Does it really have to be Moral *or* Civil?

For better (sometimes) and for worse (sometimes) we reformed work really hard to get our ducks lined up in a row. Mostly this is a feature, but it becomes a bug when we succumb to a form of theological OCD. Such is the case with the delineation of the Old Testament Law. We operate as if there is a passage describing the Old Testament laws this way:

Three shall be the number of the counting of the law types, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. And the names of these law types shall be moral, civil, and ceremonial. ¹ 

This allows us to discard, neatly and conveniently, two of the three types ² and keep only the Old Testament moral law.

The problem is that scripture never makes such a delineation, and neither is it clear in every case how to categorize a law in this man-made schema. Take this famous (and disturbing) passage:

¹⁸ “If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, ¹⁹ then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city [a]at the gateway of his hometown. ²⁰ They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ ²¹ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear. (Deut. 21:18-21)

How would you categorize this law? Is it a moral law? A civil law? Both? Neither? Is it not the 5^th Commandment with a promise replaced by a punishment?

I would say it is primarily a moral law. It feels that way to me.

Does Jesus uphold summarily executing a rebellious, drunkard and glutton (if we may assume those are aspects of “loose living”) of a son? Well, we have an example: the Prodigal Son. He fared much better that his likeminded OT counterparts under Deut. 21:18-21. 

God’s Word cannot always be shoe-horned into neat little compartments, as much as we’d like it to be so. Experience shows this is a hard pill for the reformed to swallow.

---

¹The author of this blog apologizes for the reuse of this joke in the same manner it was used on a previous post, years ago. Those responsible have been sacked.

² Excepting if you are a dreaded theonomist and discard only one type, or a New Covenant Theology proponent and jettison the whole kit and caboodle.