Is there a “Moral Law of God”?

Every time I read an author who uses the term ‘the moral law,’ I am tempted to say, “I assume by ‘moral law’ that you mean the opposite of the ‘immoral’ law.” As I understand the normal usage of that word, the opposite of moral is immoral. A moral act is the opposite of an immoral act. A moral person is the opposite of an immoral person. However, the people who employ this term in theological forms do not use the word ‘moral’ as the opposite of ‘immoral.’ They make the opposite of moral to be ‘ceremonial’ and ‘civil.’ This has created a new and unique use of the word ‘moral’ that is then used to justify a preconceived theological position. This definition is then taken further, and without any biblical evidence, used to divide the entire Mosaic law into these three categories. People who employ this theological usage of the word ‘moral’ insist that the law of Moses can be divided up into three distinct lists: a ‘moral law’ list, a ‘ceremonial law’ list, and a ‘civil law’ list. 

It is important to understand that these people use the term ‘the moral law’ with the same authority as if it were actually a text of Scripture. Even though they have not demonstrated how this concept is derived biblical evidence, they treat the term as an established theological fact. They call the Ten Commandments ‘the moral law,’ not because it is a biblical term or even a biblical concept, but because their theological position demands it. Notice what the Westminster Confession of Faith actually states with regard to the so-called ‘moral law.’ In Chapter18, “(XIX) Of The Law of God,” section 19(XIX), 1, 2, the Westminster Confession states that a law was given to Adam as the basis of a “covenant of works.” After man fell, this same law “continued as a perfect rule of righteousness” and as such was “given to Israel at Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables…” Section 3 then states, “Besides this law, commonly called moral…” The Ten Commandments have now officially become “THE moral Law of God” by declaration of the framers of the Confession. 

Every time I read the phrase ‘commonly called’ in the Confession, I want to ask, “Commonly called that by whom?” None of the Confession’s ‘commonly called’ tenets are ever mentioned in the Word of God. If they were, the framers of the Confession, or their heirs, could have quoted the texts. What the Confession really means by ‘commonly called’ is this: “This concept is essential to our theological system. We do not have a text of Scripture to prove it, but theologians use this phrase all the time. By ‘commonly called’ we mean ‘used all the time by theologians.’”

According to the definitions listed in Webster’s Dictionary, Covenant Theology has no legitimate precedent in linguistics to make the word moral be the opposite of ceremonial and civil. The only authority for that idea is the Confession of Faith.

Here is Microsoft Word Dictionary’s definition of the word ‘moral’ as an adjective.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

As a noun the word means:

1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

Synonyms of the word are: moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous. These adjectives mean ‘in accord with principles or rules of right or good conduct.’ 

1. Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially sexual conduct, measured against prevailing standards of rectitude. 
2. Ethical stresses conformity with idealistic standards of right and wrong, as those applicable to the practices of lawyers and doctors.
3. Virtuous implies moral excellence and loftiness of character; in a narrower sense it refers to sexual chastity. 
4. Righteous emphasizes moral uprightness and especially the absence of guilt or sin; when it is applied to actions, reactions, or impulses, it often implies justifiable outrage.

As you can see, the word ‘moral’ is never used to mean something the opposite of or different from ‘ceremonial.’ 

The word ‘moral’ has to do with ethical, virtuous and righteous behavior and its opposite has to do with immoral, unethical, non-virtuous and unrighteous behavior. When ‘moral’ behavior is compared to other behavior, the second behavior is always immoral, unethical or unrighteous. There is no etymological category that allows for “moral” behavior to be compared to “ceremonial” behavior. In Scripture, men are duty bound to obey every law that God gives them. We cannot say it was Israel’s ‘moral duty’ to avoid adultery and their ‘ceremonial duty’ to be circumcised. One of those things may be, to us, moral in nature and the other ceremonial in nature, but not to an Israelite. Both of those duties were equal for an Israelite, and in both cases the penalty for disobedience was death.

