Categorizing the Law

[Guest]

What do you think about the school of thought that categorizes Old Testament law into 3 categories (moral, cermonial, civil). This line of thinking usually implies that moral law still applies to Christians, but the other two categories do not.

Without this model, how do we decide what Old Testament laws are still applicable and which laws are not? Do we simply seek to love God & love people and let the details fall where they may?

God bless,
matthew

[Guest]

In my opinion, I recall Jesus re-stating and clarifying the intent of those laws that are considered "moral" laws. In the Sermon on the Mount, there were many times He began with "those of old times said" and concluding with "but I say unto you". It was never a watering down of the law but a clarification of it. And He cut away the mess that gathered on it by the tradition of men and made it plain for all to understand.
The Book of Hebrews tells us that the sacrificial laws are no longer pertaining to us because we have a perfect sacrifice, a perfect High Priest, and many other things that the ceremonial law foreshadowed but was made real by their antitypes in the New Covenant.

It does seem to me (as little as I know about it) that there are 3 divisions of the law. And those that are restated by Jesus in the NT are still ours to observe as Christians.
Can we hold to them perfectly? We probably won't, at least not all of them. But I believe that they still should rule in our lives and we should strive to live by them.

[Guest]

What do you think about the school of thought that categorizes Old Testament law into 3 categories (moral, cermonial, civil). This line of thinking usually implies that moral law still applies to Christians, but the other two categories do not.

Without this model, how do we decide what Old Testament laws are still applicable and which laws are not? Do we simply seek to love God & love people and let the details fall where they may?

God bless,
matthew

I've never really felt comfortable with the 3 way division of the law. It's often taught but I just don't quite understand how some applies today and some does not. It's not that I don't understand the reasoning, and it's not that I disagree with it per se. My concern is, why keep yourself under any of the law (like the moral law) and do away with the rest. Keeping youself under the moral law doesn't make you moral. It takes a transformed heart to see God's morality, not a list of commands.

While some of this division is logical, not all of it is. At that point it becomes arbitrary. I do believe that the civil and ceremonial parts still apply (if you can figure out their antitype, that is).

So, maybe to help clear up the confusion, I'm one of those who believe the law is a guide, like guard rails. As long as you stay on the road you don't need them.

These verses always come to mind:

Gal 3:24 So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Rom 13:9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

So while you can divide up the law 3 ways, I have always found it easier to look at the law as a "don't" list, where love is a "do" list. If we focus on love, and walk in the Spirit we are not under law (any of it), because being under the law is a guide for those without the Spirit. Since those with the Spirit have the law written on their hearts.

I don't know if this is even what you were asking about or if I'm just rambling.

[Guest]

I like the 3 divions of the OT law, but I don't believe Christians are under any of it.

THe moral law simply gives God's opinion on a matter for Israel, which is a pretty good place for us to start when trying to figure out what is moral as well.

Les

[Guest]

Good observations Sean! The divisions may make sense to us but the biblical writers seem to know of no such divisions. Rather, the Law is spoken of as a whole, and has all been done away with. Morality itself is not done away, it existed before the Law and is still in effect, and ever will be, being based on the character of God (love), and is known to all mankind to one degree or another.

[Guest]

What do you think about the school of thought that categorizes Old Testament law into 3 categories (moral, cermonial, civil). This line of thinking usually implies that moral law still applies to Christians, but the other two categories do not.

Mattrose, I think the moral law is applicable unless Christ redefined it which he did quite a bit. The 10 commandments were written by the finger of God and i think are different then the rest of the Law of Moses and that's why they were placed separately in the front of the ark. But Christ said he came not to abolish then but to "fulfill" them or define what God really expects from christians. Instead of "Thou shalt have no other Gods" he redefined the greatest command as "Love the Lord your God with all your heart,soul,mind and strength and the second is like the first "Love your neighbor like yourself." Or "don't murder" turns into "don't be angry at your brother withour cause" or "Remember the Sabbath" to "present your body as a living sacrifice" or "don't steal,bear false witness,or covet or honor your parents to "blessed are the meek and the merciful and the humble and the poor in spirit" the things that require a changed heart instead of the flesh commands which the first 9 commandments are with the exception of the last commandment not to covet. So the 10 commandments were a pathway to take the obedient into the changed heart types commans which Christ gave which He said "fulfilled" the law.

