Whose Law is it Anyway?
Our church has been in a lengthy sermon series through the book of Leviticus. There are a variety of laws and regulations in Leviticus, and sometimes it can become burdensome. For example, chapters 1-5 are basically all about sacrifices that we don’t have to offer anymore (Hebrews 9:12). Chapters 11-15 are about cleanliness laws that Christians are freed from under the New Covenant (Acts 15). However, some passages, like those in Leviticus 18, are definitely still applicable to Christians today. The only divinely inspired case we have of church discipline in the whole Bible occurs because a man lives in a way that is out of step with Leviticus 18, having an unlawful relationship with a close relative in his family (1 Cor. 5:1). It is clear that the biblical law has an authoritative application at some points for a Christian, while at other points Paul tells Christians that if they accept the law, Christ is no benefit to them! (Gal 5:2-4). The confusion can be easily discerned. Which law applies and when?
Historically, the way that Christians have tried to deal with these issue is by utilizing what is called the “tripartite division of the law.” That means that the law is categorized into three parts, the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law. The taxonomy is not explicitly mentioned in the Scripture, but the great confessions of the 17th Century all utilize this kind of language to make sense of the issue. Moral laws are those that can be directly or indirectly derived from the Ten Commandments. Civil laws are those laws which have to do with jurisdiction for Israel during the time when they dwelt in the promised land. The ceremonial law has to do with the same time period but is concerning the sacrificial structure of Israel, not the judicial code (Leviticus 11-15 would be examples of “ceremonial law.”) This distinction is helpful and I think all Christians should familiarize themselves with it. We can see why by considering a few examples.
The Moral Law
The clearest category of the three distinctions is the moral law. The moral law is often said to be perpetual, meaning that all people in all places and at all times are to obey the moral law. For example, “Thou shalt not murder.” This is a clear moral law. God expects all Christians, whether living in the Old Testament or in the New Testament, to obey His moral law.
When we think of the moral law, we can think of the 10 Commandments, though it is sure that moral law existed prior to that declaration. For example, had Adam not eaten from the tree in the garden but worshipped the serpent in the garden, would he have been guilty of sin? I think the right answer to that question is yes, even though there was no strict command to “have no other Gods before me.” I think it is helpful to consider the 10 commandments to be a summary of God’s moral law. Therefore, whenever the 10 commandments are reflected in the teaching of the Old Testament, it is wise to consider that these laws are still applicable to those under the New Covenant.
The Ceremonial Law
The second category worth consideration is the ceremonial law. These are laws that God gave to Israel so that they might be ceremonially clean. This cleanliness allowed them to come and worship at he tabernacle and eventually the temple. Lepers are unclean and cut off from communal life. Therefore, to be a leper was to be cut off from the presence of God, in some respect. That’s what makes Jesus touching a leper so striking in the New Testament (Mark 1:41). The ceremonial laws told you that you were clean or unclean, fit for communion with God or unfit. Israel went to great lengths to try and maintain ceremonial cleanliness.
Are ceremonial laws binding on Christians today? Strictly speaking, no. A man can come to church with a skin disease and a woman can enter society fairly quickly after childbirth (Lev. 13 and Lev 12, respectively). We are made clean by Christ’s sacrifice. The 1689 confession says it like this:
Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel 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 being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.
The framers of this confession understood that the demand for obedience to these laws is taken away. Abrogation is a word that is thrown around in scholarly literature to describe the old covenant, meaning it is repealed or done away with. Is Leviticus 11-15 still Scripture? Absolutely. Is it binding on Christians? The answer to that is no.
The Civil Law
This leads to a third and final category which is the civil law. The civil laws were to give instruction to Israel on how to adjudicate civil matters in the land of Canaan. For example, if an ox is known to gore people, what should be done to that ox? Exodus 21:28-29 tells us! This is an example of civil law. Exodus 21-24 functions as case law, essentially applying the 10 Commandments of Exodus 20 to everyday life in Israel. Other examples of civil laws would be Leviticus 17, where blood is prohibited in the tabernacle, and also Leviticus 20, where Child sacrifice is prohibited.
However, this is where the Bible becomes increasingly complex. Exodus 21 might be a civil law, but there is clearly a moral component to the commandment. Why is the ox who gores someone to be stoned? Because “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” The Civil law is then a reflection of the moral law, to some degree.
