|
Discuss the threefold
classification of law into moral, cultic, civil
Introduction
There are innumerable distinctions one
could make within the Mosaic law. After all, there are commands that
carry the death penalty and there are commands that do not. There are
commands that can be obeyed individually and those that require corporate
response. There are commands that are publicly enforceable and those that
pertain to the inner life. The list could be endless. Therefore the
question is not so much whether the law can be divided in certain ways
but why it is being so dissected? What is the understanding of the law
that informs such distinctions? Does the classification clarify the law
itself or does it serve an alien perspective, obscuring the original
intention? Fundamentally we must ask, are such classifications
commensurate with the law’s own self-understanding?
In this essay we will first define
what we mean by ‘law’. We will then lay down seven basic features of the
Mosaic law which arise from study of the Pentateuch. Having established
these, we will discuss how and why the three-fold classification has
sought to interpret the law. Finally, we will evaluate the threefold
division in terms of its performance as a classification, in terms of its
faithfulness to the Pentateuch and in terms of the seven aforementioned
features.
Defining Terms
What do we mean by ‘law’? Simply to
answer that question is to be involved in classification. To include or
to exclude portions of Scripture is, a priori, to have a classificatory
system.
A case in point is the classic
rabbinical count of 613 laws. This was said to comprise the Mosaic law
yet it is instructive to see what this includes. Both Exodus 20:1: ‘I am
the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt’ and Deuteronomy 6:4:
‘Hear O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one’ are counted as laws.
Mosaic law has never and can never be
understood merely as a list of duties. There is an historical and
theological context to the law that not only informs our interpretation
of the law but which forms a part of the law itself. As Alexander and
Baker note , the Hebrew word torah can mean anything from the name of the
Pentateuch itself, to an individual pronouncement ; to a group of laws on
a single subject ; to a particular collection of laws ; to a general
description for God’s laws ; or more generally to a combination of narrative
and law .
For the purposes of this essay we will
concentrate on that body of Scripture from Mount Sinai to Mount Nebo. The
four main collections of law – the Decalogue, the Book of the Covenant
(Ex. 20:22-23:19), the Levitical laws (especially Lev. 1-7 and 11-27) and
the Deuteronomic laws (especially Deut. 12-26) – will be important. Yet
we must, at the same time, take the narrative and theological context
very seriously.
In studying these together we have
identified seven key features to be considered in any discussion of the
threefold classification:
Some basic features of the Mosaic Law
for more elaboration on these see my Ten Words on
Law
1. The law is an expression of
God’s glory and righteousness
See the repeated ‘Be holy for I am holy’ (e.g. Lev 11:44-45) ;
2. The law was a complete unit
and was to be kept wholesale
See Deut. 4:2 ;
3. The law (as kept by Israel)
was to give a distinctive witness to the nations
See Deut. 4:6-8;
4. The law was specific to
Israel and was tied to the promised land
See Deut. 12:1 ;
5. The law itself predicts the
exile and the grace to be shown to Israel beyond the land (and therefore
beyond the specified scope of the law)
See Lev. 26:44-46 ;
6. The law is described as an
expression of the covenant
See Deut. 5:2 ;
7. At the same time, the
covenant is something deeper which under-girds and guarantees the law
See Deut. 4:30-31 ;
The threefold classification
Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) was the first
to systematize a threefold classification of the Mosaic law (or as he
called it, the ‘Old Law’) . It should be noted that his approach to the
Old Law was not primarily concerned with capturing the essence of torah.
Aquinas begins with his own four-pronged understanding of the laws that
are to be obeyed – Eternal, Natural, Divine and Human. His concern was to
enquire how a Divine Law such as the Old Law can contain much of the
Natural Law and yet, at the same time, concern itself with so much that
appears either arbitrary or superfluous to contemporary moral living. His
solution was to posit one category of timeless ethical laws – the moral
law – and two categories of time-bound cultural laws – the civil and
cultic laws. The moral law was defined more or less as those laws that
correspond to the Natural Law. The civil law is that which gives
particular direction for Israel in upholding the (Natural Law) virtue of
‘justice’. The cultic law is that which gives particular direction for
Israel in upholding the (Natural Law) virtue of ‘religion’.
Thus a moral law might be ‘honour your
father and your mother’ (Ex. 20:12), a cultic law might be ‘You must not
eat any fat or any blood’ (Lev. 3:17) and a civil law might be ‘appoint
judges and officials’ (Deut. 16:18). The latter two types of law are
abrogated in Christ. The moral law (as the Natural Law) is timeless.
The reformers inherited this
classification with some alterations. Critically the reformed version of
the classification sees the coming of Christ as the central issue in
regarding the law (rather than primarily as an argument from Natural
Law). Thus, the question becomes, ‘how does the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus affect the law?’ The answer given is that it
affects different aspects in different ways. Thus Jesus upholds, performs
and ‘much strengthens’ the moral law, He fulfills and therefore abrogates
the cultic law in His sacrificial death and He sets aside the civil law
in that the church community He creates is no longer a political state.
We regret that, due to lack of space,
we cannot enquire further into the methods and motivations of these
classifiers, nor can we examine important modern alterations such as
Wright’s fivefold division . We must now turn to assess these classical
approaches in terms of their own viability, their faithfulness to
Scripture and their appreciation of our seven principles outlined above.
The threefold classification in itself
If classification is at all worthwhile
then there ought to be three baskets into which we can throw the law with
very little straddling and very little left over.
However, there is much straddling. Is Sabbath a moral or cultic law? What
about Jubilee? Is adultery (in itself moral) to be considered a civil
matter (Deut. 22:13-21) or a cultic issue (Numbers 5:11-31)? Where do
these matters belong in the classification?
