The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

Mercy Shown said:

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

A more formal distinction emerged in medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas articulated a tripartite division of the Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law expressed timeless ethical principles, the ceremonial law governed Israel’s worship and sacrifices, and the judicial law regulated Israel’s civic life. Although Aquinas did not claim Paul himself made this division, his framework shaped subsequent readings of Romans.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith apart from works of the law. To preserve the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments while rejecting salvation by works, they leaned on the moral/ceremonial distinction. Calvin in particular stressed that the moral law still bound believers, while the ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. This approach encouraged Protestants to interpret Romans 3:20 as if Paul were distinguishing between different kinds of law.

In the centuries that followed, Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) codified this division, and it became common for preachers and commentators to read Romans 3:20 through that lens. The two-law theory thus served as a theological tool in debates over antinomianism, allowing Christians to affirm both salvation by grace and the necessity of obedience.

Modern scholarship, however, has largely set aside the two-law framework as an anachronism. Studies of Second Temple Judaism have shown that Jews of Paul’s day viewed Torah as a unified covenant, not as divisible into moral and ceremonial parts. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” argue that Paul’s concern was not with distinguishing kinds of laws but with showing that Torah as a whole cannot justify. For Paul, the law in its entirety reveals sin, but righteousness comes only through faith in Christ.

In sum, the theory that Paul spoke of two laws in Romans 3:20 reflects later theological developments, especially medieval and Reformation attempts to reconcile Paul’s teaching with the continuing role of God’s commands. While historically influential, it does not appear to be what Paul himself meant.

Click to expand...

Mercy Shown said:

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

A more formal distinction emerged in medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas articulated a tripartite division of the Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law expressed timeless ethical principles, the ceremonial law governed Israel’s worship and sacrifices, and the judicial law regulated Israel’s civic life. Although Aquinas did not claim Paul himself made this division, his framework shaped subsequent readings of Romans.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith apart from works of the law. To preserve the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments while rejecting salvation by works, they leaned on the moral/ceremonial distinction. Calvin in particular stressed that the moral law still bound believers, while the ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. This approach encouraged Protestants to interpret Romans 3:20 as if Paul were distinguishing between different kinds of law.

In the centuries that followed, Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) codified this division, and it became common for preachers and commentators to read Romans 3:20 through that lens. The two-law theory thus served as a theological tool in debates over antinomianism, allowing Christians to affirm both salvation by grace and the necessity of obedience.

Modern scholarship, however, has largely set aside the two-law framework as an anachronism. Studies of Second Temple Judaism have shown that Jews of Paul’s day viewed Torah as a unified covenant, not as divisible into moral and ceremonial parts. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” argue that Paul’s concern was not with distinguishing kinds of laws but with showing that Torah as a whole cannot justify. For Paul, the law in its entirety reveals sin, but righteousness comes only through faith in Christ.

In sum, the theory that Paul spoke of two laws in Romans 3:20 reflects later theological developments, especially medieval and Reformation attempts to reconcile Paul’s teaching with the continuing role of God’s commands. While historically influential, it does not appear to be what Paul himself meant.

Click to expand...

Mercy Shown said:

Romans 3:20 declares, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” Some interpreters have argued that Paul is speaking of two distinct laws: the ceremonial law, which could not justify, and the moral law, which continues to bind believers. This reading, however, is a later development in Christian history rather than Paul’s own intent.​

In the early church, figures like Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine typically read Paul’s reference to “the law” (nomos) as the Mosaic law in its entirety. They emphasized that the law reveals sin but does not bring righteousness, and they did not suggest that Paul was distinguishing between two different laws.

A more formal distinction emerged in medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas articulated a tripartite division of the Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law expressed timeless ethical principles, the ceremonial law governed Israel’s worship and sacrifices, and the judicial law regulated Israel’s civic life. Although Aquinas did not claim Paul himself made this division, his framework shaped subsequent readings of Romans.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized justification by faith apart from works of the law. To preserve the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments while rejecting salvation by works, they leaned on the moral/ceremonial distinction. Calvin in particular stressed that the moral law still bound believers, while the ceremonial law had been fulfilled in Christ. This approach encouraged Protestants to interpret Romans 3:20 as if Paul were distinguishing between different kinds of law.