This is the hardship of interpreting biblical law. How can we know which laws are ceremonial, which ones are civil, and which ones are moral? The division itself seems to be a fine division, as the categories are quite clear. The issue becomes that we, as human interpreters of Scripture, are often unable to determine what is moral, civil, ceremonial, and the like. The 1689 confession even states that the civil laws have gone away, and yet their general equity is of some moral use (2LBC 19.4).
We do not want to be men and women of the law, because we want to be men and women of grace. However, we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8). How can we read, understand, and apply the sundry laws of Leviticus 19 and 20? I believe the answer for us lies in understanding positive law.
Positive Law
Positive law is a term I hadn’t heard until a few years ago (I am grateful to my friend, Matt Hoaglund, for sharpening me). I was confused by the phrase, because laws generally, to Christians, can seem to be negative. However, a working definition of positive law seems to be the key to understanding how Old and New Testament Scriptures apply to Christians. Positive laws are laws that operate underneath a specific covenantal economy for the duration of that covenantal period. For example, one can consider circumcision as a positive law. It was something God told Abraham to do that he would not have known to do apart from God’s revelation to Abraham that he should do it. After God announced circumcision as a covenant sign to Abraham, Abraham and all his male offspring were compelled, even required, to circumcise their firstborn son. A failure to circumcise your son was to risk being cut off from the covenant promises (Exodus 4:24-26).
Another example of positive law is Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God told the man and woman not to eat of the tree. While there was surely a moral structure to the universe, the only way Adam and Eve knew not to eat of that tree was because God had told them. Additionally, this command came to them in a particular covenantal relationship. As the Bible tells us, Adam and Eve fell and the penalty was meted out via the curses of Genesis 3.
A classic work on positive law is found in John Colquhoun’s book A Treatise on Law and the Gospel. However, a brief definition of positive law might be as follows: Positive law requires clear revelation from God, a unique covenantal context, and a command that is unable to be obeyed apart from that covenantal context. Consider that no one could obey the command to baptize prior to the New Covenant. Or further, consider that you or I cannot obey the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. These commands are restricted to a specific covenant in a specific time period.
Putting it All Together
How does this help us read the Bible? Consider that all of the laws of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are positive laws. They all have attributes that relegate them to a specific covenantal context, namely the Mosaic economy. Therefore, while it is possible for us to abide by the regulation not to wear two kinds of thread in Leviticus 19:19, is it expected? The answer is no. Consider a short thought experiment.
If the prohibition against wearing two different kinds of thread is a positive law, that means it is sinful for Israelites, under the Mosaic economy, to do such a thing. Such an act would be a breach of the covenant God has made with them, and the covenant curses, namely expulsion from the land, would be expected. But what about prior to the giving of the law? Was it a sin for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to wear two kinds of cloth sown together? I think the answer is no. Abraham never lived under the Mosaic economy, and therefore is not bound by its commands.
Therefore, how should we, who live under the New Covenant, think about such a practice? I think it is sufficient to say that God does not expect New Covenant believers to abide by those positive laws. Rather, they were given, for a time, under the Mosaic economy which has now been abrogated. I am not sure whether the prohibition against wearing thread was a civil or ceremonial law, but I am certain it was a positive law.
However, we must be clear that some positive laws reflect moral principles. For example, Leviticus 19:9-10 commands Israelites not to glean to the extremities of their property. Rather, they are to leave the edges for the poor to glean. While Christians are not bound to obey the commands of Leviticus 19, it seems that there is a command to “remember the poor.” In fact, Paul says he is very eager to do just this in his gospel ministry (Gal. 2:10). To break it all down, I think it is safe to affirm the following statements.
1) Some Old Testament commands are moral in their nature. They are binding on all Christians today (10 Commandments). Moral laws should be obeyed.
2) Some Old Testament commands are pure positive laws. They are not binding on Christians today (Leviticus 1-5, Leviticus 11-15, Leviticus 17). Purely positive laws should not be obeyed. This is what Paul is articulating in Galatians 3:24-26. The positive requirements of the Old Covenant have been fulfilled in Christ.
3) Some Old Testament commands are positive laws that reflect the moral law. The application of the moral law depends upon the covenantal administration. This is the trickiest thing to understand about the biblical law. We are not called to obey the positive law of the Old Covenant, but we are called to obey the moral law that those positive laws reflect. In fact, Paul loves to give positive law by appealing to positive law.
