Yes, the Bible does Explicitly Teach Law Categories

by Steve C. Halbrook


"If Scripture acknowledged different law categories, then it would refer to them explicitly!"


Those who oppose covenantal theology frequently charge that there is no text in Scripture that explicitly demonstrates multiple categories of Old Testament law. (Covenantal theology affirms three categories of law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial, although it distinguishes between two categories of judicial law, one of which is entailed in the moral law).[1] 

In such thinking, whenever the Bible refers to Old Testament law, it never refers to a certain category of law, but always to the law in its entirety. In this theological scheme, any New Testament passages that refer to the abrogation of the law mean that all of the law is abrogated—including the Old Testament moral law itself.

First, however, it must be noted that the argument against explicit passages is irrelevant; theology can just as much be based on good and necessary inferences as well as on explicit teachings. 

When one argues that something must be explicitly stated in Scripture for it to be binding, then he engages in self refutation. This is because Scripture does not explicitly state that something must be explicitly stated in Scripture for it to be binding. 

And if Scripture does not explicitly state that something must be explicitly stated in Scripture for it to be binding, then, by their own logic, those who hold that something must be explicitly stated in Scripture for it to be binding cannot bind on others the philosophy that says that something must be explicitly stated in Scripture for it to be binding, since, again, this very philosophy itself is not explicitly stated.

Moreover, foundational doctrines of the Christian faith are not solely based on explicit texts, but on good and necessary theological inferences. Consider the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union. 

Having said this—and without, at this time, covering the Scriptural proof for law categories via good and necessary inferences (it's been done countless times anyway)—the Bible is not without any texts that explicitly show different law categories. First Corinthians 9:20, 21 comes to mind: 

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.[2]

Either the Apostle Paul is affirming distinct law categories, or he is contradicting himself from one sentence to the next. Paul is not irrational, so it must be the former: he cannot be saying that he is under the entire Old Testament law and that he is not under the entire Old Testament law. Rather, he is saying that he is under one category of Old Testament law, but is not under another category of Old Testament law.[3]

When he discusses becoming like the Jews and as one under the law—a law that he is not bound to follow (as he puts it, "though not being myself under the law")—he is discussing the particularly Jewish ceremonial law, which has been abrogated in the New Covenant era (Col. 2:17; Heb. 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:11-16). 

He goes on, however, to mention that he is bound to follow the law of Christ (that is, "not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ")—the moral law (summarized in the Ten Commandments), binding all men at all times. (Which for the Christian, of course, is not a requirement for salvation, but a standard of obedience following salvation by Christ through faith alone.) 

As for the argument that “the law of Christ” is opposed to the Old Testament moral commands, keep in mind that Christ affirmed the Old Testament moral law “until heaven and earth pass away” (Matt. 5:17-20).  And so the Old Testament moral law is the law of Christ.

This only makes sense—Christ is concerned with doing the will of His father (Jn. 6:38).  Christ is not a rogue member of the Trinity—“God is one” (Rom. 3:20), and so “There is only one lawgiver” (Jms. 4:12). Indeed, Christ is God, and it is God Who gave the moral law in the Old Testament. The law of Christ is the law of God, as Paul states ("not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ"). 

Thus we should not be surprised to find that in the very chapter the Apostle Paul affirms the law of Christ, Paul cites as authoritative the Law of Moses:  ^“Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’” (1 Cor. 9:8-9a).  

In 1 Corinthians 9, then, Paul simultaneously demolishes the notion that there are not multiple categories of law, and the notion that Christians are not required to obey the Old Testament moral law. Very explicitly.


Notes
________________________

[1] To read about the Wesminster divines' perspective on the twofold division of the 
judicial law, see Understanding the Wesminster Confession of Faith, Section 19.4, on the Judicial Law and General Equity.

[2] Commenting on verse 21, which reads, "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law," Gordon Clark writes: "In the previous verse, he refused to eat nonkosher food when he was with Jews, but in this verse, he willingly eats pork to win the Gentiles. That there be no misunderstanding of the phrase, 'without law,' Paul states that he is indeed under the law of Christ. He is bound by the moral law. He is, however, free from the penalty of the law because of his redemption and free from ritual law because Christ fulfilled it." Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians: A Contemporary Commentary (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1991), 148, 149.
[3] There are, of course, levels of explicitness. The passage is not so explicit that it mentions the law categories by name. However, it is more than explicit enough to affirm two law categories.