Does Scripture Distinguish Between Moral and Ceremonial Law?
The question this article will set out to answer is: Does the Bible distinguish between moral and ceremonial law? Some, such as those who align with Hebrew Roots or Torah Movement theology, say “the Bible never makes such a distinction”1 and argue that the Torah cannot be divided into such categories because “the word of God is a unified whole.”2 Consequently, because of their more literal view of continuity, they maintain that “[not] a single commandment has been done away with”3 and that “all of it”4 reveals God’s holy standard—thus, we are obligated to keep all of God’s commandments.
Similarly, those who hold to more of a New Covenant Theology (NCT) perspective also view the law as a unit but come to entirely different conclusions—not surprisingly, since their shared premise logically demands one of two mutually exclusive outcomes. That is, both would agree that “[The Law] is either completely fulfilled, or completely enforced.”5 NCT, of course, argues for the former—“It is ALL fulfilled in Christ and is thus illegitimate to cling to one commandment as binding.”6
It should go without saying that some of the above points, as stated, come with some caveats.
Before I go on to (spoiler alert!) answer the question in the affirmative—departing from the camps mentioned above—let me briefly clarify something. The intention of this article is not to argue for the three-fold distinction of the law. While I do grant it (in a sense), I also take a more nuanced view, seeing significant overlap between moral and civil law. On the one hand, the moral law defines sin, while the civil law defines crime. On the other hand, all crimes, biblically speaking, are sins. Furthermore, the civil laws and case laws serve to expound the moral law, as it were. More could be said on this, but I digress. For the purposes of this article, I am only interested in arguing for a clear distinction between the moral and the ceremonial law.
The term ceremonial law is used to denote “those Old Covenant commandments which regulated rituals and symbolic actions pertaining to the redemption of God’s people and their separation from the unbelieving world, rather than prescriptions about matters which were intrinsically moral” (Bahnsen, By This Standard, 352).
“The purpose of the ceremonial law was to foreshadow the redemptive work of Christ, teach justification by faith, and symbolically (and temporarily) set apart the Jews from the Gentiles” (Fugate, God’s Royal Law, n.p.).
It’s worth noting that in the above definitions, references are made to both the first- and second-level functions of the ceremonial law (e.g., its role in setting apart the Jews from the Gentiles, and its teaching on the importance of separation between believers and unbelievers, respectively). The ceremonial law had a pedagogical purpose, to be sure, but it also functioned on its own level (another example would be sacrifices purifying the flesh [Heb. 9:13]). This is not essential to what I’m arguing in this article, per se, but it’s an important clarification nonetheless—and one that will inform several points along the way.
While I don’t expect anyone to take the above definitions as proof in themselves, I include them to set the stage. My aim, moving forward, is to argue for the truth of what they assert.
First, let’s start with a couple of commonly cited verses: 1 Samuel 15:22 and Hosea 6:6. I fully acknowledge that, in context, 1 Samuel 15:22 isn’t explicitly distinguishing between the moral and ceremonial law, as the obedience mentioned there is in reference to a positive command of God, not the moral law per se (though one could argue the moral law is indirectly in view). Regardless, it presupposes that there is an obedience to God that is set over against sacrifices—suggesting a categorical hierarchy.
Hosea 6:6 is even more explicit, as I am convinced it is speaking of the moral law. Love is a summary of the moral law, and it is distinguished from sacrifices, which I contend belong to the ceremonial law. This is not to say that faithful obedience to the ceremonial law couldn’t be a genuine expression of love. Nonetheless, the context does draw a distinction. I would argue that, generally speaking, the sacrificial system assumes and depends on the existence of the moral law. Sacrifices exist because of the reality of sin, which ultimately presupposes a moral standard—and it is better to obey that standard than to offer sacrifice for having violated it.
Cf. Psalm 51:16–17; Proverbs 21:3; Jeremiah 7:22–23 — each echoing the same underlying theme.
Given the references to the sacrificial system in the verses just discussed, it’s fitting to begin there. In my commentary on Galatians, I argue that Galatians 3:19–25 primarily refers to the sacrificial laws, which are described as typological and provisional—something the moral law is not.7 In verse 19, Paul explains that the law in view was “added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made.” Sacrifices provided a temporary solution for transgressions by serving the pedagogical purpose of pointing to Christ. They reminded of sin (Heb. 10:3) while anticipating the One who would ultimately atone for it (Heb. 10:1, 5, 8–10).
Furthermore, the phrase “to whom the promise had been made” highlights Christ as the fulfillment of the promise. The fact that the law was added only until Christ came suggests it was not introduced merely to address peripheral matters, but was specifically designed to anticipate and point forward to the fulfillment of that promise. Its cessation upon the coming of the Messiah underscores its direct connection to the promise’s fulfillment and emphasizes its specific anticipatory and temporary role. Verses 23–25 reinforce this interpretation, further describing the law as having a pedagogical purpose and culminating with the coming of Christ.
