Women Serving the Church as Deacons: What is Ordination?

The next few posts I will be breaking up my one huge post that considered if women ought to serve the church as ordained Deacons into seven smaller posts.

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

I have heard that some people in the RPCNA would be fine with women serving as Deacons if the church did not ordain them. This position is, at best, a half-way house which avoids the entire basis of Presbyterianism. A Presbyterian form of church government is never practiced because it works efficiently. Ask any Presbyterian Elder how efficient the last session, Presbytery, or Synod meeting went and I am sure the question will either cause him to chuckle or sigh.

Historic Presbyterianism exists because the churches that organize themselves this way believe the Scriptures require a Presbyterian form of church government. As a consequence of this belief, all parts of how the church functions in its various offices need to be based on the Bible or they need to be abandoned. When the church expands into new areas of the world, Presbyterianism ought to go along with the spread of the Gospel regardless of the surrounding culture's form of government. The Gospel is counter-cultural and Presbyterianism is a good and necessary consequence of what the Bible teaches. Therefore, Presbyterianism ought to be part of any church planting work that happens. The RP Testimony says in chapter 25.7:

Christ has appointed in His Word a particular form of government for the visible church. It is government by elders (Greek: presbyters) and is therefore called presbyterian. Each congregation should be ruled by a session of ordained elders, elected by the membership of the congregation.
Acts 15:22; Acts 14:23; Acts 13:1 - 4; Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2 Cor. 8:19; 1 Tim. 3:1 - 7. (See Testimony, chap. 31, par. 3; and Directory for Church Government, chap. 3, sect. I and II, and chap. 4.)

As a result, a good question to ask is what is ordination? The RP Testimony says in chapter 25.8:

The permanent officers to be set apart by ordination are elders and deacons. The office of elder is restricted in Scripture to men. Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon. Ordination is a solemn setting apart to a specific office by the laying on of the hands of a court of the Church and is not to be repeated. Installation is the official constitution of a relationship between one who is ordained and the congregation.
1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6.

Dr. Guy Prentiss Waters in his book How Jesus Runs the Church provides three observations about ordination in chapter 4 (pgs. 107 - 108):

1. We see in Scripture examples of ordination to the offices of both deacon and elder. In Acts 6, the Seven were set apart to the work to which the church had called them. Barnabas and Saul are ordained by the church at Antioch to the ministry of the Word (Acts 13:2).
2. In both Acts 6 and Acts 13, the men who ordain these men are themselves elders of the church. We also read of Paul reminding Timothy of Timothy's ordination (1 Tim. 4:14).
3. Ordination is a public indication that the man being ordained is called of God to this particular ministry.

It must be noted, in observation three, that Dr. Waters disagrees with both the current position of the RPCNA, Dr. Strimple, and myself about qualified women serving as Deacons. Waters's disagreement about women being able to serve as Deacons affects his observations on ordination. Dr. Waters makes his disagreement with Dr. Strimple clear in footnote 84 (pg. 113) by saying that Waters's arguments against B. B. Warfield's editorial "Presbyterian Deaconesses" also apply to Strimple's arguments. Dr. Waters does, however, note that both Warfield's article and Strimple's article have respective differences in presentation. Ironically, though, Waters's then makes the observation that while there were women in the early church who served as Deacons that these women did not have teaching authority in the church. However, if he actually understands Dr. Strimple's paper then Waters ought to understand that Dr. Strimple's position about the Diaconate means that both the men and women called and ordained to be Deacons do not have any teaching authority in church (see quote below). Dr. Waters's comment does not assure me that he has a correct distinction of the offices of Elder and Deacon. In spite of this disagreement, I do find Dr. Waters's observations helpful. Dr. Waters also disagrees with Dr. Strimple about Acts 13:2.

Dr. Strimple provides the following set of considerations about ordination:

One may well say on the basis of the Biblical evidence that ordination appoints one to a ministerial office and function with authority to perform it. The undersigned [Bob Strimple] has no quarrel with such a definition. But it is a leap of logic to say that that office and that function in the case of the deacon involves the kind of teaching and ruling authority which the apostle rules out for women. That is what must be established, and we must not beg that question.
It should be noted, for example, that just two pages later (on p. 328) the Committee says: "Our conclusion ... is that I Corinthians 11:5, 13 imply that in some form public prayer and prophecy by women was an accepted practice in the churches known to Paul." In this way the Committee itself reminds us that we must be very specific as to precisely what kind of teaching and exercise of authority is forbidden to women by Paul's instruction in I Timothy 2:12. ...
John Owen is another who makes the distinction between the elders' authority and the deacons' authority clear, although his point seems to have been missed by the Committee, which quotes him with approval (p. 336) as though supporting its position: "This office of deacons is an office of service, which gives not any authority or power in the rule of the church; but being an office, it gives authority with respect unto the special work."...
It seems to the undersigned [Bob Strimple], however, that in view of what has been seen regarding the analogical relationship between the Seven and the later deacons, and the fact that ordination in the N.T. church was not narrowly restricted to ordination to the office of elder (see Acts 13:3), there is no reason not to ordain deacons, as long as ordination is not misunderstood as in itself investing the recipient with spiritual rule in the church.

