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:
- Introduction
- Five Old Testament presuppositions that shape the New Testament's understanding of law
- Jesus and the Gospels
- The Apostolic Interpretation of the law in the Book of Acts
- The Epistles of the Apostles
- Conclusion
- 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):
- Moral - The Ten Commandments
- Civil (or Judicial) - Those laws that were given for civil government
- 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.
