← Back to sermon library

All right, covenant theology and biblical theology. So this first question comes to Dr. Barcelos. How does the threefold division of the law help us see the new covenant, and how should we respond to Christians who claim the category is unbiblical? Yeah, that's a good question. It's rooted in our confession of the threefold division of the law.

The moral, natural law, law written on the heart, and as it is promulgated or made public, it's first on stone tablets, and then it's written in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. So that's the one aspect of the law, which seems to be clearly based on man's creation in the image of God with the law written on his heart. And that law written on his heart somehow, someway reflects something of God, you know, something in God.

So that is, if that's by virtue of our creation, and that we're always creatures, whether we're Adam unfallen, Adam fallen, or an Adamite, since the fall, under the old or mosaic covenant, or just under the inaugurated new covenant, we're still creatures. So something seems to be of necessity has to transcend all those covenants and be common among all of us. So that's what theologians have called the natural or moral law. But God has more laws than just the 10 words.

So you look at the history of redemption, or even pre-redemptive history, Adam had the law written on his heart, we know from Romans 2 and elsewhere. But also, Adam had a positive law revealed to him in the garden, a prohibition, don't eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So that provides a distinction there between natural and positive, or moral and positive. What is positive? It is something revealed above the natural. So then if you keep that distinction, you keep reading, there are other positive laws. Abraham was told to offer his son Isaac up on Mount Moriah, Genesis 20. That's a positive law.

But it's restricted only to Abraham. So it's covenantally bounded. It's determined by the covenant. Well, it's not just covenantally bounded there. I think it's an individual command for an individual person. It is a positive law within the orbit of the Abrahamic Covenant, but it's not for all those in the Abrahamic Covenant. But there are some positive laws conditioned by the Covenant. Saturday Sabbath in the Old Covenant, Sunday Sabbath in the New Covenant.

Circumcision is a positive law. restrict or alter or change the moral law at all. The basic moral principles of the Ten Words are trans-covenantal. But circumcision is not trans-covenantal. There was a time when it was not, and then there was a time when it was, and now it's nothing, you know. So, then if you read Moses, you have the moral law incorporated into the Mosaic or Old Covenant. I think, with unique historical, redemptive historical appendages, like the death penalty for certain things, which are positive laws added to the moral law under the Mosaic economy.

There's also political laws or laws having to do with the polity, the government of ancient Israel. Judicial laws. Yeah, judicial laws. What's interesting is the judicial laws And some of the ceremonial laws with reference to worship, like the building of the temple have to do with Israel in the land. Okay, so there's a distinction made between moral or natural law and then wilderness laws, because there were, like the tabernacle predates the promised land, but the temple doesn't, but the tabernacle does. So there are some tabernacle laws that were instituted by God in the wilderness, and then once they got in the land and got their temple, the tabernacle laws are lost. So you have, even within Israel's experience, you have the rescinding or the abrogation by virtue of fulfillment of some of the positive laws, like the ceremonial laws having to do with Israel in the wilderness. Is it Junius, what he calls those? He's got a distinction between laws in the wilderness and laws in the land.

So it's a distinction within ceremonial laws under the mosaic old economy. So these distinctions weren't first invented by the Westminster Assembly's committee on the law, on Chapter 19. They predate that. And not only do they go back to the medieval ... Thomas Aquinas has something like that. And I think there's evidence before that the patristics were at least making it twofold, if not a threefold division. I think those divisions go back to the canonical writers of the Hebrew Old Testament. Call them whatever you want.

Moses uses different Hebrew words in strategic contexts. And once you read the entire Bible, you go, oh. Paul describes man at creation as an image-bearer in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and having a law written on his heart. So if it's of man to have the law written on his heart, then we all have the law written on our heart, whatever that means.

But then there's new laws introduced in the garden first, with Abraham and others. with Moses, that seem to not transcend their unique covenantal, historical covenantal context, they can be terminated. They can point to something, and once that to which it points comes, they function different than they used to. So, once you get to the New Testament and you read that, you realize there are some laws that seem to predate the inaugurated new covenant that are transcending previous eras and coming into our era, more laws, you know, and conditioned by the covenant under which they're being enacted.