Therefore, if the church correctly understands what ordination means then qualified women can be ordained to the office of Deacon based on the Bible's distinctions between the offices of Elder and Deacon.

Does the Bible Say How Much the Old Testament Saints Understood?

Recently I had a conversation with a very dear Brother in Christ about a book review that he wrote. Amongst the subjects he covered in his review was the issue of the extent of knowledge that the Saints in the time before Christ about how their prophesies would actually come to fulfillment. It was his belief that the book's author was wrong when the author wrote that the believers in the Old Testament (and particularly the Prophets) simply did not have a full knowledge of how their prophesies would be fulfilled. Furthermore, this Brother, made the additional assertion that we cannot know, based on the Bible, that the Old Testament writers did not fully understand how their writings would be fulfilled. In other words, Old Testament believers might have had better knowledge of Christ being the fulfillment of their prophesies than just the types and shadows would suggest.

However, I had a problem with both of his ideas, because the New Testament says that the Gospel going beyond the nation of Israel was "... the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people" (Colossians 1:26). A few days after this conversation, I was continuing to read Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments by Milton S. Terry for my upcoming Interpretation of the Bible class at RPTS. Dr. Terry's chapter 9 of Part 2 considers rules for how we should interpret Biblical typology and symbols. On the printed page number 250, Dr. Terry begins to consider how we should understand types by saying:

The hermeneutical principles to be used in the interpretation of types are essentially the same as those used in the interpretation of parables and allegories.  Nevertheless, in view of the peculiar nature and purpose of the scriptural types, we should be careful in the application of the following principles:

On printed page 254 Terry writes the following:

3. The Old Testament types are susceptible of complete interpretation only by the light of the Gospel.  It has too often been hastily assumed that the ancient prophets and holy men were possessed of a full knowledge of the mysteries of Christ, and vividly apprehended the profound significance of all sacred types and symbols.  That they at times had some idea that certain acts and institutions foreshadowed better things to come may be admitted, but according to Heb. ix, 7-12, the meaning of the holiest mysteries of the ancient worship was not manifest while the outward tabernacle was yet standing.  And not only did the ancient worshippers fail to understand those mysteries, but the mysteries themselves the forms of worship, "the meats, and drinks, and divers washings, ordinances of flesh,imposed until a time of rectification" (διοϱθώσεωϛ, straightening up), were unable to make the worshippers perfect.  In short, the entire Mosaic cultus was, in its nature and purpose, preparatory and pedagogic (Gal. iii, 25), and any interpreter who assumes that the ancients apprehended clearly what the Gospel reveals in the Old Testament types, will be likely to run into extravagance, and involve himself in untenable conclusions.

Hebrews 9:7-12 says:

... but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Finally, let's consider the life of Abraham from the perspective of a man who is given a very specific promise in Genesis 12:7 about having offspring then how he and his family understand God's promise.

In Genesis 11:30, we are told that Sarai (later renamed Sarah) was not able to given birth to children. Genesis 12:4 says that Abram (later also renamed Abraham), Sarai, and Lot left Haran when Abram was 75 years old. In Genesis 15:1-6, God talks with Abram in a vision and in verse 4 God corrects Abram's fear that his extended family will inherit his house by telling Abram that the offspring God spoke of in 12:7 is Abram's "very own son" and not a relative of Abram. In Genesis 16:1-4 we read of Sarai's attempt to provide a fulfillment of God's promise by means of her servant Hagar. We read in verse 16 that Abram was 86 when Ishmael was born. In Genesis 17 and 18:1-15 we read of God's promise in 12:7 being given to Abram for a third time with far greater detail than the previous promises when Abram is 99 year old and Sarah's unbelief that she could actually give birth to a child. Finally, in Genesis 21:1-7, we read of the birth of Isaac and God's promise, in 12:7, being fulfilled through the means that God actually intended. By this time Abraham is 100 years old and Sarah is 90 years old!

Therefore, we have seen in the life of Abraham that Abraham was given a promise by God, undoubtedly shared that promise with his wife, and then both of them try two different ways of fulfilling God's promise according to their own ways. How much simpler would it have been if they just knew how God was going to bring about the birth of Issac from Sarah? However, they were only given the promise. The only reason why Abraham and Sarah tried to bring about God's promises through the two other means that they did in Genesis 15:1-6 and Genesis 16:1-4 is because they didn't know the 'how' and the 'when' of God's fulfillment to their family.

This conclusion should not scare us. This conclusion should cause us to pray and wait on the faithful God to bring us to the places we should be in our lives. This should also lead us into action. We have a God who is in control of opening and closing doors as we live our lives. Part of our waiting is being patient but it also involves us trying out different possibilities according to God's moral law. We can do this because we have full assurance that God will lead us to where he wants us to go.

While I still respect this dear Brother in Christ, because of the above mentioned reasons I must disagree with him on this matter, by saying that the Old Testament Saints were not more aware about how God's purposes would come to His fulfillment. The Scriptures, furthermore, are not silent on this issue. Yes, Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day and was glad (John 8:56-59) and the author of Hebrews said Abraham was looking forward to the city built by God (Hebrews 11:8-10). However, all of this was done by faith towards the faithful God who would bring about His promises in His way, not the way of what believers perceive as God's ways. It's okay for Christians, both in the Old and New Testament, to be surprised by God.