[Guest]

thanks for all the replies. they are very helpful as i think thru this issue

God bless

[Guest]

Matt,
I grew up being taught that there were three divisions of the Old Testament law (moral, ceremonial and civil), and that as a Christian I was only responsible for obeying the moral laws. This was also used to explain to me why Christians did not follow any of the "ceremonial" laws in the Old Testament pertaining to diet, the Sabbath, etc.
He problem is that you will find difficulty marshalling Scriptural support for this trichotomy of the OT law, since as far as I am aware from my own study of Scripture, there is(are) no verse(s) that talk of the law in this way. In fact, the Law is described as a unit in James 2:10,11. In this passage, James is explaining to his readers that to follow the law in one point is in essence acknolwedging the law as having authority over you. Yet, to do so is not to acknowledge just one point of the law as authoritative, but rather the law in total. That is why James says, "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery', also said, 'Do not murder'. Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law."
Though not a problem in our day, the early Jewish Christians had an identity crisis. What were they now that they were following Jesus? Were they Jews? They had been before. Were they Jews with Moses and Jesus in tow? Or were they something different now? James in discussing the law did not seem to have a piecemeal view of its contents, and though he mentions laws that have an inherent moral value in the above verses, he refers to the law as a unit and in so doing, warns his readers that to follow the law in any point may be more than they bargained for! If you acknowledge what the law says about murder as being authoritative, then how can you ignore the same law that comments on other areas of life. To be consistent, you must adhere to the law in all points, because the law makes no concessions for following one part but not another. This would even include "ceremonial" laws. I do not believe that the Jews and early Christians saw the law as having three parts. So then how do we today justify not following the law?
The answer I believe has been written by Paul in Romans 7:1-6. It is a bit lenghty and I do not want to re-write all of the passage here. In this section, Paul describes the Old and New Covenants as being like two husbands. If a woman (in this metaphor, that's the godly person) is married to the first husband, she is to submit to his leadership (his laws). To break away and join another man would be adultery! However, if the first husband dies and she marries a second husband, then she is not bound by the laws of the first husband. Now she has a new husband and should submit to and follow him. In this example, Jesus and His New Covenant is that second husband. Like Moses, He has a unique place in history in that He was also chosen by God to mediate a covenant between the Lord and His people. However, as Jeremiah 31 tells us, this covenant is "not like the one I made at Mount Sinai". It is different than Judaism. It does not have many of the dietary laws, for example, which we are told by Paul are types and shadows of Jesus Christ. It does have the same moral code, because God's moral character does not change. Many of the other laws however are not carried over because they were institiuted more as a living pictorial of the realities that Jesus' New Covenant has made a reality. Now that the substance is here, we need no longer look at its shadow, but can turn to look towards Him face to face as it were.
Christians feel a need to explain why we don't follow some of the OT laws. The answer is that the Old Covenant is not being offered by God or accepted by God. We are not under the law. We are under Jesus and the terms of His New Covenant. Whatever He commands, we are to do. Whatever He has not commanded is more of a point of discussion and debate. It is not because the law has three arms that we do not kill animals or have cities of refuge, but rather it is because the New Covenant did not institue these things. It does have the same moral standards, which Christians have noticed, and have tried to explain by talking of the law as having parts. However, I feel that the more Biblical answer is that we don't follow any of the law - we simply follow Jesus. He has never lead us to violate any moral of God, but we do what we do not because of Moses or the Ten Commandments, but rather because of Jesus. As one sent from God, He has taught us to live in a way that the law could not condemn, but the motive for this life is not the law but rather Christ Himself.

Hope this helps - it is a different perspective but one I think has Biblical warrant.

[Guest]

Thanks, it was helpful

Perhaps either way of looking at it doesn't produce a drastically different result. What I mean is this:

If I divide the OT law into 3 branches then I...
view the ceremonial as shadows that were fulfilled by the light of Christ
view the moral as still applicable since God's nature doesn't change
view the civil as pertaining to OT national israel and not directly applicable

Then I'm not sure how DIFFERENT that is from what you are advocating. You would tend to agree with all 3 statements above. The only difference is motive I guess. The former would be trying to figure out which laws to obey and the latter would be trying to follow Jesus. Both would end up, probably, doing and not doing the same things.

I agree that the motive you suggest is simpler and better. But I think there is probably value in understanding the law in these categorizing and recognizing why following Jesus divides them as such.

[Guest]

Matt,
I think you are correct that the end result of both ideas proposed will probably produce no difference in behavior. I would, however, question whether Jesus actually divided the law into three parts. For that matter, I would question where in the Bible the division of the law into these three groups can be supported. I am not aware of a place where it is, so perhaps you can point it out to me. It is a division that I believe is created by believers because we all recognize a difference in the morality of certain OT laws (Don't murder vs abstain from certain foods). In an effort to explain why some laws are still followed by Christians and others are not, this division of the law was suggested. The differences between laws with inherent morality and others with ceremonial value are usually easily seen by believers today, but to a person living under the law in the days of the Old Covenant, there was no wiggle room between one law or the other. A Jew working on the Sabbath could be stoned just as easily as a Jew who was caught in adultery. Only now in the New Covenant age where the shadows of certain laws have been replaced with the Substance of the One they foretold (Jesus) can we see these differences. To the Jews under the law, these laws as a group were all assimilated into what formed their everyday life.