During a meeting today, the tripartite division of the law was discussed. Here are some of my thoughts.
Why the Tripartite Division?
What is the tripartite division of the law? When theologians speak of the tripartite division of the law they are speaking of the division of the Mosaic Law into three parts: moral, ceremonial, and civil. This division primarily serves as a tool to address the theological challenge of understanding the relationship between the New Covenant believer and the Mosaic Law. D.A. Carson describes it as a “device for explaining continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments.”1 I believe this assessment is accurate. Thus, when discussing the tripartite division, it’s essential to recognize it as a framework designed to resolve theological issues. Specifically, it addresses how New Covenant believers think about the Mosaic Covenant and what obligations they have to obey the Mosaic Covenant.
This is not a new issue; rather, it has been central to Christianity from its inception. It was a critical matter at the first church council, as recorded in Acts 15, and was pivotal in the controversy with the Judaizers, as seen in Galatians. What obligations do Christians have to observe the ordinances of previous covenants?
This is an old problem and the tripartite division of the law (an old solution) is one tool that theologians have used to address it.
How Does it Solve the Problem?
The question of the Christian’s obligation and relationship to the Old Covenant is a theological question that must be addressed. In fact, this may be the single most significant factor in our denominational lines (but that’s another blog post). How does the tripartite division of the law help us solve this theological issue? At the risk of oversimplification, it clearly draws boundaries around which commands we are subject to obey and which were isolated to the people of Israel under the Mosaic Law at a particular time.
As previously mentioned, those who hold to the tripartite division divide the law into three categories: the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law.
Once again, at the risk of oversimplification, the moral law pertains to an individual’s ethical obligations. The civil law encompasses regulations that govern civil and political society. The ceremonial law deals with religious and cultic practices.
When considering how New Covenant believers / Christians are to relate to the Old Covenant, one common approach is to say that Christians are obliged to obey the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law (since they are eternal and binding on all people everywhere regardless of time) but not the ceremonial or the civil (which were specifically provided to Israel). As a result, the moral aspects of the law are binding on Christians but the ceremonial and civil aspects are not. This creates a fairly straightforward approach (at first glance) to thinking about how Christians relate to the Mosaic Law.
This can be see in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
III. Besides this law, commonly called Moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.e All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the new testament.
IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, farther than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it.i Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.2
The Westminster divines indicate that the moral law “doth for ever bind all.” But the ceremonial laws “are now abrogated under the new testament [covenant].” As for the civil laws, they are “expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now.”
As various forms of Christian nationalism have grown, some Christians—including various reconstructionists and theonomists—also affirm that civil laws (or at least the principles behind them) are still binding, or eventually will be during the millennial reign of Christ.
Finally, many Messianic Jews also view the Mosaic Law, in its entirety, as still binding upon the New Covenant believer, even if that believer is a Gentile.
Uh oh.
I suspect you can already sense some of the difficulties here. While there may be some helpful aspects to the tripartite division of the law, it tends to introduce more problems than it solves. For one, there seems to be no consensus on which parts of the Mosaic Law are still binding, let alone the individual laws! Moreover, there are also more foundational issues with this approach. Let’s consider them.
- The Bible does not use these categories.
If the tripartite division of the law were a method of organizing and thinking about the Mosaic Law, we would expect to see some positive affirmation of the principle within the Law, Writings, or Prophets. However, this is not the case. We simply never see the Old Testament texts using these categories to organize the commands and ordinances of the Law of Moses. Neither do we observe these categories being used in the New Testament. Considering the conflicts between Gentile and Jewish Christians, clarification would have been straightforward if the biblical authors had considered these categories as appropriate boundary markers.
- It isn’t possible to distinguish between which laws are moral, civil, or ceremonial.
Schreiner observes, “Indeed, it is quite difficult to distinguish between what is ‘moral’ and ‘ceremonial’ in the law.”3 I would argue that, at times, it is impossible to make this distinction. Even Reformed theologians who staunchly adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith might disagree about which laws of Moses are civil and which are moral. Consider just the second tablet of the Decalogue: Laws against theft are clearly moral, but they are also undoubtedly civil, as later case laws clarify. Rarely would any citizen be content if civil magistrates allowed the unlawful confiscation of another’s property!
Furthermore, we must consider the very essence of what constitutes ‘moral.’ If God issues a command, doesn’t that inherently make it a moral imperative? From this perspective, all commands of the Mosaic Covenant could be viewed as moral commands. However, when Reformed, Reconstructionist, and Theonomist theologians argue that certain civil and ceremonial commands are not moral in their essential nature, they introduce a more nuanced category of morality that extends beyond mere adherence to God’s will. This distinction—what is considered ‘moral’ as something more than simply ‘God has commanded it’—is an important point for further consideration.