There are also many laws remaining unclassified by the threefold
approach. What are we to do, for instance, with Exodus 20:1 and
Deuteronomy 6:4 (mentioned above)? The classification has no room for any
covenantal aspects to torah. It classifies only the imperatives, never
the indicatives.
Finally, we must note the absurdity of positing any legal categories
outside moral law. How can a law of God not be moral?
The threefold classification and Scripture
The Pentateuch nowhere teaches a
threefold classification. This is not decisive for our evaluation but it
is at least highly significant!
The laws of Moses come from many
directions and in quick succession. Leviticus 19 has commands on respect
for parents (v3) followed by a prohibition on idols (v4) then
instructions about sacrifice (v5-8) and then provision for the poor.
Deuteronomy 24 has instructions about lending schemes (v6) which follow
national service guidelines (v5) and precede the pronouncement of
kidnapping as a capital offence (v7). To round off this miscellany, v8
begins a discussion of leprosy regulations.
Attempts to see inherent structures to
the law (for instance seeing Deuteronomy 12-26 as following the
Decalogue) are not convincing. We conclude that Scripture itself wards us
away from such arbitrary classifications.
The threefold classification and the seven principles
From points 1 and 2 above it will be
seen that Mosaic law is an holistic expression of the righteousness and covenant
faithfulness of the LORD. The law presents itself as an all-inclusive
totality reflecting the LORD in His glory. It is not to be chopped and
changed: “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take
away from it.” (Deut. 12:32)
On the other hand, the threefold
division treats the law as separable and the moral law as though it were
independent. A partial keeping of the law (i.e. just the moral law) is no
law-keeping at all according to Moses. The Apostle Paul agrees: “Every
man who lets himself be circumcised… is required to obey the whole law.”
(Gal. 5:3) The law stands or falls together. The threefold classification
denies this.
From points 3-5 above we see that the
law is self-consciously a particular expression of the LORD’s righteousness.
It is directed specifically to the nation of Israel in the context of her
redemption from Egypt and inheritance of the promised land. Within
Deuteronomy, the Hebrew word for land is used over 200 times, continually
linking the law to the land.
While the law remains eternally
authoritative in that its author is the LORD God Himself , the law He
gives sets definite limits to its claim on us . We are not Israelites
living in the promised land! Moses himself sets us free from the laws of
Moses. The threefold approach fails to appreciate this.
Finally, from points 6 and 7 above, we
see that law and covenant can never be considered in isolation. The whole
law is introduced in covenant terms: “I am the LORD your God who brought
you up out of Egypt” (cf. Gen. 15:7). The land to which the law is tied
is the promised land. The laws of Horeb were at the same time ‘the
covenant… at Horeb’ (Deut 5:2). The law finds its proper place locked up
in the Ark of the Covenant. The law is both a limited expression of the
covenant and a witness to the pre-existing, under-girding and
super-ceding covenant of God.
In this light, a recognition of only
human duty is a gross misrepresentation of the Mosaic law.
Conclusion
Our assessment of the threefold
classification may seem ungenerous yet we maintain that the approach was
founded not in the Scriptures but in Thomist philosophy. It does not
reflect actual categories of Hebrew thought and serves to obscure rather
than clarify the intricate and multifaceted laws of Moses. In many
significant areas, the classification is virtually impossible to apply.
At base, the approach misunderstands the holistic, specific and
covenantal character of torah. We therefore conclude that the threefold
classification represents a long and convoluted ‘blind alley’ in the
Church’s understanding of law.
Bibliography
Alexander, T & Baker, W – “Law” in
Dictionary of Old Testament Theology: Pentateuch (IVP, 2003)
Aquinas, Thomas – Summa Theologia vol
29 (1a2ae. 98-105), Trans. David Bourke and Arthur Littledale
(Blackfriars, 1969)
Barth, Karl – “Gospel and Law” from
‘God, Grace and Gospel’ (Trans. James McNab, Scottish Journal or
Occasional Papers, no. 8, 1959)
– The Epistle to the Romans (6th
edition, trans. Edwyn Hoskyns, OUP, 1968)
Casselli, S.J. – “Threefold Division
of Law in the thought of Thomas Aquinas”, Westminster Theological
Journal. (61..2), 1999
Cranfield, C.E.B. – Shorter Romans
Commentary (T&T Clark, 1985)
Goldingay, John – Approaches to Old
Testament Interpretation (Apollos, 1990)
Hays, J.D. – “Applying Old Testament
Law today”, Bibliotheca Sacra (158..629), 2001
Hodge, A.A. – The Confession of Faith
(The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961)
Kaiser, Walter – Towards Old Testament
Ethics (Zondervan, Michigan, 1983)
Knight, George A. F. – A Christian
Theology of the Old Testament (SCM Press Ltd, 1969)
Luther, Martin – “How Christians
should regard Moses” from ‘Luther’s Works’ Ed: E. Theodore Bachmann
(Fortress Press/Philadelphia, 1960 (3rd printing 1976))
O’Connor, D.J. – Aquinas and Natural
Law (Macmillan & Co. Ltd, 1967)
Parker T.H.L.– Calvin’s Old Testament
Commentaries (T&T Clark Ltd, 1986)
Philip, William – The Law of Promise
(PT Media, 2003)
Richardson, John – ‘What God has made
clean…’ (Good Book Company 2003)
Sailhamer, John – Introduction to Old
Testament Theology (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1995)
Seitz, C.R. – Word without end (Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998)
Wright, Christopher J.H. – Living as
the people of God (IVP, 1983)
–
Old Testament Ethics and
the People of God (IVP, Leicester, 2004)
Back to other papers
|