Positive Law = Positive Law
1) The Glory of a True Church
In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul is chastising the church in Corinth for allowing a serial adulterer to fellowship with the body as a member in good standing. He commands the church to discipline this man and kick him out of the church so that he would repent. Interestingly, the commandment that the man is violating comes from Leviticus 18, in that he was sleeping with his father’s wife. It is clear to Paul that the moral commands standing behind Leviticus 18 are still to be obeyed in the New Covenant economy.
More interesting is the fact that Paul quotes from Deuteronomy when he commands the church to “Purge the evil person from among you (1 Cor. 5:13). Purging the evil person from the church is not a moral law found in the 10 commandments. However, it is a positive law given in the Old Testament. Paul gives a positive law to the church on the basis of a positive law from the Old Testament! One can see how this is a little clearer than appealing to the civil/ceremonial distinction, while not denying that such a distinction exists. The basis for many of the positive laws given in the New Testament are the positive laws of the Old Testament which are reflections of moral commands. Consider another example.
2) Minister’s Maintenance Vindicated
1 Timothy 5:18
18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
This is a quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4. This is a positive law that God gives to the people of Israel for how they are to treat their animals. The reason one would muzzle an ox is so he would not eat the grain as he was plowing. Presumably, this was so the one gathering the grain might have more grain, either for himself or to sell for a profit. In a sense, the command underneath this one is “don’t be greedy.” Perhaps the 10th Commandment, “Thou shalt not covet” is in view in this command.
What does Paul do with that command? He gives a positive law to Timothy to tell the church to pay their elders who labor in preaching and teaching. Essentially, Paul is using the command of the Old Covenant which encourages generosity in that economy to encourage generosity under the New Covenant administration. Paul reasons from positive law to positive law.
Some theologians would say it is only those commands which are repeated in the New Covenant which are binding on Christians today. I think that the argument for understanding positive law actually helps us to see how all of the Scripture is helpful for Christians, and also helps us to see when Christians are free in Christ from the burdens of law keeping in the Old Testament. Consider one final example:
3) The Jewish Sabbath Abbrogated
It is fairly common to see theologians argue that 9 of the 10 commandments are still morally binding on Christians. The one command that they leave off is not murder or covetousness, but the Sabbath day. Many theologians, who are good, godly, Christian brothers, maintain that because the Sabbath command is not repeated in the New Testament, its directive is not binding on Christians today.
If we understand the reasoning of positive law, we can see why this is an error and maintain that all 10 of the 10 commandments are to be abided by in the Christian life. Consider that the Sabbath Day is given in the 10 Commandments. Further, the Sabbath is given all kinds of regulations underneath the Old Covenant. One of the principle ways the Jews were to be known as Jews was by their keeping of the Sabbath Day.
Well, in Christ, all Christians can maintain that the Sabbath as it existed under the Old Covenant was abrogated. Meaning, there is no need to rest from labors on the seventh day. However, we do see a change in the Sabbath under the New Covenant, namely that it is the first day of the week that is observed as a day of worship for the Christian. While the regulations of the Old Covenant are gone, the positive law under the Old Testament was simply a reflection of the moral law God desires all his people to obey. Therefore, Christians are encouraged to keep the fourth commandment, not by going back to Leviticus, but by looking to Christ. When he rose from the dead on the third day, he invited his New Covenant people to regularly remember the Resurrection by giving to them a New Covenant Sabbath. Now, we can look back to Christ’s finished work on the first day of every week as we rest from our worldly labors and worship the risen Christ corporately. The Sabbath is a moral law. Under the Old Covenant, it had a positive shape. Under the New Covenant, it has a positive shape that is different from that of the Old Covenant. However, the command to “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy” is a command all Christians should submit to, albeit in the form of a positive, New Covenant commandment. God’s laws, both positive and moral, are good for us. They are not a burden. We should gladly submit to these commands of Scripture, even as we look to Christ who is the fulfillment of the law.
I am sure this rubric leaves many questions, but I am hopeful that it advances the conversation forward. Perhaps now, when you come to a question in the Scripture, applying a simple category of positive law will make it so that you have a firmer grasp on what God requires of you, and what God has provided for you in his son Jesus Christ.
— Many thanks to John William Crawford for sharpening my thinking on this subject —