifying in his own life what it means to obey the law and be the obedient Son par excellence (meaning 'the best of its kind'). (pgs. 203 - 204)
2. The promise, 'I will be their God, and they shall be my people.' That theme permeates Matthew from beginning to end. Matthew 1:23, '... God with us.' We know that the Shekinah who dwelt in the bush and in the tabernacle now dwells in the flesh and fleshy blood. Immanuel's closing promise is, 'I am with you always.' Christ's being with his people in fulfillment of the law and the prophets is the dominant idea, but moral fulfillment can't be excluded from that. His instruction, 'teach them all that I've commanded you' presupposes ongoing obedience as an indispensable concomitant to God with us. (pgs. 204 - 206)
3. 'They shall all know me', is sometimes linked with Matthew 23:8 - 10 where Jesus says, 'You have one teacher'. We can hear in that passage a precise echo of the shama. Only one teacher fulfills Jeremiah's prophecy; he is the one who is one who will teach the New Covenant community. There is also a connection between Jeremiah 31:25 - 26 and Jesus' invitation to the laboring and heavy laden to come for rest (Matthew 11:28). He delivers the rest promised in the law and the prophets to those whom the Father reveals Jesus and to whom Jesus reveals the Father. (pgs. 206 - 211)
4. 'For I will forgive their iniquity', is the absolutely indispensable (Ross uses the term, 'sine qua non') promise of the first few promises in Jeremiah 31. Note the preceding three. There's not much question that Matthew 26:27 - 28 recalls this. 'Drink of it, all of you.' The 'all' recalling the 'all' of Jeremiah 31:34 as Matthew once again draws several OT threads together to show that forgiveness of sin and God's presence are conjoined in Jesus. If Jeremiah is in the background, then sin is transgression of the Decalogue because that's generally how Jeremiah defines 'transgression'. (pgs. 211 - 214)

If the sermon on the mount introduced new law then spoke of forgiveness in relation to the old law, how could Matthew's notion of atonement be coherent? Sin would be a moving target. (pg. 215)

The point is to say that for Matthew, Jesus' fulfillment of the law and prophets is eschatological, soteriological, and moral. He is a mighty savior, whose assumptions about the law he shares with the prophets, whose full assumptions land on the Pentateuch. (pgs. 214 - 215)

So Jesus leaves untouched the embryonic framework that saw some laws as a 'pattern'; some to be obeyed 'in the land'; but the Decalogue as the controlling influence. (pg. 215)

When Jesus says, 'not a jot or a tittle shall pass away', his statement is in harmony with the framework because it only makes sense if we recognize that the law had built in limitations. (pgs. 215 - 220)

Even before the entry into Cana, they had the mana laws, which were of temporal jurisdiction/duration. Yet these laws remained but did not bind in the same way they abide as memorial and foretoken. (pgs. 218 - 219)

Everything that Jesus says about the law is in continuity with the intent of the law, and Ross rejects outright the universal description of what follows in Matthew 5:21 - 48 as the antithesis. (pgs. 220 - 236)

Despite all the arguments that Jesus is overturning the law in these verses, its demonstrable that everything Jesus says reflects a correct and proper understanding of the laws; his views of hatred, lust, divorce, oaths, the lex talionis - law of retaliation -, and love for enemies do not reflect abrogation of the law, but co-ordination with the law. (pgs. 236 - 237)

What was Jesus' attitude to things that were not of the weightier matters of the law? (pgs. 173 - 174)

One person wants to say that because Jesus touched a leper He made himself unclean and therefore held the purity laws in contempt, while another wants to defend him against accusations of uncleanness at all costs. (pgs. 174 - 177)

So was Jesus ever unclean? Well, of course he was. What Jew who ever sucked at his mother's breast was not unclean? But, so what? (pg. 178)

The law makes no straightforward equation between guilt and ceremonial uncleanness. (pg. 178)

So matters of:

1. The woman bleeding who touched Jesus (Mark 5:27) is simply not a issue. (pgs. 174 - 177)
2. Mark doesn't introduce us to an antinomian Jesus when he records Jesus' comments in Mark 7, 'nothing that goes into a man can defile a man'. Perhaps Jesus is reflecting creational norms: Nothing is intrinsically unclean. The Levitical law concurs - eating unclean foods could not itself defile. Jesus' statement is in continuity with the law. Looking back, Mark makes the kind of statement he should have made about the Sabbath if the anti-Sabbatarians are correct that the Sabbath ought to not be part of a Christian's life. (pgs. 179 - 187)