But there's also positive laws connected to the new covenant, like baptism and the Lord's Supper are positive laws. And I think, you know, church government's a positive law instituted through the writings of the apostles and all that stuff. What was the question? Threefold division of the law. It points us to the New Covenant. How should we respond to the Christians who claim the category is unbiblical? I think you have explained that. Yeah, you know... I think exegetically, you know, biblical, theologically, Exodus, you know, I don't think... It's too difficult. Exodus 20, moral law. 21 to 23, judicial law. 25 to 40, ceremonial law. The judicial is an expression of the latter table of the commandments. The ceremonial is an expression of the, you know, former table of the commandments.

Can I quote somebody? Very well known. He's Canadian. I'm not going to name his name, but he says, it's too cute. It's too tidy. It doesn't work. Yeah, you know, I've heard that about Calvinism, and that makes me, it begs the question, should we expect God to not be tidy? Should we expect God to be illogical and fuzzy? Is that somehow commend a system more so? I just don't appreciate that. Well, the same author, in looking at Mark chapter 2, the Sabbath was made for man. For the man. For the man, and not man for the Sabbath.

He says that the the majority view is that this, that our Lord is actually referring back to creation. And he says, however, that's too tidy, too cute or something like that. And I go, well, why is it too tidy? Here's the reason. That was in a book called From the Sabbath to the Lord's Day. Here's the reason. And I had a friend, I think it was Pastor Dunn, when I wrote something, it could have been the Garden Book, he said, do you think guys push back on the three-fold division?

Now, I don't want to put these words in Pastor Dunn's mouth, so it's the way I took it. It's basically, basically, whoever said this, because they want to watch NFL football. Because they don't want to deal with the perpetuity of the fourth commandment. Do they deny this stuff for that? And I said, you know, that's a good question. I don't know Muinn's motives. I don't know their hearts. Yeah, it's probably best not to do that. But you're right.

I think exegetically and then synthesizing our exegesis, doing some biblical, redemptive historical biblical theology, And for Paul to say circumcision is nothing, he doesn't do that with murder. He doesn't do that with adultery. There's an obvious distinction between a positive law and something that's perpetual. And I think the Philip Ross book, From the Finger of God, it's excellent.

And how the prophets, when they'd upbraid Old Covenant Israel, it wasn't because they ate jackdaws. It wasn't because they ate bearded vultures. It's not that those weren't transgressions, but it was moral law. It was murder. It was adultery. It was theft.

That book, Philip Ross, when I heard about it, I got it. And I devoured it. I read it twice. I said, this is so good. And in the back of my mind was, I want to write a book on the threefold division until I read that book. And then I saw two reviews of it. One was by a New Covenant guy on Amazon. I don't know if it's still on there. And it was really bad. And they ordered a book in honor of G.K. Beale. Hendrickson, I think, published it. It's got some good articles. Oh, from the New Eden or something? I don't know what it's called, but it's got some good articles, except this one by a certain Canadian New Testament scholar.

It's a review by D.A. Carson of Ross's book. It's horrible. And then it's honor of G.K. Beale, who, in his big fat It holds to the perpetuity of the creation Sabbath. And I thought, well, that's kind of a cheeky way to honor the man, to disagree with a book he probably really likes. But yeah, that book by Philip Ross, From the Finger of God, that's really helpful. And you know, am I remembering correctly, because you just brought up circumcision as nothing.

But it's not absolutely nothing. It still teaches us something. Well, we need the circumcision of the heart. It's nothing in terms of a positive law to be enacted under the new covenant. And we are the true circumcision to worship. So we're not just We're not discounting the language. We're just allowing, to your point, the new covenant.

The moral law is assumed by Paul, and the ceremonial law is assumed by Paul, but different in terms of obligation on the part of new covenant citizens. Yeah, because that very text, if I'm remembering correctly, he goes on to say circumcision is nothing non-circumcised. What matters is... New creation. Keeping the law. Oh, yeah, in 1 Corinthians, yeah. Right, right.

Now, the question would be, How do we think about those previous... So like we just said, circumcision is still there in a more full spiritual sense, right? And then we also have the positive law, for example, don't muzzle the ox. which now is applied to those who... Yeah, that's a good question. 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5 quotes Deuteronomy 25, 4. And it is a positive law from the...

