To Us and For Us (A Series on God’s Law – Part 6)
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? 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.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. (1 Cor. 9:7-10)
Introduction
A common phrase – at least one that I have heard multiple times – among Christian circles is, “The Bible was written for you, not to you!” This clever and succinct statement is usually well-meaning, in that it is trying to get Christians to understand the original audience and avoid making themselves the center of the story. But, like similar phrases, it can go a bit too far. Just consider the phrase, “Once saved, always saved.” Though this statement is true in a sense, it is overly simplistic and can often be misunderstood. Such is the danger with trying to take a deep theological truth and condense it into a witty phrase.
The truth of the matter is usually far deeper than that. To go back to our original phrase, it is true that – in a sense – a particular letter or book of the Bible was not written to us. We Christians living in the 21st Century were clearly not the original audience. But it is also not the case that when we read Paul’s letters to Timothy, we are eavesdropping on a private conversation – as if it were not our business. Even if we grant this, reading Paul’s letters to Timothy is still not the same thing as reading a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. In the case of Jefferson’s letter, we would certainly agree that it was not written to us. We might agree that it was written for us in the sense that the contents of the letter still inform public policy today – even if misunderstood. Yet Scripture is much more than that.
For Our Sake
Before we can properly interpret and apply any passage of Scripture – including a law from the Old Testament – we need to recognize that Scripture is written both for us and to us. Now, I imagine that it is easier for folks to accept the first part of that statement rather than the second, and so I will start with the latter.
After the feeding of the five thousand in John 6, Jesus engages in a conversation with the crowd. Although they had just experienced this miraculous feeding, Jesus points out that they were not seeking him because they saw the signs but because they had eaten their fill of the loaves.[1] They then demand another sign, declaring that “our fathers ate manna in the wilderness.” In an interesting turn of phrase, Jesus responds by saying “it was not Moses who gave you bread from heaven…”
Did you notice the slight change? Jesus does indeed correct them, but he implies that they were the ones in the wilderness back when Moses lived. Of course, that is not, strictly speaking, accurate. The current crowd that he was speaking to was around a thousand years removed from Moses. And yet, Jesus was not wrong in what he said.
To use an even more explicit example, in Matthew 22 Jesus is approached by the Sadducees. They attempt to trap him by presenting a hypothetical situation about a woman who is married seven times to seven brothers, each of whom die after marrying her. When they ask, “Whose wife she will be?” in the resurrection, Jesus exposes their ignorance. At the start of his rebuttal, he rhetorically asks them, “Have you not read what was said to you by God?”[2] The interesting thing about Jesus’s question is that not only does he point out the divine nature of Scripture, but he even says that God said those words to the people standing in front of him. But wait, was not Scripture written for the Sadducees, not to the Sadducees? Well, according to Jesus, it would seem that both can be true.
In reflecting on these examples, it seems to be the case that the key here is covenant. We have already talked about covenant previously, and it is the concept of covenant that connects a previous generation with the next generation. This is why Jesus can tell the Jewish crowd that Moses was not the one who gave them manna. And it is also why he can tell the Sadducees that God was speaking to them when the Pentateuch was first written. The Jewish people, to include the Sadducees, were God’s covenant people. This means that they were not just there to preserve God’s word, they were the direct recipients of God’s word and were obligated to believe and obey it.
In the same way, Christians – God’s covenant people under the New Covenant – are the recipients of God’s word. While it is true that there is always an original audience as well as a historical context, it is also true that Christians – even those living today – are the audience. That is why when Peter says, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession,”[3] he is fully correct in taking that description of the nation of Israel from Exodus 19:6 and applying it to Christians living in the first-century Roman Empire.
Having established that Scripture as a whole is written both to and for us, let us now consider how this is true regarding specific Old Testament laws. The best and most explicit example of this is found in 1 Corinthians 9. There, the Apostle Paul defends his authority as an apostle of Christ and argues that those who have dedicated themselves to ministry, such as elders and apostles, should be supported by the church:
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? 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.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? (1 Cor. 9:7-11)
Although Paul is clear that the church in Corinth should be supporting him and Barnabas, he goes on later to say that he has chosen to set aside this claim and endure hardship “rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.”[4]
But looking at the passage just quoted, what does Paul point to as the foundation for his argument? Well, it is the Mosaic law, specifically one of the case laws found in Deuteronomy 25:4. Paul has no problem taking a law given to the people of Israel over a thousand years ago and applying it directly to Gentile Christians living in Corinth. This is made clear when he asks rhetorically, “Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake?” Answering his own question, Paul says, “It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.”
