If the ceremonial and civil/judicial laws are no longer binding, why are there so many in Scripture?  Paul makes clear that the entire Old Testament was written for our benefit (Romans 15:4).  In truth, these laws are useful to Christians because there are uses of the law other than obedience.  The Law restrains sin and promotes righteousness, brings about conviction of sin by showing us we cannot meet its requirements, and informs the way Christians are to live.[3]  This means that when we read the ceremonial and civil laws, we must see them as more than laws.  The entirety of the Law exists to teach us who God is and who we are as well as point us to Christ. 

And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good?
-Deuteronomy 10:12-13, ESV

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
-2 Timothy 3:14-17, ESV

Recently, I read through the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) in my morning quiet times.  This is the part of the Bible where reading plans often die.  While there are many fascinating stories throughout Genesis and the first half of Exodus, the majority of the rest of the Pentateuch lays out the Mosaic Law.  Following the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the rest of Exodus contains various laws that begin to establish the Jewish religious and civil code along with very specific instructions on how the Tabernacle and everything in it is to be made.  Leviticus then lays out the rest of the Jewish religious law.  Numbers gives the rest of the Jewish legal code amid various stories of Israel’s journey to the Promised Land. Deuteronomy retells the Law to a new generation as they prepare for their conquest of the land. If we are honest, we must admit that these laws can get a little bit tedious and not a little bit uncomfortable, leading us to all but avoid them. Even if we don’t avoid them, what do we do with them?
Of the numerous laws found in the Pentateuch, there are many that even the most devout Christians do not follow.  We eat bacon, wear blended fabrics, and lend money at interest.  We don’t observe the Passover, execute rebellious children, or sacrifice animals.  Yet we will point to parts of the Mosaic Law to argue against abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, extramarital sex, and various other topics, as I did in a previous post.  Are we arbitrarily picking and choosing which parts of the God’s Law we follow, as is so often charged against us?
The Types of Laws
Clearly, there are some Old Testament laws that we follow and others that we do not.  But we are by no means arbitrary in how we determine which laws to follow.  Many Christians use the New Testament as the standard for identifying which laws are still binding.  They hold that if an Old Testament law is repeated in the New Testament, that means that it is still binding, while the laws that are not repeated are not binding on Christians.  While it is certainly true that the laws repeated in the New Testament are still binding, we cannot immediately conclude that a law is not binding just because it is not repeated in the New Testament.  Instead, we identify which laws are still binding by which type of laws we are dealing with.  As I discussed in a previous post, there are three types of laws: moral, ceremonial, and civil/judicial. [1]
Moral laws are rooted in God’s unchanging nature and are thus binding on all people worldwide and across all of time.  All of the Ten Commandments are part of the moral law, as well as commands accompanied by statements like “I am the LORD” or that reference the prohibited activity as an abomination.  These moral laws are often not only repeated in the New Testament but actually expanded.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus extends the prohibition against murder to include hate and adultery to include lust, thus making the standard to which Christians are held even more stringent than the Mosaic Law.  This means that even some things that were allowed under the Mosaic Law are not allowed for Christians (more on that later).  Regardless, any moral law is still in effect regardless of whether it is repeated in the New Testament or not.  Therefore, prohibitions against abortion (a form of murder), homosexuality, extramarital sex, and identifying as a gender clearly inconsistent with biology are part of the moral law and therefore just as binding on Christians today as they were on Jews over three thousands of years ago.
The ceremonial laws deal with the sacrifices, festivals, rituals, and cleanliness standards of the Jewish religion.  In addition to sacrifices and festivals, the restrictions on diet and clothing material are part of the ceremonial law.  The ceremonial law pointed to Christ and was thus fulfilled completely by His life, death, and resurrection such as to make them no longer binding on Christians.  Large sections of Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians as well as almost the entirety of Galatians and Hebrews are devoted to how Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4).  As discussed in the last post, Jesus explicitly did away with both the dietary laws (Mark 7:19) and the separation between Jews and Gentiles (Matthew 28:19, Acts 10:28) that were major topics in the ceremonial law.  When Jesus died, the veil of the Temple was torn, signifying that the separation between God and His people had been removed by Christ’s perfect atonement, therefore eliminating the need for further sacrifices.  The Temple was ultimately destroyed in 70 A.D. in large part to show that the ceremonial law had been completely fulfilled by Christ and thus replaced by Him as the mediator between God and man.
Finally, civil laws apply the moral law to the specific context of theocratic Israel, so those specific laws have not been binding since Israel ceased to be a theocratic nation, even while the moral laws that undergird them are just as binding today as they were then.  The regulations on slavery, execution of rebellious children, and prohibition of charging interest (along with most of the other laws that we find uncomfortable) are all civil laws that are not binding on Christians.  These were specific to the context of ancient Israel and must be viewed with that context in mind.  Therefore, if Christians were to come to power in any nation today (much as the Puritans did for a short time in Mid-Seventeenth Century England), it would be improper for them to use the civil laws of the Mosaic Law as the law of the land.  Instead, they would be wise to examine how the civil laws of Israel applied the moral laws to Israel’s specific context and use that to inform how they might apply the moral laws to their own context.  Therefore, Christians are selective in obeying Old Testament laws, but not arbitrarily selective.  We follow moral laws (which are still applicable to everyone), do not follow ceremonial laws (which were completely fulfilled in Christ), and use the civil laws as an example of how to apply the moral laws to our specific context.
What of Difficult Laws?
Even if they are no longer binding, some of the civil laws have a tendency to make modern Western readers quite uncomfortable.  From our modern perspective, laws allowing slavery, forced marriage, and execution of rebellious children while banning interracial marriage certainly seem cruel and oppressive. This can lead us to question why a loving God would include them in His Law.  While it is impossible to fully know God’s reasoning for including such laws in Scripture—since the secret things belong to God (Deuteronomy 29:29)—there is still much that we can glean from Scripture to help us understand them.  These laws are difficult to understand, so it would be tempting to simply ignore them, but they are important to consider since these laws are often used by opponents of Christianity to make both the Bible and its divine Author seem cruel and oppressive.  This should not be surprising, as David says:

With the merciful you show yourself merciful; with the blameless man you show yourself blameless; with the purified you show yourself pure; and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.  For you save a humble people, but the haughty eyes you bring down.
-Psalms 18:25-27, ESVnone

Peter would later say that wicked and unstable people twist such difficult passages to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).  For them, these laws are convenient evidence with which to undermine the authority of Scripture and charge God with being cruel and vindictive.  More concerning is that these laws can cause genuine Christians to doubt the goodness of God.  To address this, we must view these laws in their original context.  When we do, even people with no expertise in ancient legal codes (like me) can see that these laws are not cruel and oppressive. Let’s look briefly at a few of them:

Slavery: The form of slavery allowed in the Mosaic Law is very different from the form of slavery practiced in the Americas.  It was heavily regulated, temporary, and ultimately a form of welfare (Exodus 21:1-27, Leviticus 25:39-40).  In fact, the slavery practiced in the Americas would have been slave trading, which was a capital offense in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 24:7).

Executing Rebellious Sons: While we would consider it extreme to execute a rebellious child, we must remember that the ancient Near East had a much higher regard for elders in general and parents in particular than we do (to our detriment).  The Mosaic Law regarding rebellious sons in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 actually preserved the rights and dignity of the son by requiring parents to first exhaust all other forms of discipline and that the magistrates would have the final say whether execution was appropriate.

Interracial Marriage:  It is clear from context that the laws seeming to prohibit interracial marriage are not against mixing ethnicities but religions (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).

Read More
Related Posts:

Self-reliant Christianity is a dead end. It will lead to eternal, spiritual death. However, we have a better way. All who have true union with Christ will live a life pursuing communion with him. Jesus wants us to know we are weak so we can find our strength in our communion with him. 

In America, it is common to believe that we can achieve anything we put our minds to. Young children imbibe this self-help gospel throughout their earliest years. Parents fuel this mentality by spending exorbitant amounts of time and money helping their children build a successful life based on the fallacy that their hard work and willpower are the ultimate means of their favorable outcomes. None of this is inherently sinful, and we shouldn’t be overly cynical. Hard work, dedication, and diligence are virtues our children and grandchildren need. Yet, when these achievements become their hope, they are blind to the innate weakness found in every one of us.
Like our children, we love to feel strong, too. We desire to stand on our own. We love to marvel at our accomplishments. Can we agree that the hustle culture led to the burnout culture we are facing today? Yesterday’s productivity culture ended up crushing us. We lose our humanness when we refuse to see our weakness. Instead of creatures reliant on the God who gives rain for the grass, seeds for the birds, and dens for the lions, we frame ourselves as little gods who can get on without relying on others.
We don’t say these things out loud. That would be far too crass. Instead, we mumble, “Give us this day our daily bread” as we dash out the door to work—daily bread in hand as we go make money to buy more. As strong as we feel, Jesus wants us to know that we are weak, and he wants us to see that weakness is a prerequisite for true spiritual growth.
Self-Reliant Sanctification Doesn’t Exist
Jesus uttered some of the sweetest words in all Scripture when he said, “I am the true vine” (John 15:1). At first glance, this sounds odd to those of us who haven’t grown up near grapevines. Yet, both in Jesus’s day and in Mediterranean culture today, grapevines produce the fruit needed to make the antioxidant-rich wine found around dinner tables and in churches. Jesus couldn’t be clearer: if the branches of a grapevine aren’t attached to the vine, it is impossible for them to produce fruit.
Christians, we are the branches and Jesus is our true vine. Let those words steep in your heart. Absorb the scent and taste of those words deep into your soul. It is impossible for us to bear spiritual fruit apart from Jesus because self-reliant sanctification doesn’t exist. We won’t even be truly concerned with fruit-bearing and spiritual growth if we aren’t abiding in him.
We may be concerned with keeping up appearances. We may desire to check off the spiritual boxes on our productive Christian to-do lists. We may even desire to please God by obeying his commands. But when we aren’t abiding in Christ, we are living an oxymoron.
Read More
Related Posts:

I do not believe that the current situation in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church should be characterized as an ongoing constitutional crisis. My belief is based on my reading of our ARP Standards, which are, of course, subordinate to the Holy Scriptures. Since reading is the art of noticing details and understanding them in context, all good biblical exegetes resist the temptation to extrapolate endlessly from one or two clauses.

A seminary classmate recently linked me Rev. Seth Yi’s article entitled The ARP Tightens its Grip on Congregations and Ministers. Although my friend now serves as a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Teaching Elder, he interned with an Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) congregation, and he wanted to know my thoughts as an ARP Minister regarding the Second Presbytery controversy.
I was surprised by Rev. Yi’s allegations that our denomination is experiencing an “ongoing crisis” and his construal of the ARP Form of Government (FOG). Incongruously, he seems to believe that Synod did not have the authority to dissolve Second Presbytery but that presbyteries are empowered to grant carte-blanche advance approval for congregations to withdraw and ministers to transfer.
I told my PCA friend that in his several articles, Rev. Yi has apparently misread our governing documents, leading to incorrect assessments of how ARP courts operate. In particular, I noted the following actions:

The Appointment of the Special Committee

Rev. Yi claims the Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson was “unquestionably unconstitutional” because members were not appointed by the Synod Moderator. This view misconstrues the language of the Form of Government (FOG) 13.13.B.(2): “The moderator, chairman or nominating committee shall appoint [a special committee’s] members whenever authorized by the court or board” (emphasis mine). This is not an absolute requirement that the moderator must populate all special committees because the conditional phrase “whenever authorized by the court” clarifies that the moderator may only appoint special-committee members upon authorization. Robert’s Rules helpfully explains that authorization may be given either by motion from the floor or by standing rule, and Synod’s Manual of Authorities and Duties (MAD) contains no standing authorization regarding special committees. Since there was no special authorization by motion from the floor, it was in good Presbyterian order for the Synod itself to populate the committee by approving the members specified in the main motion.

Synod’s Consideration of the Special Committee Report

Rev. Yi also believes Synod violated the ARP constitution when it took up the Report of the Special Committee (Index 11). He is, of course, entitled to hold his opinion in good conscience, but the opinions of individual members do not determine order in a Presbyterian court. In fact, FOG 12.25.C. says that the General Synod has responsibility to hear appeals to “make final decisions in all controversies respecting doctrine, order, and discipline,” so, effectively, any controversy over whether Index 11 was in order according to the Form of Government was settled by the fact that General Synod voted to hear the report and enact its recommendations.
Both Rev. Tanner Cline and Rev. Yi asked the chair to declare the entirety of the report out of order due to the committee’s composition, the scope of its work, and the submission of its report. Technically, these appeals are likely themselves out of order because the speakers were actually objecting to the considerations of motions, not merely raising points of order. Even had the appropriate motion been raised, though, Index 11 and its recommendations would still have been taken up because Synod’s MAD requires a two-thirds majority to carry an objection to consideration. As it was, a clear majority voted to sustain Moderator Alan Broyles’ ruling that the report was in order, and this resolution of parliamentary questions by the assembly’s judgement was also good Presbyterian procedure.