So how do we deal with that? Because Paul is applying something that applies literally to oxen in the mosaic corpus, but he's applying the text somehow, some way, to guys like us, pastors, you know? So what's going on? I think what's happening there is there's a letter-spirit assumption in the Apostles' hermeneutic. There's a principle behind the positive law that's getting applied.

Just like you said, there's moral law, there's Judicial, yeah, case law or whatever. There's a moral principle that's perpetual and trans-covenantal behind the Oxen text, which is, I think, the Eighth Commandment, thou shalt not steal. But here's where that might get a little bit tricky, because that would legitimize theonomy. So in the judicial laws of Moses, you make sure you have a fence or a roof. So that people can't fall off. The obvious principle is the Sixth Commandment.

So, you know, this desire to take everything judicial law. I like the confession, you know, it's it expired with that body politic of the Commonwealth of Israel. The general equity is still abiding. I mean, I don't know that anybody knows what general equity means, but I get it. You know, there's this moral principle. The morally perpetual principle. The morally perpetual principle.

And yeah, so similarly, Paul does that with Samuel. Yeah, but does he do it one to one with the state? No. Yeah. Yeah. And that's, there's a huge assumption. Yeah, that's right. That, you know, America is the new covenant theocracy. Red, white, and blue. Red, white, and blue ribbons. Yeah, that means red, white, and blue ribbons. You fit right in. You know, your, your, uh, your covetousness is kind of ugly. You have a white beard, a blue shirt. Do you have red socks? No, your handkerchief is red, right? Actually, one I will wear later. Okay, we need to get back on subject here. We need to? Yeah, that's a good question. We could go for hours on that stuff.

I'm actually writing a chapter for a book on the threefold. Because I agree with you, I have an allergic reaction to theonomy, right? But I love my Bible. And so even like with the dietary laws, I don't think that, you know, because Hebrews makes it clear, our hearts would be strengthened by grace, not by food.

Right. But at the same time, you know, as God is instructing his son there, what what is what's going on? What's behind that? Right. What is going on behind? And I you know, I want to I want to say it's keeping them from engaging in the pagan nations around differentiating them. Yeah, because because a meal was much more than sharing. Just sustenance. It would mean some sort of intermingling. Fellowship. Yeah. Now, maybe. I don't know. But I like thinking about what's going on there. That phrase, in the land, when you're in the land, then a law is expressed. I think that's very important. There's a distinction being made there. Some laws are to be enacted in the future when you're in the land, but not until you're in the land, which means they don't transcend the land. There's something unique about the land.

In the history of redemption, God is using ancient Israel as the means through which the incarnate one would come. And once the incarnation comes, that special theological purpose is When they're vomited out of the land, when you're in the Gentile nations or in exile, those laws that were applicable to life in the land assume your preeminence in that land, over that land. So yeah, there's a temporariness built in. Yeah, and while they're moving through the wilderness, they're not able to plant and harvest in a seasonal way, so that's anticipating. Yeah, being in the land. There's something unique and typological about the land, too. Yeah, and if that's true there, then what is going on as they're in the wilderness that is unique to that historical place as well?

And I'm sure that there are things that, well, for example, gathering manna. Right? That was absolutely... By the way, isn't it Simon Kistemacher? Did he do his PhD on the wilderness wanderings of the church in the book of Hebrews? I thought it was in Psalms. Somebody did that.

And they argue that the wilderness is typological of the Christian life. There's a lot of resistance, there's a lot of unbelief. And it's adolescent phase for Old Covenant Israel. God calls them, my firstborn in Exodus 4, and maturation comes when they inherit the land. So refer to that as their adolescence, God, you know, chastening them, the first generation not entering into the land. And the land is ultimately typological of Emmanuel's land. That's why old people, when you ask him, besides the John Bunyan connection, you know, how's Brother Harry doing?

Well, he's 92 and was in the hospital or whatever. He crossed the river. Yeah. What river? Yeah, right. The Jordan. The Jordan, that's right. And he went into glory, absent from the body, present with the Lord. We use that language. And I think that goes way back in the history of the church. And I think it's legit to do so. Oh, yeah. That goes way back. There's a book, Jean Danielou. Yeah. What's the name of that book? I don't know really helpful of all this stuff He walks through the exodus and he shows the type anti type stuff throughout scripture in the patristics a very helpful book typology the of the fathers or something Good good question