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:

In summary, the recent enthusiasm that many Protestants have shown for Thomas is a mistake. The church has not been well-served by its eminent men lavishing praise upon an idolater and commending him to her members. There are many among us, especially young men, who are zealous to learn all that they might about the things of God, but who are impressionable and have not the prudence to discern between good and bad in the study of God. To commend an idolater to them is at best irresponsible; and if any of them stumble into the vanity of scholasticism or the pitfalls of Romanism on account of it….

Aquinas taught the propriety of worshipping images of Christ (“the same reverence should be shown to Christ’s image as to Christ Himself”)[1] and the cross (“in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of ‘latria.’ And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, as to the Crucified Himself”).[2] Scripture teaches that worshipping images is idolatry and wholly forbidden: “You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 26:1; comp. 19:4; Ex. 20:4, 23; 34:17; Ps. 97:7; Isa. 42:17; 44:9-20; Jer. 10:1-16). It teaches further that even lawful things can be used for idolatry (2 Kgs. 18:4), and that no tolerance is to be given to those that propagate such practices but that they are to be summarily rejected as false teachers:
If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people (Deut. 13:6-9).
That commandment was given to Israel as a civil law, but the principle contained in it – namely, that idolatry is so evil that it must be stamped out at its first appearance – applies to the church as well, though we are to apply it differently by rejecting idolaters and refusing their company rather than using physical force against them (2 Cor. 6:16-17). Elsewhere both Paul (“my beloved, flee from idolatry,” 1 Cor. 10:14) and John (“Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” 1 Jn. 5:21) teach believers to have nothing to do with idolatry and those that promote it in the church, and in the letters to the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira the ascended Lord rebukes them for tolerating idolaters in their midst and threatens divine judgment upon them for this failing (Rev. 2:14-16; 20-23).
Scripture therefore mandates we reject Aquinas entirely, not merely in part, for one should not attempt to learn the true knowledge of God from an idolater and false teacher. Why would we peruse such a person when God has raised up such an abundance of faithful lights? What is there in Aquinas that cannot be gotten elsewhere? Why pass over a purer theologian’s work for that of an idolater? And why not regard Scripture itself as sufficient? For in this matter there is an implicit denial of that precious doctrine even if it is explicitly professed by Aquinas’ admirers. If Scripture is truly sufficient for all that we need to know unto the salvation of our souls – and if our souls, guided by the Spirit, are competent to understand Scripture aright – then it is not apparent what benefit we might gain from Aquinas. No one who desires the waters of life should depart from their source in order to partake of them as diluted and poisoned by a secondary agent.
In summary, the recent enthusiasm that many Protestants have shown for Thomas is a mistake. The church has not been well-served by its eminent men lavishing praise upon an idolater and commending him to her members. There are many among us, especially young men, who are zealous to learn all that they might about the things of God, but who are impressionable and have not the prudence to discern between good and bad in the study of God. To commend an idolater to them is at best irresponsible; and if any of them stumble into the vanity of scholasticism or the pitfalls of Romanism on account of it, it may prove that it will be a source of woe unto those that have caused their novice brothers to stumble therein (Lk. 17:1-2). Nor is this possibility an idle speculation: it is common knowledge that reading Aquinas played a large part in Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, converting to Rome in 2007. (And such is his fondness for Aquinas that he has continued to attempt to propagate his teachings among us, notably with his 2019 book Never Doubt Thomas).
Dear reader, do not allow yourself to be caught up in the madness of the Aquinas craze. Let the Spirit instruct you in his Word with all humility, prayerfulness, and trembling (Eph. 6:18; Phil. 2:12-13; Jude 20), and do not allow a discontent spirit to arise within your breast that will set your ears to itching (2 Tim. 4:3) and your mind to wandering after sophistry and vain speculation (2 Tim. 2:14-19; Tit. 3:9-11). If you wish to know God in truth (Jn. 17:3) you do not need this:
The Philosopher in the Book of Predicaments (Categor. vi) reckons disposition and habit as the first species of quality. Now Simplicius, in his Commentary on the Predicaments, explains the difference of these species as follows. He says “that some qualities are natural, and are in their subject in virtue of its nature, and are always there: but some are adventitious, being caused from without, and these can be lost. Now the latter,” i.e. those which are adventitious, “are habits and dispositions, differing in the point of being easily or difficultly lost. As to natural qualities, some regard a thing in the point of its being in a state of potentiality; and thus we have the second species of quality: while others regard a thing which is in act; and this either deeply rooted therein or only on its surface. If deeply rooted, we have the third species of quality: if on the surface, we have the fourth species of quality, as shape, and form which is the shape of an animated being.”[3]
In fact, such eye-splitting, mind-numbing prose may well prove a stumbling block even apart from its speculative content. Let it not be said of you that you are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7) or that you have departed into vain speculation. Rather, “see to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8) and that you “let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things [inc. idolatry, v.5] the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6). “Hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught” (Tit. 1:9), and “if anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3) – that is, if (among other things) anyone is inclined to imagine that idolatry is anything other than a catastrophic sin with eternal consequences (1 Cor. 6:9; Rev. 22:15) – be sure to reject such a bad example (1 Tim. 6:4; comp. 2 Tim. 3:5) and to be content with the Scriptures which God has given us to know his will in all things. You will probably be reviled as an anti-intellectual, sectarian biblicist, but this is nothing (for reviling is a part of the Christian life, Matt. 5:11-12; comp. 2 Tim. 3:12), as it is better to keep from bad influences and please God than to have the good favor of society, the church, or the academy at the price of regarding favorably an idolater.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.
[1] Summa Theologica III, Q. 25, A.3
[2] Ibid., Q. 25, A.4
[3] Summa Theologica IaIIae, Q. 49, Art. 2. This is the beginning of Aquinas’s answer to the question “whether habit is a distinct species of quality?” and in the next sentence after this he contradicts what has been quoted here.