Jesus' Authority as God and Jesus' Authority as Mediator: Symington

For several years I have been trying to understand the history of the doctrine of the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. One issue that continues to crop of in the literature is how to understand Christ in relation to the Church and Christ in relation to the created order.

This distinction was important during the time of the Westminster Assembly (1643-1653), the killing times in Scotland (1660-1688), and in the Reformed Presbyterian Church's witness though writers such as William Symington.

I hope in a future post to address this distinction as the Westminster Assembly was confronted with the issue.

More recently, this distinction has appeared, throughout the years, in the debate over Two Kingdom theology. Dr. Darryl Hart and Dr. R. Scott Clark have been redirecting any opposition at Two Kingdom theology to an essay written by Dr. David McKay in The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear. I intend to write a future post about how to understand Dr. McKay's essay in the future, but for now I want to highlight a very helpful, modern day explanation of this distinction that Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre give in their book William Symington: Penman of the Scottish Covenanters on pages 210-212:

Before examining the main content of Symington's work, one important clarification should be made. It is a matter of clarification which Symington sought to establish in the opening pages of his book [ed., Messiah the Prince]. Specifically, we must have clearly fixed in mind a distinction between Jesus' authority as God—an authority which He always enjoyed over all things—and His authority as our Savior. By His very nature, Jesus always was God. To bring about our salvation, however, Jesus had to become a man. It is in Jesus' becoming a man that He took up the responsibilities and prerogatives of a Priest, a Prophet, and a King. We should have it clearly in mind that Symington was writing, in this book, about the royal authority Jesus obtained as our Incarnate Savior. This is an aspect of His authority distinct from that which He always enjoyed as the Creator God.

This might seem a confusing distinction to make, but it is a biblical distinction that needs to be upheld.Just as it is hard to comprehend how Jesus can be both God and man, similarly it is difficult to comprehend how Jesus can be at once both eternally sovereign (as Creator) and yet also to have needed to obtain sovereignty (as Savior). Yet such distinctions are taught to us by Scripture, and are important to have in mind as we approach Symington's book. ...

[T]he same Jesus, who as Creator always held sovereignty over us, now takes on mediatorial kingship as well for the purposes of our salvation.

In the case of Jesus, we might speak of the first kind of authority—His eternal sovereignty as God—as His natural dominion. It was Jesus who made all things, and having made everything, Jesus naturally owns all things. Simply because of who Jesus is (His nature), He has sovereign authority over everything. Paul wrote about this kind of authority held by Jesus in his epistle to the Colossians:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col.1:16-17; cf. Ps. 24:1-2).

As the Creator God, Jesus always had absolute authority over all things. Just as there was never a time when He was not God, there was never a time when Jesus was not King, in this sense. Symington refers to this authority of Jesus the Creator God as His essential, or what we here have termed His natural dominion.

The second king of authority Jesus held, however, is something which He had to obtain as part of His work of salvation. It is what Symington calls His mediatorial dominion. As a man, Jesus took "the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7). In respect to His humanity, Jesus was not (at first) revealed as a king, but a servant. Nevertheless, from that position of servanthood, Jesus went on to be exalted to a throne: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9).

Peter also preached about this authority Jesus received as our incarnate Savior in Acts 2. Using one of David's Psalms (Ps. 110) as a preaching text, Peter proclaimed,

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne...David...saith himself [of Jesus], The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:30-36; cf., Isa. 9:6).

Jesus was exalted to a throne and endowed with titles of sovereignty. Peter is clear to indicate these privileges as being "new" acquisitions—authority ascribed to Jesus at a specific point in time and in specific connection with His work as our Savior. This is a second kind of authority obtained by Jesus in specific connection with His work of salvation. [A]lthough Jesus already held natural authority over the creation, in His love He went further to obtain for Himself mediatorial authority for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the effectiveness of our redemption.

Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre's reference to Symington's establishment of this distinction in the opening pages of Messiah the Prince must be a reference to pages 4-5:

The sovereign authority of Christ may be viewed either as necessary, or as official. Viewing him as God, it is necessary, inherent, and underived: viewing him as Mediator, it is official and delegated. It is the latter of these we are now to contemplate. The subject of our present inquiry is, the MEDIATORIAL DOMINION of the Son; not that which essentially belongs to him as God, but that with which, by the authoritative act of the Father, he has been officially invested as the Messiah. It is that government, in short, which was laid upon his shoulders—that power which was given unto him in heaven and in earth.

It is also helpful, when addressing this distinction, to note that Symington had to defend Christ's mediatorial authority (as Drs. Blackwood and LeFebvre use "authority" instead of Symington older term "dominion") over the Nations against contemporaries in Symington's time who contended that Christ only had natural dominion over the Nations. Symington's lengthy defense of his position can be found on pages 192-230 of the edition of Messiah the Prince that I have linked to earlier in this post.

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 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.