Not only does this passage show us that God’s law still applies to God’s people (i.e., Christians), it also shows us how to apply the law properly. Remember, this law against muzzling an ox was a case law showing what it meant for the people of Israel to be good stewards. Muzzling an ox while it was working was an act of cruelty and greed, since the purpose of the muzzle was to prevent the ox from trying to eat any of the grain while it was working on the threshing floor. This would enable owners to maximize their profits while minimizing their costs at the expense of the one laboring – in this case, the ox. And although the law only gives one example, the extent of the law applies beyond that of oxen. That is, all those who are engaged in labor are entitled to enjoy some of the fruits of their labor while they labor.
Paul uses this law regarding muzzling an ox, along with the analogy of Temple priests (who regularly share in the sacrifices), to argue that “in the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.”[5] His reference to the Lord’s command points back to the time when Jesus sent out the twelve disciples and informed them that “the laborer deserves his food.”[6] This reference to Jesus’s teaching, as well as the Mosaic law, is also used by Paul when he later tells Timothy that church elders, especially those that preach and teach, should be paid.[7]
To give one more example of how God’s law is written both to and for Christians, consider Paul’s letter to the Church in Ephesus. In Ephesians 6, Paul addresses those children within the congregation and commands them to obey their parents “in the Lord.” He then cites the command to “honor your father and mother” from Exodus 20:12 and includes the promise “that you may live long in the land.”[8]
All considered, the pattern we see in both 1 Corinthians 9 and Ephesians 6 involves Paul taking laws that were originally given to the people of Israel and applying them to congregations living outside of Palestine that are mostly made up of Gentile believers. Even the specific promise given to Israel in the Fifth Commandment regarding living long in the land of Canaan is now applied by Paul to the children of Gentile Christians living in Greece. How is that appropriate? Is not Paul playing fast and loose with the Mosaic Law? Not at all. Rather, he is applying God’s law to God’s covenant people.
The final example of Paul’s use of an Old Testament law that I want to bring up is his response to the church in Corinth regarding sexual immorality among its members. Upon hearing that one congregant is engaged in a sexual relationship with his father’s wife, Paul chastises them by pointing out that such behavior “is not tolerated even among pagans.”[9] He then goes on to command the church to not associate with that man in any way – essentially excommunicating him. Paul uses God’s law as the basis for doing this by citing the phrase “purge the evil person from among you,” a statement found in numerous Old Testament laws concerning the death penalty. In quoting the Old Testament penal code, Paul draws a parallel between administering the death penalty in the nation of Israel and administering excommunication in the Church.
Though there are additional examples we could consider, these cases sufficiently demonstrate that God’s law is both to and for God’s covenant people (i.e., Christians). That is, laws that had been given to the nation of Israel at the time of Moses can now be applied to Gentile Christians living outside of the Middle East. This is true whether we are talking about one of the Ten Commandments or a seemingly obscure law about muzzling oxen. But this raises an important question. Are all of God’s laws equally applicable to Christians or should a distinction be made between laws? For example, a common Christian perspective is to categorize God’s laws as either moral, ceremonial, or civil, and then to apply different interpretive rules to each category. Is this methodology correct? That is the question we will now address.
Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil
The Reformer John Calvin, in his book Institutes of the Christian Religion, says the following regarding how to approach God’s law:
We must attend to the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 20, Section 14.)
Although I have only cited Calvin, he was not the only one to have divided God’s law in this way. This three-fold categorization of the Mosaic Law has been a common practice throughout Protestant Christianity and remains so to this day.[10]
According to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF), the first category of Moral Law refers to that body of law which “was first written in the heart of man, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.”[11]
In other words, the Moral Law contains those broad moral principles that are binding upon all peoples and all nations at all times. A clear example of this would be the Sixth Commandment, which prohibits murder. All nations, including those that have never been exposed to God’s word, are still required to honor the image of God within mankind and, in some sense, cannot truly remove this obligation from their consciences.[12]
The second category of Ceremonial Law is described by the LBCF as “containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits.”[13] This refers to those commands and prohibitions regarding how the people of Israel were to worship God. Everything from cleanliness laws to the various sacrifices and required feasts would fall under this category. The LBCF also declares that such laws have been “abrogated and taken away.”[14]
The third category of Civil Law is described by the LBCF as including those “sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of [Israel], not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of modern use.”[15] Essentially, the label ‘Judicial Law/Civil Law’ is often applied to any law that regulates the daily economic and communal life of the nation of Israel, including the treatment of foreigners and other nations. This also includes restitution, warfare, and farming practices (e.g., ox muzzling). Of note, the LBCF says that these laws are no longer binding upon believers except in “their general equity.” Yet the very concept of general equity is a bit nebulous and requires additional inquiry – which we will address later.
