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.

Theonomy vs. the Westminster Confession of Faith

For the past seven weeks I have been reading David McKay's book The Bond of Love, which I would recommend for anybody who's thinking of going to seminary or just wants to know how the Bible fits together. Today I reached Chapter 8 which is about The Way of Holiness. The last section pages 190 - 193 is about the law and society and talks about Theonomy and questions if its teachings are scriptural and confessional.

Professor McKay says "No!" to Theonomy and helpfully shows how a Theonomic interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4 makes that section have no actual meaning in a chapter end note numbered 60 on page 196. Professor McKay writes,

Theonomists who appeal to the Confession tend to interpret 'general equity' in such a way (i.e. embracing the detail of the laws) that they in effect reverse the Confession's statements about the laws having 'expired' and their 'not obligating any'.

The Confession says at 19.4,

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

So what is Professor McKay actually suggesting in his end note? Well here's how we should read the section if Theonomists had their way (according to McKay):

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which though they expired together with the State of that people; the general equity thereof requires obligation of all.

The changed words are in italics, and the meaning of this altered WCF is clearly different than what the Confession actually says. Though what's not so clear is why section four would have existed if the writers were Theonomic? I'll get into the question of if Theonomy is biblical in a later series of posts, but my point for this post is to ask if it's what the RPCNA, or any other church confessing the Westminster Standards actually clearly teaches or can allow? My argument, and the argument of Professor McKay, is an emphatic, "NO!"

Furthermore, over at The Confessional Outhouse, they have a helpful post (Doing Justice to Equity), which suggests the following change to WCF 19.4 as faithful to the original intent of the Standards,

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

Now I realize the phrase "Natural Law" is can be a bit tricky to figure out. I also don't want to leave the impression that I agree with everything that's promoted at The Confessional Outhouse, but if we could agree that by the phrase "natural law" we mean only the Ten Commandments, also called the moral law (WCF 19.3, WLC Q. 93), and don't confuse the Ten Commandments with the Covenant of Works either, which was added to the moral law (WCF 4.2), we have pretty clear modern statement.

Sinclair Ferguson in his chapter, "An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God" published in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, on page 330 offers a slightly different rewording of 19.4 than McKay which is also helpful:

The Mosaic law has actually expired minimally: it remains obligatory and must be applied maximally.

I'm looking forward to having a book review series on Theonomy: A Reformed Critique soon, but it is interesting to note the publication date is 1990. Therefore, for at least over 20 years Ferguson has argued that it would be more honest to modify the Confession and hold to Theonomy than to have a secret meaning to 19.4 and then have to explain what the Confession "actually" must mean.
 
I am suggesting is that the term "general equity" had a long social context which, at least in America, is not easily understood currently. I actually plan to address the term "general equity" in a later post, but for now my best suggestion on understanding section four is,

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

This suggestion actually keeps all the terms within the confession because section three defines the moral law. Thanks must go to my dad, Chris Stockwell, for reminding me about how Professor McKay's chapter end note exactly changes the wording of WCF 19.4.

Important dates in The Westminster Assembly and Judicial Law articles by Coldwell and Winzer

Over the past five years I have been subscribing to The Confessional Presbyterian journal (CPJ) and finding out how much more I desire to find out about my Presbyterian heritage. Every journal is filled with articles, original translations of usually writings that have never been available in English, a Psalm to set to an original meter, and then book reviews. It's really been a great reading experience, and it has also helped me learn more about being a Reformed Presbyterian (RP) because a fair amount of the articles have come from members on pastors of various RP churches, and most of their editors are RPs.

Over the past number of years I have become more convinced that a teaching called Theonomy is a harmful and dangerous teaching because it misunderstands God's Law at every possible point - I'll demonstrate proof for this claim in a later post. In 1998, however, the General Assembly of the Free Church in Scotland produced a report titled, Theonomy and the Confession of Faith, which declared,

... that the teachings commonly known as Theonomy or Reconstructionism contradict the Confession of Faith and are inconsistent with Biblical doctrine. It is also essential that the Assembly communicate that declaration to the Church and the grounds on which that judgement has been made. To this end the Committee is recommending that this section of the Report together with the relevant part of the Deliverance be circulated to all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions.

My church's first pastor was a Theonomist, and more pertinently when he left some of the members that still remain alive and in my church still believe that Theonomy is biblical and the solution to societies social ills. As far as I currently know, the RPCNA hasn't issued a statement for or against Theonomy as a Synod. It has, for the most part only lost its influence. Two of the most important works for Theonomy was R.J. Rushdoony's The Institutes of Biblical Law which was published in 1973 and then Greg L. Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics in 1977. More importantly, and parts of this narrative is speculative, from an RP perspective some of the Theonomic voices sounded very similar to the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ over the nations doctrine which is a distinctive that the Reformed Presbyterian Church worldwide has held to since the mid-to-late 17th century, in various ways. However, there are very important distinctions that either were not deemed important or were ignored at the time for the sake of the "culture wars", which I'll get into at another time.