When we see Jesus at the end of his earthly life it's instructive to think about these events in the light of Leviticus 20:24 - 26. There the Lord separates Israel to himself, separates certain foods to uncleanness as a sign of Israel's separation to a God whose separation was marked by the temple veil. (pgs. 184 - 187)

Then when the veil is torn in two, it signifies not the departure of the Shekinah, as some argue. It signifies that the separation has ended. (pgs. 189 - 190)

Viewing this event through the lens of Isaiah 64, God has rent the heavens and come down, and the rent veil proclaims that from this point onwards no symbolic uncleanness can separate them from Emmanuel. (pg. 190)

In the Gospels we meet a Savior who lived in conformity with the law. He taught us to obey it in its own terms. Fulfilled its shadows. Evangelists confirm, rather than overturn, the presuppositions outlined from the Pentateuch. They do not abort the embryonic form of the threefold division that appears in the OT. (pgs. 190 - 191)

----------------

A lot more material this week than in the last post. Ross is summarizing chapters four and five in his book, which is 93 pages. In our next post in this series we will consider how the Apostles interpreted the law, as recorded in the book of Acts. We will start to develop a better idea about what actually changed in the church after the rending of the temple veil.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 2 - Five Old Testament Presuppositions that Shape the New Testament's understanding of Law

Last time we found out how the Westminster Confession defined the Threefold Division of biblical law, we reviewed some of the criticism that the doctrine has received from well intended Christians, and gave some broad responses to those criticisms.

Despite the negative tone taken to biblical theology (BT) as an academic discipline in Ross introduction of his address the majority of the rest of the lecture and the book is in fact a study in BT! That is, Ross' starts at the book of Genesis and goes to Revelation reviewing what the Bible says about God's Law from beginning to end. It really is a demonstration of the correct relationship between BT and systematic theology (ST).

Here's where we are at in relationship to where we are going:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

The current post will be a five point look at the entire Old Testament (OT). Even though it's brief and the other four post will be more focused on different parts of the New Testament (NT) its important to note that in the book Ross spends a lot more time working through the OT in his book and that much of the remaining posts depend on these five presuppositions being true to understand the view of the law as expounded by Jesus and the Apostles. Many of these five points, it should be noted, deal indirectly with Jason Meyer's objections to the division as stated in the first post.

----------------

Five OT presuppositions in summary form that shape the NT authors and provide clear exegetical support from the OT itself.

1. Indicators that the Decalogue is distinct from the laws that God revealed through Moses to the nation of Israel (pgs. 52 - 80):
• The Decalogue is designated as the ten words - categorized the 'ten words' by Moses. (pgs. 80 - 83)
• God distinguished those ten words from all other law by writing them in tablets of stone. (pgs. 83 - 86)
• He spoke those ten words and added nothing more. (pgs. 86 - 88)
• He gave them in an exclusive apodictic - as opposed to - casuistic format; that is to say, there are no 'if ... thens' in the Decalogue. (pgs. 88 - 92)
2. If we look backwards from Sinai to Eden the distinctiveness of the Decalogue appears not as a distinct historical development, but to the writing laws that are already self understood. (pgs. 92 - 104)
3. The Decalogue stands out as the constitutional basis of all the statutes and ordinances. The statutes and ordinances are a specific and carefully constructed outworking of the ten words. (pgs. 106 - 110)
4. Although the Hebrew words and phrases do not determine distinctions they do sometimes recognize them (pgs. 110 - 115):
• Exodus 25 designates the laws governing the tabernacle as 'according to the pattern' and this marks out the laws from Exodus 25 - Leviticus 15 as laws that point from shadow to reality. (pgs. 111 - 113)
• Deuteronomy marks out the statutes and ordinances as laws to be obeyed 'in the land' - this body of law was not binding always and everywhere, but 'in the land'. (pgs. 113 - 115)
• In the Pentateuch we have, in embryonic form, the framework for biblical law that grew into the orthodox view of the threefold division of the law. (pg. 144)
5. The 'mercy not sacrifice' theme that appears throughout the OT, particularly in the prophets, reflects the Pentateuchal framework. (pgs. 126 - 132)
• According to the prophets, God can hate obedience to pattern laws, yet He always desires obedience to the ten words, including the Sabbath.
• For the Prophets these ten words were the standard by which all nations are judged.