This passage both (1) teaches that the sacrifices were done away with at the coming of Christ, contrary to Torahism advocates, and (2) does not teach the abrogation of the moral law (as I understand it), contrary to NCT.
More could certainly be said about the sacrificial laws–whether by taking the well-worn path through Hebrews 7–10 or by appealing to more straightforward typological arguments. Those are valid and important lines of reasoning. But here, I’ve chosen to take a different route—arguing from Galatians 3:19–25, a passage known for its variety of interpretations, but which I believe, when rightly understood, offers a compelling case for the cessation of the sacrificial system upon the coming of Christ.
Special food restrictions taught about separation from Gentiles (Lev. 20:25-26; Deut. 14:21). The Jews were to distinguish between clean and unclean meats because God had separated them from the Gentiles. Thus, the dietary laws were interrelated with the Jew/Gentile distinction. The purpose of both was to teach about holiness. Today, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, for we are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). The pedagogical purpose of the Jew/Gentile distinction has been fulfilled in the coming of Christ, who has made both one (Eph. 2:14). Consequently—because of the interrelatedness of the two—the pedagogical purpose of the dietary laws has been fulfilled as well.
Moreover, Deuteronomy 14:21 makes it clear that there was nothing inherently wrong with eating the foods God prohibited, for He allowed the Jews to give or sell these foods to sojourners and foreigners. Surely, God would not encourage Gentiles to do what is immoral (cf. Jas. 1:13). However, if we distinguish between moral and ceremonial law, there is no problem with Gentiles eating what was only unlawful for Jews.
Again, more could be said on this—e.g., the obvious arguments from Mark 7, Acts 10, Romans 14, etc. While I believe those texts clearly support my position, they are also the subject of much debate, and I’d rather not treat them in passing or without proper attention. Also, my goal here was to present points that (1) are often less considered, and (2) focus not just on the setting aside of dietary laws, but on their nature, purpose, and transience.
Next, an argument from 1 Corinthians 7:19 and Romans 2:26. As Robert Fugate points out in God’s Royal Law, if there were no distinction between moral and ceremonial law, these verses would be an absurdity. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:19 would essentially teach that neither keeping God’s commandments counts for anything nor not keeping God’s commandments, but keeping the commandments of God is what counts. Similarly, Romans 2:26 would communicate that a man who is not keeping the law would be keeping the precepts of the same law! (n.p.). But if we distinguish between moral and ceremonial law, the verses make perfect sense:
1 Corinthians 7:19
For neither circumcision (a ceremonial command of God) counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the (moral) commandments of God.
Romans 2:26
So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the (moral) law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
In this article, we’ve touched on some commonly cited verses, zoomed in on the sacrificial laws, considered the dietary laws and their relation to the Jew/Gentile distinction, and examined two passages that demand the moral/ceremonial distinction. To close out, I’d like to take a brief look at Ephesians 2:14–16, which I’m convinced specifically refers to the ceremonial law.
As Bahnsen points out, Ephesians 2:14–16 cannot be referring to every command revealed in the Old Testament. Rather, it speaks of “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances”—with the law of commandments referring to “the principle, order, policy, or system of commandments,” and expressed in ordinances denoting “‘decrees’ (laws imposed by authority, but not in virtue of intrinsic rightness)” (Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd ed., 208). The context makes it clear that the law in view pertains to the separation between Jews and Gentiles—something the moral law does not distinguish, since all people are accountable to it and condemned under it (Rom. 1–3). According to the passage, this system of separation has been disengaged (207). This is consistent with the pattern we’ve seen—namely, that Scripture treats the ceremonial law as having a temporary and typological function.
Contrary to both Torahism and NCT advocates, Scripture does indeed distinguish between moral and ceremonial law. The moral law—as I understand it, summarized in the Ten Commandments—reflects God’s unchanging nature and character and carries over into the New Covenant (contra NCT). The ceremonial law, as to its pedagogical function, reflects God’s free and gracious choice to save sinners and has been fulfilled in Christ and set aside with regard to its outward form (contra Torahism). While it would take another article to defend the enduring nature of the moral law, at the very least, I’ve demonstrated that the passages examined here do not teach its abrogation.
- Can we keep all of the commandments? ↩︎
- Unity of Torah ↩︎
- Can we keep all of the commandments? ↩︎
- Unity of Torah ↩︎
- Why Paul Refused to Divide the Law ↩︎
- Why Paul Refused to Divide the Law ↩︎
- Though case laws can, in a sense and to a degree, be described as contextually provisional, this is different from the way ceremonial laws are provisional. ↩︎