All of the above was setting the context for what I'm about to explain. One of the claims of Theonomy is that their position has historical precedence before Rushdoony and Bahnsen. Additionally, since Dr. Bahnsen was also minster in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church he needed to explain how Theonomy did not conflict with Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 19.2-4, which presents the Threefold Division of the Law as follows:

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

I shortly hope to provide a defense of the Threefold Division of the Law in a future post, but for the purposes of this post we should assume that the Threefold Division comes from the Bible instead of being read into the Bible.  Anyway, the CPJ in its fifth volume (its an annual journal, by the way) published two articles totaling nearly 90 pages about The Westminster Assembly and Judicial Law by Chris Coldwell and Matthew Winzer. Chris Coldwell compiled in the first article which is all data available from the start of the Assembly through the completion of chapters 19, 20, and 23 of the WCF with a focus on any material that can still be currently found about the subject of judicial law from a member of the Assembly connected with work on the ninth proposition of Article 7 of the Thirty-Nine Articles and chapters 19, 20, and 23 of the WCF.  Just this article alone is 52 pages! Matthew Winzer then provides a detailed analysis article about the first article. Lane Keister in the sixth volume called these two articles "The best treatment of this phrase ['general equity']" on page 205 footnote 4 in his review of Joseph C. Morecraft, III's Authentic Christianity: An Exposition of the Theology and Ethics of the Westminster Larger Catechism.

While Mr. Coldwell and Rev. Winzer are to be commended for their hard work in putting all this data together and then presenting analysis, the thought of reading 90 pages for most people interested in this discussion might be a bit too big to actually read. Therefore, when I went though the two articles for the second time last year I created a "cheat sheet", or a document which helps provide some focus on all the great material found in those two articles to whet the appetite for reading the rest of the articles.  Which is presented below:

Important dates in The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law Chronology article by Chris Coldwell as appears in The Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009)

All the dates are important in Coldwell’s chronology, but since there are so many listed dates and events it is important to narrow down the list for brevity:

May 1, 1645 (pgs. 27 - 29) - A selection of Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer's book Sabbatum Redivivum: or, the Christian Sabbath vindicated is provides a lot of detail about the Threefold Division 

November 24, 1645 (pgs. 33, 34) – A work against the Brownists by Robert Baillie is reproduced. See Rev. Matthew Winzer’s Analysis article pages 70, 72, 88, and author’s conclusion on 322 for more information on the importance of Baillie’s work against the Brownists

March 26, 1646 (pg. 37) – Coldwell quotes from session 610 Christian Liberty Report about how WCF 20.1 was worded to include Christian’s being free from both the Ceremonial and Judicial Law

October 12, 1646 (pgs. 41 – 44) – Selections of a very helpful sermon preached before some members of the Assembly by Anthony Burgess is printed giving an exegetical explanation of the threefold division of the law of Moses

December 2, 1646 (pgs. 45 – 47) – Selections are printed in the article from Jus Divinum about the difference between two types of commands given by God: Immediate or Mediate; Moral commands and positive commands is another distinction. In addition, a summary statement by William Gouge preaching on Hebrews 7:12 about judicial law is reproduced

December 4, 1646 (pg. 47) – The Minutes of the Assembly record Mr. Gillespie’s request for the alteration of the wording of WCF 23.1 from “Christ” to “God”. See Winzer’s Analysis on pages 74 – 77 (the section titled, “The spheres of nature and grace”) for Winzer’s implications of this change

December 7, 1646 (pgs. 48, 49) – Coldwell reports on the finalized wording of WCF 20 and gives some comments about 20.1 omitting “Judicial Law” from what it was in the minutes on March 26. Coldwell also, in the printed copy, wrongly refers the reader back to March 27 instead of March 26 for original wording. As of writing this – January 09, 2013 – the CPJ has not published an errata about this mistake. Is the March 26 date correct and Coldwell’s reference on December 7 wrong? Is the later reference correct and the chronology as printed wrong? Is Coldwell referring to something else listed under March 27? Mr. Coldwell responded the same day and said that he will look into the error

April 29, 1647 (pgs, 50, 51) – WCF 19.4 is reproduced with Scripture proofs and the margins reads “… Gen. 49.10. with 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. …”

March 8, 1647/48 (pgs. 53 – 55) – Coldwell prints some excepts from a work by Francis Cheynell which is arguing for Magistrates punishing heretics on the basis of equity between the Moral Law in both Testaments

Now I realize that this assumes you have access to the two articles in question, but the point of this exercise is to encourage you to read the articles. The evidence strongly proves that Theonomy was not an orthodox position held by the writers of the Confession, and that the closest 17th century equivalent to the 20th century Theonomic movement was soundly rejected by the Assembly.