In the centuries that followed, Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) codified this division, and it became common for preachers and commentators to read Romans 3:20 through that lens. The two-law theory thus served as a theological tool in debates over antinomianism, allowing Christians to affirm both salvation by grace and the necessity of obedience.
I think Paul9/)
Modern scholarship, however, has largely set aside the two-law framework as an anachronism. Studies of Second Temple Judaism have shown that Jews of Paul’s day viewed Torah as a unified covenant, not as divisible into moral and ceremonial parts. Scholars such as E.P. Sanders and proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” argue that Paul’s concern was not with distinguishing kinds of laws but with showing that Torah as a whole cannot justify. For Paul, the law in its entirety reveals sin, but righteousness comes only through faith in Christ.

In sum, the theory that Paul spoke of two laws in Romans 3:20 reflects later theological developments, especially medieval and Reformation attempts to reconcile Paul’s teaching with the continuing role of God’s commands. While historically influential, it does not appear to be what Paul himself meant.

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

I think that's great. Yes, the Law contained all the elements later said to contain moral, ceremonial, and judicial aspects. But they were all a single agreement. Failing to obey Sabbath Law was the same as failure to respect God's name and not use it "vainly." Our failure under ceremonial law was equal to our failure under moral law.

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

I think that's great. Yes, the Law contained all the elements later said to contain moral, ceremonial, and judicial aspects. But they were all a single agreement. Failing to obey Sabbath Law was the same as failure to respect God's name and not use it "vainly." Our failure under ceremonial law was equal to our failure under moral law.

We not only fail to carry out God's instructions at times, but we also fail to abide by morals perfectly. We all are guilty of a kind of murder when we get angry with one another. We are all guilty of lust when we look too long in the wrong direction.

The covenant of Law condemned the whole human race, including Israel who was under that covenant, because all sinners, by their record, are prevented from access to the Tree of Life. It was a single covenant that required holiness of Israel, but at the same time it showed that nobody qualifies for Eternal Life apart from Christ and his mercy.

The Law accomplished an important matter in establishing what had been known since the garden, that the human record under the effects of sin disqualified all sinners from the Tree of Life. And so, moral, ceremonial, and judicial law all condemned Israel as sinners, disqualified from Salvation, if they failed to proceed to God's cure, which is obedience to Christ.

It is quite true that God's Law remains in effect as a moral standard for all mankind. We remain subject to God's word and to God's Law. But we will not find Eternal Life by obeying God's word under the Law of Moses, neither moral, ceremonial, nor judicial. Not only would such an "obedience" disqualify us from Life, but it would show contempt for Christ who fulfilled the very Mercy that the Law of Moses had been directing Israel towards.

We follow moral law, though not under the Law of Moses but now under obedience to Christ, who combines law and mercy. If we live by his Spirit we will not only show his righteousness, but in showing his righteousness we will also qualify for his mercy.

It is not important to show that obedience to God is similar under the covenant of Law and the covenant of Christ. The important thing is to direct our morality to the same God who presided over both covenants and who now asks nothing more than we obey Christ, His Son. In doing so, not only is our record of failure eliminated, but we have mercy through the one whose record qualified him to forgive us.

Under the Law our moral record condemned us. By obedience to Christ we rely on Christ's mercy and the grace of his gift of righteousness. We continue to live moral lives and to live by the law of God's word. But we know that our record would disqualify us if we did not turn to Christ for mercy.

Click to expand...

• The Apostle Paul stated that the entire law is fulfilled in the command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14).
  
  
• He also noted that the commandments are summed up in this single command, explaining that "love does no harm to a neighbor" (Rom. 13:9-10).
  
  
• Paul's understanding of the law was not about a system of works, but rather a principle of love and grace that is fulfilled through the Holy Spirit.