The concept of ‘moral duty’ is confusing and clearly not biblical. Nowhere in the Scriptures, either Old or New Testament, are we told to figure out the nature of a commandment before we decide whether it is our duty to obey it. We obey every law that God gives us simply because he commanded it. The key issue in this discussion concerns the appropriate means used to establish how a New Covenant Christian knows exactly which specific laws in the Bible God wants him to obey. Our response to that issue is this: “The covenant under which any person lives defines and establishes that person’s rule of life.” Covenant Theology proposes that the law of Moses is divided into three lists, and two of those lists, the ceremonial and civil lists are done away with, but the moral list, the Decalogue, is still in force. This becomes “the moral law” and it alone establishes our rule of life today. My view grows out of the belief that our Lord Jesus Christ is a new and greater lawgiver than Moses; Covenant Theology’s view grows out of their belief that Moses was the greatest and highest lawgiver that ever lived. I insist that a new covenant based on grace, as opposed to the old covenant based on law, of necessity demands a new and higher law. Covenant Theology insists that since there is only one covenant of grace, there can only be one unchanging canon of conduct, the Ten Commandments. To make any addition or change to the words written on the tables of the covenant is to ‘deny the Holy Law of God’ and to risk being labeled an antinomian.

The WCF and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which copied the WCF, state that God gave Adam a law in the garden of Eden; this same law was written in all men after all men fell in Adam. The Confession then says, “this same law, commonly called moral ….” (Article 19, Section 1, 2, 3). That statement is the sole source of authority used today for the division the Mosaic law into three different lists. No writer of Scripture ever calls The Ten Commandments the moral law, nor does any writer of Scripture ever treat them as the ‘eternal, unchanging, moral law of God.’ It is true that the Decalogue, or tables of the covenant, received very special and unique treatment. Among other things, they were housed in a box that was so holy that no one was allowed to even touch it. However, the box was not holy because the ‘moral law’ was inside it, but because it housed the ‘testimony,’ the tables of the covenant upon which were written the Ten Commandments, or the summary of the terms of the Old Covenant. If Covenant Theology is right in its ‘eternal, unchanging, moral law’ idea then the ark would have been called the “ark of God’s moral law.’

Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. I agree with Covenant Theology that the Bible, viewed from a New Covenant perspective, contains laws that are clearly ethical in nature and others laws that are ceremonial in nature. Also, there are both civil and ceremonial laws given to Israel as a theocracy. However, nowhere does the Word of God divide the law of Moses into these three categories or lists. Likewise, a Jew living under the Old Covenant could not make the same distinctions that we can make today. A Jew obeyed “the law of God” in its entirety. He did not make sure to keep certain laws because they were on the moral list, while not worrying too much about observance of other laws because they were on the ‘ceremonial’ list. “God said” was the Israelite’s sole authority for all his behavior, whether it concerned loving his neighbor or mixing different kind of seeds in his garden (Lev. 19:18, 19).

The Holy Spirit has never given us a complete moral list, a complete ceremonial list, and a complete civil list of laws.^[1] I repeat; the idea that the Ten Commandments constitute the ‘moral law of God’ is derived from the Confession of Faith, with absolutely no biblical proof. The resultant three-fold division of law is the sole ground for Covenant Theology’s insistence that what is written on the tablets of the covenant, or Ten Commandments, transcends all covenant arrangements and all time.

A friend of mine came to Exodus in his daily Bible reading. He was wrestling with the law/grace issue and New Covenant Theology. He bought three pens of different colors and decided to mark the ‘three different kinds of laws’ in the law of Moses, and then compile them into three complete lists when he was finished. He discovered that he sometimes had to use two different colors for the same law, and even use all three colors in some verses. Sometimes, within a single passage, one colored verse would be preceded and followed by a different colored verse. He soon realized it was impossible to make any such list, simply because the Word of God never treats the law of Moses that way. The law of God given to Moses is one ball of wax and not three. Sometimes, a law that we would categorize as ceremonial in nature is considered important enough to have the death penalty attached. Examples of this are circumcision and the sabbath. There is nothing inherently sinful about picking up sticks on a particular day of the week or not being circumcised. However, when God designates those ceremonial acts as the signs of covenants, they then become the most significant duty in fulfilling the covenant stipulations. 

I freely admit concurrence with the tenet that none of the laws that reflect the character of God ever change, provided that does not preclude the idea of those laws being raised to a higher level through fuller revelation. Greater revelations of God’s character will, of necessity, intensify the manner of our response to that revelation. I do believe, however, that man’s specific duties to God may change according to the covenant under which that man lives. This is especially true when we compare the New Covenant to the Old Covenant that established Israel as a nation at Sinai. The primary reason for this that the New Covenant reveals far more of the amazing grace of God. Jesus Christ, as the exact representation of God’s being (Heb. 1:3), is undeniably superior to Moses, who was faithful, but still only a servant (Heb. 3:5).

---