At this point, having briefly summarized the traditional three-fold categorization of God’s law, I want to first say that I greatly respect – and recognize the logic of – those who advocate for this model. I do not offer criticism lightly but simply wish to be consistent in approaching the Old Testament laws. Having said that, when it comes to the three-fold view, I find that it is weak in the area of being able to clearly “show its work.” In other words, the categorization of God’s law as either moral, ceremonial, or civil is somewhat blurry and, at times, seemingly arbitrary.
For instance, if you were to attempt to go through the first five books of the Bible (i.e., the Pentateuch) using a different colored highlighter to designate laws as either moral, ceremonial, or civil, you would quickly realize that no pattern exists in the text. Rather, you would often see moral laws, such as “love your neighbor as yourself” placed immediately next to civil laws such as “you shall not sow your fields with two kinds of seed.”[16]
Furthermore, when it comes to the people of Israel, every law was a moral obligation. The law of God was considered to be one unit that, if broken, incurred judgment and required sacrifices to be offered in payment of debt. In the New Testament, the Apostle James tells us that if we break just one law then we are held accountable for all of it.[17] In other words, the law of God is a package deal that cannot simply be categorized into some laws that are “abrogated and taken away” and other laws that remain binding for all people at all times.
To give another example, should the laws concerning cleanliness be considered civil or ceremonial? The answer is, yes. Laws regarding touching dead animals or dealing with infectious diseases served both a ceremonial function (how God’s people were to approach Him in worship) and a civil function (how God’s people were to interact with each other in community). In those laws we see both love for God and love for neighbor tied closely together. Consider the following passage from Numbers 5:
The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead. You shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell.” (Numbers 5:1-3)
It is clear in the passage above that Israel’s camp and the presence of God were intimately tied together. To be unclean impacted both their ability to approach God and their ability to approach others. It had a religious, communal, and medicinal application. And that is why we cannot easily file the cleanliness laws into either the civil or the ceremonial categories.
Even the category of moral law is not as clear-cut as we might like it to be. For example, the Ten Commandments are generally considered to all be moral laws, binding on all peoples and all nations at all times. The problem though is that when we look at situations in the Old Testament where God judges pagan nations, no mention is made concerning the Sabbath, or Fourth Commandment. While it is certainly the case that Israel was judged harshly for violating the Sabbath, Sabbath-breaking is not one of the reasons for God’s judgment against the Amorites, Assyrians, or Babylonians.
On top of this, there are numerous aspects of the Sabbath that we could say are moral, ceremonial, and civil – requiring all three highlighter colors. The concept of a weekly rest and regular worship of the one true God could certainly be seen as a Moral Law. The weekly preparation of the bread of the tabernacle by Aaron and his sons appears to be a Ceremonial Law.[18] But then the Sabbath year of rest from agriculture/farming seems to be a Civil Law that blesses all who dwell in the land, to include sojourners and wild animals.[19]
Conclusion
At the end of the day, the traditional three-fold categorization of God’s law, however well-meaning, is often clunky and sometimes confusing. And although we must take care to respect those theologians and Church fathers who came before us, we should not be afraid to ask how they reached certain conclusions. This is particularly true when seeking to understand how we are to live as Christians both individually and within a larger society.
Dividing God’s law into three distinct categories can be helpful in an organizational sense, but it runs the risk of oversimplifying and ultimately misapplying God’s law. We therefore need to interpret and apply God’s law in a consistent manner that allows us to show our work, regardless of what law we are talking about.
I mentioned earlier that both the Westminster Confession of Faith and London Baptist Confession of Faith refer to the concept of “general equity.” In the Reformed community, this two-word phrase is regularly used in applying God’s law, particularly those portions deemed to be judicial/civil. But is the phrase ‘general equity’ clear? What does it even mean to discern the general equity of something? And is it really the best way to approach God’s law, or is there a method that more rightly handles God’s law? I will attempt to answer these questions in next month’s article.
[1] John 6:26.
[2] Matthew 22:31.
[3] 1 Peter 2:9.
[4] 1 Cor. 9:12.
[5] 1 Cor. 9:14.
[6] Matthew 10:10.
[7] 1 Timothy 5:17-18.
[8] Ephesians 6:2-3.
[9] 1 Cor. 5:1.
[10] For example, see the Westminster Confession of Faith and London Baptist Confession of Faith.
[11] LBCF 19.2.
[12] Romans 2:14-15.
[13] LBCF 19.3.
[14] Ibid.
[15] LBCF 19.4.
[16] Leviticus 19:18-19.
[17] James 2:10.
[18] Leviticus 24:5-9.
[19] Leviticus 25:1-7.
[Note: This article was originally published on Eric Luppold’s Substack page. It is reproduced here with permission.]
