The Tripartite Law

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,...for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:15

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:24

The verses listed above highlight an apparent discrepancy between James and Paul. Paul contended that the works of the law have no part whatsoever in the justification of the believer. James, on the other hand, stated plainly that a man is justified by works.

The German reformer Martin Luther, after having understood the revelation of salvation by faith, did not have much use for the book of James. He would have preferred that it not be in the Bible, calling the book of James "an epistle of straw." When Luther translated the Bible into German for the first time, it grated him that he had to include James.

This apparent controversy between the two New Testament writers is reconciled when we understand the tripartite nature of the Old Testament law. There are in fact three distinct aspects of the law, which are respectively treated very differently from one another in the New Testament. Consider the following:

1. The Covenant Law (I.e. The Ten Commandments). This was the series of moral commands that God spoke from the mountain and provided in tables of stone (also called the "tables of the covenant" Heb. 9:4). The ten commands governed the covenant people's relationships with both God and their fellow man.
2. The Ceremonial Law. These are the laws of the priesthood, the tabernacle and the sacrifices. They specified who was allowed to serve in the priesthood, and how they were to be ordained and prepared for service. The ceremonial law also specified the construction and order of the tabernacle, and the many various sacrifices that were to be offered therein.
3. The Civil Law. This is the aspect of the law that has the most in common with our own local and federal laws. These laws governed everything from marriage and divorce to how property disputes were to be settled. There were also numerous civil laws that appear completely arbitrary and even silly to the modern mind--like, the prohibition of yoking an ox and donkey together on the same team.

Jesus stated emphatically that he did not come to destroy, or annul the law (Mat 5:17-20). Rather, Jesus told us that he came to fulfill the law. What does this mean? In fact, it means something different depending on which of the three aspects of the Law we are considering.

1. Fulfilling the Covenant Law: Jesus clearly taught a high regard for obeying the 10 Commandments. The Sermon on the Mount is full of Jesus commenting on the Decalogue. But in the teaching of Jesus, obedience to the Decalogue is not outward only, but originates inwardly. For example, Jesus stated that being angry with our brother without cause is related to the command to not kill (Mat. 5:21-22). He also stated that to look on a woman to lust after her was to commit adultery with her the heart (Mat. 5:27-28). In the case of the Covenant Law therefore, Jesus fulfilled the law by teaching them from God's perspective--that obedience requires a converted heart. Covenant Law is by no means obsolete.
2. Fulfilling the Ceremonial Law: The New Testament is full of references that indicate that the Ceremonial Law was merely temporary, and pointed to the work of Christ at Calvary. Christ is our high priest, and the sacrifice he offered was his own flesh and blood. The Ceremonial Law has been fulfilled and rendered obsolete when Christ came and replaced all the symbolic sacrifices with the sacrifice of himself. 
3. Fulfilling the Civil Law: There are two types of Old Testament civil law, which are treated differently in the New Testament. The apparently arbitrary, sometimes silly laws, like the aforementioned prohibition against yoking an ox and donkey together, are allegorized (i.e. given a spiritual meaning) in the New Testament. Paul wrote that believers should not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14), which is obviously a spiritual application of the Old Testament law. Regarding other civil laws, like the "eye for an eye" law of vengeance, and the law of divorce, Christ taught that these were given to the Israelites because of the coldness of their hearts (see Mat. 5:38-39). The Civil Law is largely unnecessary when believers live together in harmony, because "the law was made for lawbreakers"

Returning to our apparent controversy between the Apostle Paul and James, we find that the controversy disappears when we understand what aspect of the law each were referring to. When Paul taught that the works of the law could not justify us, he was referring to the ceremonial law. Paul was certainly not discrediting the 10 Commandments, or teaching us that keeping them is optional! Paul's reason for writing was that Jewish teachers had been troubling the churches, trying to convince Gentile believers to become circumcised and keep the Jewish rituals. It was against this that Paul contended.

James on the other hand was contending for the works that concern the keeping of the Covenant Law. This is clearly seen when we read James 2:8-24 in its context. James directly cites the 10 Commandments in his argument for being justified by works. James was certainly not insisting that believers had to continue offering the Old Testament typical sacrifices! We know from the teachings of Christ that keeping the Decalogue requires a heart conversion, and that comes through faith in the sacrifice of Christ. It therefore follows that faith and works (in James' context) operate together to justify the believer.