If the Pentateuch and the Prophetic writings view the law of Moses as an united body of law, yet one which has classification and priority then anyone who sets aside the whole law because it is an unity must explain why those prioritizations that originate the Pentateuch are irrelevant.

Only by paying careful attention to those classifications and prioritizations can we make sense of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles concerning the law.

----------------

If you want to hear more about any of Ross' five points I would encourage you to listen to the lecture and get a copy of his book, because as I have pointed out in the notation Ross is summarizing two chapters and almost one hundred pages in these five points. Next week we will discover what Jesus and the Gospels writers had to say about the law.

The Threefold Division of the Law: Part 1 - Introduction

In November of 2010, Christian Focus Publications released a book by Philip S. Ross titled From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law. It is 426 pages long and is a treasure to read if you have ever tried to defend the Westminster Confession of Faith's 19th chapter (WCF) which explains God's Law as containing a tri-partite division of the law. Ross' book goes through the entire Bible (Biblical Theology) to show that the way our Father's in the Faith understood the Law of God was a careful reflection of Scripture, instead of a imposition on Scripture (Systematic Theology).

Before the book was released, however, in March of 2010 Mr. Ross gave an address to Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales (EPCEW) on the same topic which is about an hour long. I discovered the book because I was reading through the Marrow of Modern Divinity and actually dealing with this exact issue in my church with a Theonomist who was leading a Sunday School class where he made it very clear that WCF 19.4 was wrong to teach:

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.

At the time I hadn't discovered Professor McKay's book or his brilliant footnote on this topic. Therefore, I 'dug in my heals' and ordered the book and proceeded to read it, along with my pastor. What we found was great, well-researched material, that provided more than what we needed along with a whole lot of other material that addressed other contemporary issues about the Law of God, but in a different way than either of us had expected. Which, in hindsight, is a good experience even through at first it was a bit disappointing for my part.

As I was working through the book I also was trying to dig up other materials (press interviews, reviews, etc.) to see what other people were thinking about the book and to maybe find a more compact way to present 426 pages of research in a shorter time span, and that's how I found the lecture.

I haven't directly spoken with this dear Brother in Christ about Ross' book, but I'm slowly working up to addressing the matter in another forum. The great part about the address is that Ross covers his entire book in an abbreviated form with a slightly different structure. I have spent the last few months returning to the lecture for the purpose of jotting down notes and doing dictation of the lecture, so that I could make the fruits of Ross' study more accessible.

I have chosen to break up those notes into six main parts with one additional part on Ross' thoughts on the Sabbath. I think Ross' arguments for the Sabbath are good and I understand why he spends time in both the book and the lecture to address the issue; nevertheless, the key point being discussed in the first six posts the primary concerned to present Ross' arguments for the Threefold Division of the Law. I will in the final post explain my reasons for separating these closely related issues. This post will be updated as I post additional parts. The parts are:

1. Introduction
2. Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
3. Jesus and the Gospels
4. The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
5. The Epistles of the Apostles
6. Conclusion
7. Sabbath Extracts

The posts will follow the general format of a statement that Ross makes in his lecture/my thoughts about how to express that statement and the relevant page numbers in Ross' book where Ross either makes a similar statements. As I found out, the address can provide some insight in the differences between writing a book and presenting a speech. Without further ado, here's Ross' introduction.

----------------

The threefold division is the division of biblical law into (pg.2):

1. Moral - The Ten Commandments
2. Civil (or Judicial) - Those laws that were given for civil government
3. Ceremonial - The laws that governed sacrifice

Do people consider the confession a garment or a straightjacket?

Nearly half of the Shorter Catechism's 107 questions deal with the demands and consequences of ever binding moral law. (pg. 6)

From the beginning law was was written on the heart of man. (pg. 6)

Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of any law of God given as a rule to the reasonable creature. (pg. 6)

The Westminster doctrine of the threefold division of the law is a reiteration of catholic doctrine. It's not uniquely Eastern or Western; Catholic or Protestant; conservative or liberal; Patristic or Puritan; Thomist or Calvinist, or anything else. It has been expounded, maintained, and defended by some of the most prominent theologians in the history of the church. (pg. 1)

Having subjected the threefold division of the law to biblical scrutiny like any other doctrine, it is remarkable how simplistic the dismissals of the threefold division are. (pgs. 5, 7)

Two examples are Tom Wells and Jason Meyer.