- The New Testament apostles repeatedly treat the law of Moses as a covenantal unit.
As previously indicated, the New Testament authors do not “slice and dice” the Law of Moses. Instead, they consistently affirm it as a cohesive covenantal unit. DeRouchie states, “Furthermore, whether addressing the law-covenant’s repudiation, replacement, or reappropriation, the New Testament regularly speaks of the whole law as a unit.”4
Consider the following texts.
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”” (Galatians 3:10, ESV)
“I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” (Galatians 5:3, ESV)
“For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” (James 2:10, ESV)
- The New Testament authors repeatedly affirm that Christians are not under the law of Moses.
If Christians were bound by the moral or civil aspects of the Mosaic Covenant, we would expect the apostles to indicate this. While they do reappropriate Old Covenant laws for Christians—as we will explore in the next point—they do not do so in the manner we might expect if they were operating within the framework of the tripartite division.
Recalling that the apostles regarded the law as a unified entity, we must also remember that they repeatedly affirm that Christians are no longer under the Law of Moses as a covenant. This does not deny the continued relevance of the Old Testament (a topic for another discussion). However, as a covenantal unit, Christians are no longer under the Law.
Consider the following texts.
“But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” (Romans 7:6 ESV)
“Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian..” (Galatians 3:23-25 ESV)
“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” (Galatians 5:18 ESV)
In fact, it would be impossible to remain under such a covenant as it has passed away (2 Cor. 4:7-18, Gal. 3:19-29; Heb. 7:13).
So then, Christians are no longer under any aspect of the Mosaic Law as a covenant.
- The New Testament authors do appropriate the Mosaic Law to Christians (but not how we’d expect).
In the previous point, I noted that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law. However, this does not mean that the New Testament authors never apply the Mosaic Law to Christians—they do. But if the tripartite division of the law were an accurate biblical framework, and the perpetuity of moral laws defined the New Covenant believer’s relationship to the Old Covenant, we would expect the New Testament authors to apply only the moral laws of the Old Covenant to believers. Yet, they do not.
Consider the example from 1 Corinthians 9:9. Paul states, ‘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?’
In this unusual citation, Paul references an Old Testament law concerning oxen and reappropriates it to his Christian audience. This suggests that this ‘law’ applies to Christians, even though it is unlikely that most would categorize it as a moral law.
While it might be beneficial to explore further into exactly how the New Testament authors reappropriate aspects of the Mosaic Law, that discussion is beyond the scope of this article. Others have already written extensively on this topic.5
Given the significant theological and biblical complexities surrounding the tripartite division of the law, we should exercise caution before adopting it as a tool for theological triage. Simply put, the tripartite division does not resolve the issues we hope it would. What, then, is the solution to the challenging question of the Christian’s relationship to the Old Covenant?
How Do the New Testament Authors Address This Problem
In addressing our original question—how should New Covenant believers relate to the Mosaic Covenant—we must consider how the apostles dealt with this issue. If our conclusions differ from theirs, we ought to be cautious.
We’ve already noted that the Mosaic Covenant is not divided into tripartite categories within the Old Testament, nor are Christians under the Mosaic Law. The Apostles never resolve the complexities of the relationship between the covenants by appealing to a tripartite division of the law or by reminding Christians that they are still under some portions of the Old Covenant. So, how do they approach the Mosaic Law?
That is a discussion for another post.
- Carson, D. A. (2004). Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and the New. In P. T. O’Brien & M. A. Seifrid (Eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul (181st ed., Vol. 2, p. 429). Baker Academic; Mohr Siebeck. ↩︎
- Westminster Assembly. (1851). The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (pp. 100–101). William S. Young. ↩︎
- Schreiner, T. R. (2010). 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law (B. L. Merkle, Ed.; p. 90). Kregel Academic & Professional. ↩︎
- DeRouchie, J. S. (2024). Delighting in the Old Testament: Through Christ and for Christ (p. 217). Crossway.
↩︎ - Schreiner, T. R. (2010). 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law (B. L. Merkle, Ed.). Kregel Academic & Professional; DeRouchie, J. S. (2024). Delighting in the Old Testament: Through Christ and for Christ. Crossway; Rosner, B. S. (2013). Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (D. A. Carson, Ed.; Vol. 31). InterVarsity Press; Apollos.. ↩︎