The Authority of General Synod to Dissolve a Presbytery

Most importantly, Rev. Yi argues that the General Synod had no right to enact the dissolution of Second Presbytery on the basis of his reading of FOG 12.22, which states: “The General Synod shall advise Presbyteries in its processes, but not the outcome, of the actions of the Presbyteries, in order to: A. Organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church” (emphasis mine). While I feel the force of his argument—and the language here is undoubtedly confusing—it seems to me that crucial wording has again been overlooked.
First, this section of the FOG speaks most clearly of “the actions of the Presbyteries.” That is, while it clearly prevents the General Synod dictating any presbytery vote to dissolve itself, it arguably does not limit the actions of Synod itself to that end. In fact, a close reading suggests the singular possessive pronoun “its” refers back to “the General Synod,” meaning that the essential processes of presbytery organization and dissolution belong to Synod itself with presbyteries also playing a secondary role in receiving congregations and ministers as a result. In this part of the process, the higher court may not simply dictate the outcome.
This reading seems most reasonable because it is difficult to understand how Synod could be excluded from the organization, reception, transfer, dismissal, or dissolution of entire presbyteries. FOG 10.1 declares that “the Presbytery is the essential court of the Presbyterian system in administering its general order, the higher courts being constituted simply by a wider application of the general principles of the Presbytery” (emphasis mine). By analogy then, if the Presbytery has power to “unite, divide, organize, dissolve, receive, dismiss, and transfer congregations” (FOG 10.3 E.), the higher court would be able to “organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries” (FOG 12.22). Certainly, the power to act directly upon other presbyteries is not conferred upon the presbyteries themselves anywhere in the Form of Government. One or more presbyteries may not simply vote to receive into the ARPC a breakaway presbytery from a different denomination. Neither may one presbytery sovereignly dismiss another ARP presbytery. This exact logic was on display during day three of the 2024 General Synod when the higher court voted to grant Canadian Presbytery’s petition for dismissal to form a coordinate Canadian ARP Synod.
Additionally, the Presbyterian principle of oversight and accountability through graded courts would seem to demand that Synod be able to dissolve one of her presbyteries if necessary. This principle seems to find expression in FOG 12.24 I., which gives the General Synod power to “oversee the affairs of the entire denomination, directing such measures as are necessary for the promotion of the peace, purity, and prosperity of all congregations under its care.” Ultimately, these are the concerns, I believe, that drove Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery and reallocate her congregations. Many men—myself included—arrived at Bonclarken prepared to vote these recommendations down but found themselves convinced by floor debate that the peace and purity of Christ’s Church required such an unprecedented step.

The Second Called Meeting of Second Presbytery on August 13

Sadly, in contrast to Synod’s disputed authority to dissolve Second Presbytery, actions taken by Second Presbytery itself on August 13, as reported by Rev. Yi, represent clear constitutional overreach.
First, Rev. Yi’s description of the August 13 proceedings describes a second meeting of Second Presbytery being called immediately following the close of a previous called meeting. This is presented as necessary because Moderator Billy Barron refused to allow an amendment to one item of business. I was not present at the meeting and so cannot say whether Rev. Barron ruled correctly, but I will note that Robert’s Rules permits amendments in regular order to a main motion specified in the notice of a special meeting. Whatever the case may be, there are proper remedies to violations of parliamentary law, and these remedies do not include demanding another meeting be called without giving sufficient notice. This unconstitutional action plainly violated FOG 10.12, which requires that “at least one week’s notice of called meetings shall be given to all members of the Presbytery specifying the time and place of the meeting and the particular business for which the meeting is called.”

Second Presbytery’s Authority to Release Her Congregations Before September 1

Likewise, the Form of Government speaks clearly to the process of how ARP congregations may withdraw from the denomination, and that process cannot be modified by any motion at the presbytery level. Second Presbytery again violated our constitution when they voted to “grant dismissal or transfer to any minister or congregation who requests so in writing to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to September 1.” This motion cited FOG 10.3.E and 10.3.K as justification for the action, but these sections cannot be read to empower a presbytery to grant dismissal in whatever manner it sees fit. FOG 10.3 only enumerates the presbytery’s authority and duties.
The actual process for congregational withdrawal is detailed in FOG 3.13, where any congregation that has voted for withdrawal is required to advise the presbytery “in writing at its next stated meeting.” At that meeting “the Presbytery shall appoint a commission to counsel, advise, and mediate with the local congregation…. If the commission decides that it is in the best interest to proceed with the withdrawal, they shall conduct a second election and certify the results thereof to the stated meeting of the Presbytery, one year after the meeting upon which the application for withdrawal was received.” In simple terms, the constitutionally mandated process for withdrawing from an ARP presbytery requires a minimum of two stated meetings and at least one year; it cannot be accomplished in twenty days, and one called meeting. The penalty for failing to comply with these prescribed procedures, according to FOG 3.13 G., is that the “congregation shall forfeit all its right, title, and interest in and to its property to the Presbytery within which it is located.”