Related Posts:

“Non-directive” religion will mean that the censors have to cut most of the apostle Paul’s letters in half, and put the second-part through the paper-shredder. The Scottish government are OK with Ephesians chapters 1-3. That’s just “teaching”. But when Paul gets to his “therefore” in chapter 4, all the “directive” instruction in chapters 4-6 needs to be binned. Censors will have to hunt down every verb in the imperative form and axe it.  We can say: “God is holy, God is love. Jesus is love, and Jesus teaches us to love”. But you can’t say: “Love God”. 

It sounds like something straight from George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth”. But it is in fact language that the Scottish parliament’s equalities committee are using as they explore out-lawing “conversion therapy”. The committee has concluded that religious teaching and prayer about sexual identity should only be permitted if it’s conducted in a “non-directive way” (para 3).
I love the thought of Christian preachers working out what “non-directive” preaching looks like! It’s a bit like the invention of the “stationary” car, an “opaque” pair of spectacles, and a wonderful bottle of “tasteless” wine.
The language of “non-directive” religious teaching is almost comical in its failure to appreciate the first thing about human beings and God. I can imagine the apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost, standing up to announce to the crowds that they have crucified the Christ, but God has raised him from the dead. When he gets to the climax of his sermon, Peter says: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). But then, he remembers the Scottish legislation and corrects himself: “Whoops, sorry, I mean… I’d love you to think about all of that, but in a non-directive way, of course! And if anyone would possibly, maybe, like the idea of being baptised, come and talk to us, but, please understand there’s no pressure, no obligation, at all!”.
Maybe the members of the equalities committee have experienced “non-directive” preaching from pulpits. I admit there’s plenty of it around, and it can be sleep-inducing. But it’s not actually real preaching. All true preaching is “directive” by definition. If it’s not directive, it’s not preaching! One 19th century text-book on preaching says: “Whenever there is no direct purpose in the speaker to educe an action of will in his hearers there is no proper oration”.
Likewise, a “non-directive” morality is nonsense. Morality is “directive” by definition. Right and wrong, good and evil, righteousness and wickedness are not abstract ideas to simply ponder, in glorious abstraction, but principles to act upon. “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22). If you hold moral convictions that are never expressed in the presence of what is wrong, they will end up shrivelling and dying.
“Non-directive” religion will mean that the censors have to cut most of the apostle Paul’s letters in half, and put the second-part through the paper-shredder.
Read More