Tom Wells in his book (co-authored with Fred Zaspel) New Covenant Theology on page 72 writes that biblical evidence to support the Puritan approach to the Decalogue 'was always wanting'. He goes on to write the following on page 74 (pg. 8):

As evidence for the wider sweeping conclusion that everything moral is comprehended is one of these ten commands, both the Larger and Smaller [sic] Catechism offer just three verses, Matthew 19:17, 18, 19. This is, surely, much too narrow a base from which to draw such a comprehensive conclusion. Further than that, assuming that Matthew 19 contains the best evidence for this opinion, we must note that it was not available to OT [Old Testament] believers at all.

Ross contends that Wells' seems to imagine that the divines took a very simple approach to proof texting. (pg. 8)

The Westminster Divines were, however, more sophisticated than grasping for texts that might prove their point. This is why the first edition of the Confession contained no proof texts. The reluctant Assembly was not concerned about 'being unable to support the proposition of the Confession by Scripture' but because they realized 'that a complete presentation of Scripture proof would have required a volume'. In this case, it is Wells' approach that is most obviously wanting. (pg. 8)

Jason Meyer in his book The End of the Law on page 282 writes (pgs. 8 - 9):

The NT [New Testament] itself does not make these three distinctions, and no one living under the law of Moses seriously thought they could pick which parts were binding and which were optional. God's law comes as a set with no substitutions. Therefore, exegetes should not read the three distinctions into NT texts that speak of the law as a singular entity. Furthermore, one will find it challenging to divide all laws into three neat, watertight compartments.

Meyer's takes the orthodox view for two thousand years and writes it off in seventy-five words. However, Meyer's comments should make one question if he has ever read the confessional explanations of the threefold division. (pg. 9)

The Confession's teaching in 19.3 shows the the oft-repeated claim that the threefold division divides 'all laws into three watertight compartments' is false. The section says, of the ceremonial laws, that they contain 'several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ ... and partly of divers instructions of moral duties'. (pg. 9)

Many who reject the threefold division do so because they do not believe it to be biblical. But what does it mean to be 'biblical'? (pg. 37)

For some, the meaning 'to be biblical' might be rooted in certain presuppositions of biblical theology (BT) as an academic discipline.

Whatever they - professor, pastor, etc. - claim BT is and wherever they make those claims, BT is almost universally occupied with the task of being a descriptive discipline. (pg. 46)

Telling us what biblical passages supposedly meant within a predetermined, literary, or canonical context never moving beyond some conjectured historical setting, and never saying anything to the present. (pgs. 46 - 47)

From the perspective of BT, Meyer's theology appears silent when he says 'that no one living under the law of Moses seriously thought they could pick which parts were binding and which were optional'.

That sounds, continues Ross, like an accurate description of how things were for those living under the Mosaic law; a description that tells us what it meant. But it's a superficial analysis.

Ross contends that it's a superficial analysis because Meyer would have to try to persuade Amos, Jeremiah, or Isaiah of the truth of his [Meyer's] claim that there were not distinctions in the law delivered through Moses.

It is a hopeless enterprise to come to any historical doctrine and to expect the doctrine to comply with the self-authenticating scriptures of academic BT.

Should a Christian interpreter actually come to the Pentateuch or the Prophets without ever thinking about the Trinity or Jesus Christ, as two distinct natures in one person forever, they are probably more ignorant than brilliant; we simply cannot reformat our brains and come to any conclusions through that way, and nor should we. There is a pattern of sound words to which we should hold fast. (pgs. 48 - 49)

This is not the only problem with critiquing the threefold division from an exclusively BT paradigm. To do so is also anachronistic. Even if we allow that BT was brought forth by J.P. Gabler in 1787 this still leaves almost 1800 years of theological study and biblical interpretation that did not operate with a clinical dichotomy between systematic and biblical theology, or 'what the scriptures meant' and 'what the scriptures mean'. (pgs. 35, 41, 49 - 50)

Engaging in any meaningful consideration of this doctrine means we cannot ignore the way that its exponents down through the centuries read the Bible. The field of this type of study is known as the history of exegesis. (pgs. 34 - 35)

At a basic level this means we assume what was an unsurprising dogma for the early church - that is, the unity and inerrancy of the text. (pg. 40)

For Justin Martyr the word of God was infallible and immutable. (pg. 35)

Ross will provide some of the reasons why we may have confidence that the framework for biblical law found in chapter 19 of our Confession is derived from the Scripture as opposed to Meyer's claim that the division is read into the Scripture.

Ross intends to deal with the basic categories of moral, ceremonial and judicial law.

----------------

Next time we will look at the Five OT presuppositions that shape the NTs understanding of law.