Second Presbytery’s Authority to Preemptively Release Ministers to Transfer

In the same way, FOG 9.65 and 10.3.K. do not vest presbyteries with untrammeled authority to transfer ministers. As noted above, FOG 10.3 enumerates the duties and authorities of a presbytery in a general way, so the specifics of how ministers are actually transferred to another denomination are clarified by FOG 9.65. That particular section, however, simply states: “The procedure for transferring ministers to another denomination shall follow in substance the procedure for transfer to another Presbytery within the ARPC.” Therefore, Second Presbytery is bound to follow the process specified in FOG 9.62, the “Procedure for Transferring Ministers from Another Presbytery.” There, any transferring minister is required to initiate the process by “informing his Presbytery of his desire to be transferred, and securing a letter of standing which shall be presented to the receiving Presbytery prior to any examination and approval for reception.” This letter of standing in the dismissing presbytery “shall be issued only after the pastoral or other relationship has been dissolved” (FOG 9.62.C.).
In Presbyterian polity, a pastoral call is a covenant involving a congregation, a minister, and the presbytery which oversees both, and this covenantal relationship is sealed by oaths and vows solemnly sworn by all the parties before God. Accordingly, under the ARP FOG, there is no possibility of a minister transferring his own credentials into another ecclesiastical body while this pastoral covenant stands. Clearly, a single omnibus presbytery motion cannot obviate fundamental Presbyterian principles or constitutional requirements. A preemptive blanket “grant of transfer” does not constitute presbytery’s action to dissolve a call, without which no certificate of standing may be issued, and a valid letter of standing is prerequisite for any transfer to be in order, whether within the denomination or outside it.
Our polity also does not contemplate a minister transferring his credentials without the letter expressing presbytery permission for the simple reason that he has sworn vows to “submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery” (FOG 9.24.F.). Notably, that authority extends to the reception and dismissal of gospel ministers (FOG 10.3 K.), just as the lower court properly receives and transfers members of congregations (FOG 6.8.E.&F.). This such a serious matter that FOG 9.67 requires ministers who “accept work not under the jurisdiction of any ARPC court or agency” without permission from their presbytery to be either divested of office without censure or charged with violating ordination vows.
Summary
As stated above, I do not believe that the current situation in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church should be characterized as an ongoing constitutional crisis. My belief is based on my reading of our ARP Standards, which are, of course, subordinate to the Holy Scriptures. Since reading is the art of noticing details and understanding them in context, all good biblical exegetes resist the temptation to extrapolate endlessly from one or two clauses. The same basic hermeneutical principles apply to denominational standards, as well, and I am convinced that the full context of the ARPC Constitution fundamentally supports Synod’s authority to dissolve Second Presbytery. Unfortunately, for the same reasons I am equally convinced many of Second Presbytery’s recent actions are expressly prohibited by our Form of Government.
Following stated procedures when releasing ministers and congregations from their covenant obligations is not tyranny. On the contrary, it is right Presbyterian polity in good and decent order. Conversely, any theory which treats presbyteries as autonomous ecclesiastical bodies unbeholden to any higher court is actually a polity of Independency, simply one step removed from the local congregation.
I am praying all parties will work together to keep the covenants we have made as members of ARP courts and congregations during this sad and difficult time. All members of our congregations have solemnly promised God that they will submit to the government and discipline of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (FOG 4.5.A.). Likewise, all ARP elders have also vowed “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Session and to the higher courts of the Church” (FOG 8.17.), with all ministers similarly promising “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery in subordination to the General Synod“ (FOG 9.30.5.).
This holy submission isn’t merely a function of church polity. Instead, it is the true expression of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, who humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8). If we are to truly be the Body of Christ, we must have his same mindset, doing nothing from rivalry or conceit, but instead humbly counting others more significant than ourselves as we look to their interests (Phil 2:3–4). After all, when brothers dwell together in peace and unity, it is very good and a pleasant thing to see! So whether we join to live as one in the same presbytery or whether our denominations are as far apart as Hermon is from Zion’s hill, we are all obligated to be full of affection and sympathy, being of the same mind, having the same love, and comforting one another in love (Phil 2:1–2). In this way, Christ’s Church will truly be peaceful, pure, and prosperous (FOG 4.5.A.; FOG 8.17.; FOG 9.30.5.).
Alex Lott is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is Pastor Starmount ARP in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Related Posts: