This document is my nearly-raw notes from my reading of From the Finger of God by Philip Ross.  They are not organized.  They're just the plaintext notes I made for later reference while I was reading.

Most of these notes were taken by speech-to-text on my phone, hence the lack of proper capitalization and sometimes mildly funny spellings like "Pentatuke".  Other notes were done by hand, so they have better spelling and proper capitalization.  The only editing I've done is replace the word "quote" with actual quotation marks, because when I say "quote", the speech-to-text puts in the actual word "quote" instead of a quotation mark.

----

one thing this particularly difficult is that he presupposes that the reader understands hebrew. a lot of the text is not even transliterated. it's actually typeset in hebrew.

he spends a lot of time talking about different views and very detailed. but for someone that's really just wanting to learn the basis of the threefold division of the law this isn't really pertinent. it may be good for some people but not for the average person that wants to read this. for the most part it really just gets in the way.

one thing that is interesting about it though is that if you get lost in one paragraph it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be lost in the next paragraph. so you're unlikely to get hopelessly lost then which is a good thing even if it is overall fairly difficult to read.

first chapter is primarily about the catholicity of the doctrine and does a good job of explaining that this is a very ancient idea.

second chapter is about how the decalog pre-exists the giving of the formal commands. it's been some time proving how the individual commands are implicitly or in some cases explicitly given in the pentatuke before it's actually formally written. I don't plan to give those specifics in here but it does do a good job of demonstrating that those that each one of these is is present in each one of the is present prior to their writing.

the one that I thought would be most difficult to present for me personally was the Sabbath day but he actually did do a pretty good job of that.

overall it does do a good job of showing that the decalog is universal and applicable to all of mankind. I think although I haven't gotten to this point so far and he may say this but I think this is what Paul was talking about when he talked about how the gentiles are a law unto themselves even though it was never formally given to them.

"Abraham lived in accord with a decalog and therefore with the whole law founded upon it. he did not need the decalog to know what God expected of him, confirming that, according to the pentateuch, knowledge of its content predated its delivery."

one interesting point is the idea that the decalog is not necessarily even something to exist exclusively in a world where sin exists but even before the fall. the exact words used here are the 10 words could be the charter of a sin-free creation. this couldn't apply to the rest of the Mosaic law because those only make sense in a post-lapsarian creation. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that part although it may depend on the individual law. I guess it's the underlying principles of the civil law that should be universally applicable. but I think I'm also jumping ahead of myself there since that's aspect of the given law is not yet even discussed.

one other specific point made that I want to highlight is that the decalogue is distinct from the rest of Mosaic code by virtue of its antecedence. it is distinctive because it is not a distinct historical development.

in Exodus 20 The ten commandments were given directly by the voice of God not with Moses at the mediator. this is unlike the rest of the mosaic law.

furthermore the decalog is law in the apodictic form which means they are expressed as universals they are absolutes. most other laws are casuistic which means it's more of a conditional as in if then form. Philo apparently said that this was given this way so that none could escape the divine imperatives. the decalog also doesn't have any sanctions of it. this is not particularly convincing towards much of anything, but it does show some level of distinctiveness of the decalog.

the decalog is apparently widely held to be a summary statement of the laws that follow it. that does make sense considering it's what leads the law and that it's spoken allowed by Yahweh.

they were also the reason why the other nations were expelled from the land that Israel was about to inhabit. 

he also says that the decalogue is "the Constitution upon which all else is but commentary". I think I more or less take that to mean that the decalogue is the foundation and everything else is specifically how we apply the decalog or I should say how Israel applied the decalog in the context in which they are going to be going into the land of the canaanites. that means we can use that application to better understand the meaning of the decalog, but it's not in and of itself something that can be directly applied outside of the context in which it was given. it was the decalogue that was and is a constitution " rooted in creation and anticipating New Creation ".

now we move on to distinguishing between civil and ceremonial. 

there is a Hebrew word pattern which apparently can also be transmitted as image that is important here. the Tabernacle was a pattern or model of a greater reality and this word never refers to the original. it's always a copy of some kind. this is related to the word idol which is a copy of a real creature or a god. something that I find interesting is that this idea is not unique to israel. apparently a lot of ancient near East cultures believe that the temple they had on Earth was just a copy of the heavenly Temple that they have.

things like cleanliness laws are related to this too. this is because it's trying to match or function similarly to the heavenly original. so nothing impure could be a part of it. this is distinct from the civil laws which are about creating a piece and a fallen world. this is not intended to show a pattern that reflects another world. civil laws on the other hand are described as statutes and ordinances to be observed in the land.

that " in the land " qualification is important because it doesn't apply to the decalong. so the decalog was always binding, the " pattern " laws were binding even in the wilderness and those were the ceremonial laws, and the civil laws or the " in the land laws " apply specifically when they are inhabiting the land of the canaanites. there is, however, overlap between "pattern" laws and "in the land" laws. 

now on to chapter 3. law in action.

this chapter starts out about seeing the actual practice of the law. by that I mean how it looks in reality how it looks in practice. I'm having a hard time following it mostly because I'm having a hard time seeing what the intent is.

but when I get to a section called " mercy and not sacrifice " it does make a good point but I don't understand how it's even applicable to the primary point so far. that's when God says he desires mercy and not sacrifice that puts in and of itself a division like where the the ceremonial laws were of a lesser division than the civil laws or maybe the moral laws. something similar is when Samuel talks to Saul about not fulfilling his commands Samuel says to Saul to obey is better than sacrifice.

it then goes on to support that idea with a lot of description of what of how is the ceremonial law is discussed. but one thing in particular stands out to me is that the judgment speeches of profits never really talks about ceremonial law. it never says because you have boiled a kid in its mother's milk therefore you are condemned. it has more to do with because you did not take care of the poor. this isn't because they did do the ceremonial laws perfectly, and I want to point out that before Josiah reforms they certainly weren't performing them perfectly because they didn't even have the law available to them, but it does mean that that seems to be a delineation between them I think in particular the laws that affect other people. like if you're sinning against your own body that is bad but that's not as bad as murderous activities or ignoring the suffering of other people. 

there's also a good point made that the civil law or the casuistic law is not ignored in this because those laws reflect the mercy the prophets demanded. those laws are based on the moral law that is the source of those condemnations.

there's also discussion about whether or not the the condemnation of lack of mercy is strictly to do with the decalog or does it also apply to the other non ceremonial laws of the mosaic law. I can't help but notice that one of the condemnations that's the most frequent is neglecting the poor and that's not in the decalog. that makes me think that it has to involve things other than just a decalog.

The primary point of this chapter, as far as I can tell, is to show that the OT does seem to distinguish between ceremonial and non-ceremonial.  When combined with the previous chapter's argument that the OT likewise distinguishes between moral and non-moral, we get a precursor to the threefold division before we even get to the NT.

So, we have classification, but no indication yet that they can be separated.

next chapter is "What did Jesus Do?"

The Westminster Confession "allowed no room for the idea tha Jesus could have overturned any Mosaic Law during His lifetime.  Rather, he was subject to it."

Some people apparently view ethics in John's Gospel to be "problematic", as if it is only concerned about the state of the soul at the expense of the body, e.g., the Good Samaritan (in Luke, not John) should only ask the half-dead man on the side of the road if his soul is saved, and ignore his condition.  I find this view ridiculous, especially considering that John was writing from a Jewish context.  I think it's similar to critics that say the Didache has a low Christology.  The real reason practical ethics weren't discussed is because they weren't in scope of the book, the same way a calculus book wouldn't discuss the life and times of Thomas Jefferson.

Furthermore, if the second table was not important to John, a lot of the book wouldn't make much sense, like Jn 8:44.

In Mk 12:29-31, Jesus says the greatest commandment is the Shema, and says the second is "love your neighbor as yourself".  These seem to correspond to the first and second tables.

We then move on to discussing the Sabbath.  It's noted that the fourth commandment is part of the decalogue, not ceremonial law (from Pope John Paul II, but it's true nonetheless).  That's something I've noticed for years.  But the main thing that keeps me from Sabbatarianism is the fact that it's explicitly changed from Saturday to Sunday in the NT, so even if we do need to continue holding it, aren't we breaking it by using the wrong day?

It's also noted that considering it to be ceremonial is historically unusual.  Most Christians did hold to some kind of Sabbatarianism.

In the end of this section, I'm still not sure what to think.  I would definitely lean Sabbatarian were it not for the fact that we've already changed it from Saturday to Sunday.  That makes it mutable, and seems to completely undermine the entire threefold division, putting something in the decalogue into the ceremonial category.  If I had a good argument that it's the same but a different day and still part of the moral law, I'd understand it.

He also didn't address the argument that my teaching pastor uses, which is somewhere in between.  That's not surprising, of course, because it would be unreasonable to expect the author to address every viewpoint that's out there.  The basic idea, as I understand it, is that post-resurrection, we observe the Sabbath every day, not just Sunday.  This would still leave it mostly in the category of moral law.

The next section involves purity laws, such as Jesus touching lepers, a bleeding woman, and a dead child.  Some argue that He ignores purity laws by not cleansing afterwards, and others reply that just because the writers didn't record His cleansing doesn't mean He didn't do them.  The fact that it says nothing implies that He would have done what was usually done.  While that definitely makes sense, I'd say that the leper showing the authorities that he is clean also shows that Jesus is clean, since it was by Jesus' touch that the leper was made clean.  Jesus' purifying after that would be like dampening water.  But the main point is the same-- Jesus certainly did not disregard purity laws.

there are also other examples involving food laws that are relevant here but the conclusion is the same. some apparently argue that Jesus was hostile to the purity laws, but there's a good deal of discussion disputing that. personally I think the idea that Jesus was hostile to any part of the Mosaic law is somewhat ridiculous. however it is clear in the way he discussed the purity laws that he did seem to consider them of lesser importance than the moral laws, I.e when he talked about the weightier matters of the law being Justice over tithing every little thing. and that is also consistent with the way the Old testament treats the mosaic law.

that said, I just realized I'm not 100% sure tithing would be considered ceremonial.

the way an ending statement of this section puts it is pretty interesting. ritual purity is rejected by Mark in the sense that it is rejected from the completed ministry of Jesus. this is not something that happened during jesus's ministry. it had to have happened at its completion, because Jesus was fulfilling the law.

Now moving on to the tearing of the veil.

The veil represents a physical and visible separation from God.  Only one person could enter and only on the day of atonement.  Matthew links Jesus' death with it being torn.  This shows that Jesus' death accomplishes the atonement and fulfills the name "God with us", as the veil being torn means everyone always has access to God.

This shows that "the temple is superfluous: What it was intended to accomplish is surpassed by Jesus", and implies the same is true of the other "pattern" laws.

next chapter is called Jesus preaches on the law

Matthew 5:17 through 19 is when Christ says that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. that is the context that we are going to be discussing in this chapter. it is noted, and I agree, that this text may be used to challenge the threefold division of the law. in fact it's part of the reasons why even started reading this book.

There is good discussion on what fulfilling the law means, but not much yet (but some) on how not abolishing the law is compatible with the threefold division.

The most clear idea given of what fulfilling the law means is that He fulfilled it by obedience.  I always thought of it as satisfying the requirements of the law that Israel failed to satisfy.  The next section talks about Christ's baptism, and I think it makes sense in connection with this because Christ was baptized on behalf of Israel.  He "identifies himself, son of God, with sinful Israel". according to Jeremiah 31 then there will be a restoration, a returning to the lord, iniquity forgiven and sin forgotten, New covenant blessings, " not least of which will be that he will put his law within them and write it on their hearts ". 

the idea now comes that the definition of fulfillment is multifaceted. " Jesus fulfills the law and the prophets in his person and teaching by his obedience and in all that he does to actualize them in his followers. his fulfillment is eschatological soteriological and moral. he brings salvation to Israel that will culminate in a new world. he is Jesus who will save his people from their sins. unlike Israel this son will not fall in the wilderness and he demands moral integrity from his followers. "

now we move on to the section entitled I will put my law within them. the way this section is written is actually very confusing I don't understand the point being made. 

the next section is is called I will be there God and they shall be my people. " these words are bound up with themes of obedience to the law and of God dwelling in the midst of his people ". there is also discussion about how Jesus is god with us.

next section is " they shall all know me ". there is no longer a need for a priest or prophet class because the people of God know God immediately. these sections are basically all linked together. Jesus is the one who lives out these this life in place of Israel, it is his obedience, he will teach them the law, and to love him with all their heart soul and strength, and they will " know the Lord ".

without Jesus it is so burdensome to know the Lord by the law that it is impossible. " it takes jesus's fulfillment of the law and the prophets to achieve that ".

the next section is " I will forgive their iniquity ".

there is discussion of The last supper and one kind of interesting thing is when it says that " those that exclude themselves from the all who drink from the cup of New covenant blessing refuse the forgiveness symbolized in it and cut themselves off from every Blessing ". this is linked to the promise of experiencing God with Us.

this is an interesting point. " repeatedly in jeremiah, sin and iniquity is connected with or defined as transgression transgression of the laws of the decalogue, and never as the transgression of any statute or decree outside of the ten commandments. " I'd be kind of reluctant to make too much of a point out of that but it is interesting nonetheless. " any argument that Jesus redefined the law inevitably leads to the conclusion that he also redefined sin. ... it is more likely that Matthew used to send for which jesus's blood acquires forgiveness as always traceable to transgression of constant self-understood norms that are defined by the decalogue. once again moral fulfillment cannot be extricated and isolated for fulfillment in general. "

I had forgotten that the primary point of this section is to interpret what it means to not abolish the law but to fulfill and how that doesn't contradict the threefold division of the law. one of the things that makes this book so difficult is getting lost in the forest for the trees. there's been very little discussion about what it means to not abolish but there has been quite a bit of discussion of what it means to fulfill. 

it's the last paragraph of this super section that really gets at the point and it's a little bit difficult to understand. but I think the primary point is that the idea of the threefold division of the law and how the law the mosaic law would apply in our context is outside the scope of what Jesus is trying to say in Matthew 5:17. " Matthew does not demolish and reconstruct the law of Moses or use jesus's words in Matthew 5:17 to undermine the Old testaments of view of the decline. " the division that existed in the Old testament itself that some laws were a "pattern", and some were to be obeyed "in the land", but "the decalogue was the controlling influence" remains.

the next super section is called not a jot or a tittle. 

it starts with something that's I find in some sense comforting or maybe a better word would be reassuring. " if not a jot or a tittle passes away until heaven and Earth pass away, and until all is accomplished, any notion of fulfillment that involves abolition becomes doubly untenable. " I think it's important that whatever understanding we have of how the Mosaic law applies to us, we can't say that the law is not abolished but it kind of is. " as long as heaven and Earth endure the law stands irrescindable and unalterable. "

one possible reconciliation with the threefold division language of abrogation and jesus's words here is that "temporal jurisdiction or future abrogation was written into the Mosaic law. " there is a " range of validity " in the law itself. " although the specific laws no longer have jurisdiction, they remain, to the jot and tittle, part of the legal framework that teaches Israel dependence upon the god before whom they are to have none other. "

I have to admit though that this does still kind of feel like we're saying the law is not abolished but it kind of is.

I'm increasingly thinking I might want to reread Leviticus when I'm done with this or at least the holiness code.

Jesus also takes the Torah and advances it in some ways, strengthens it. for example he says you've been told don't murder I say even if you have anger against another you committed murder in your heart. this is something that I've noticed as often discussed in church. those ideas are kind of undercut by further reading in the law like Leviticus 19:17 which said " you shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, unless you and incur sin because of him. " something similar can be said about lust.

I had a kind of realization today that even in jesus's time the civil law was not entirely followed in their context. the law says that they must execute some people for whatever reason but they were not allowed to because they didn't have the authority and had to take that authority from the romans.

the next chapter is 6 the law in Acts.

it starts by showing that the apostles clearly accepted the authority of the decalog.

Peter's vision has the result that food distinctions have been abolished leading to national Israel no longer being the exclusive people of god. " laws that symbolize Israel's distinctiveness no longer bind " and " Divine impartiality proclaimed in the law cannot be abolished and is demand for the love of the sojourner must have Fuller expression. " I think that that second part more or less means that honestly I'm not completely sure. somehow that second part is supposed to indicate the " temporality and symbolic nature of separation laws " but I don't completely follow that. I'm pretty sure I do understand the primary point though and that is that food distinctions have been abolished and the distinction between the Nations has been abolished.

there is discussion of individual sins that happen in the book of Acts like ananias and Sapphira lying.

we finally get to the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, which I think is probably one of the most important passages on this subject in the Bible. there is discussion about how Leviticus 17 and 18 has rules for both the native and the sojourner and that might be the background for what the apostles told the gentiles that were newly converted to do.  that looks like the author doesn't agree with this view.

the author is actually pretty dismissive that acts 15 is all that important in the first place. " the few requirements the council lays down are not meant to be an exhaustive ethical code, but temporary accommodations that would help to maintain peace in the church while the apostles worked to shape Christian thinking. "

overall it seems like this chapter mostly delegates acts to nothing more than example instead of explicit doctrine.

now on to chapter 7 " the apostles and their Epistles ".

"Hebrews point... is the show that Jesus Christ supremely exemplified the primacy of morality by doing God's will, living the kind of life that God required and desired, a life that required no atoning sacrifice. yet, paradoxically, the unique demands of God upon him meant that he would have to offer himself as a sacrifice " once for all "."

the section on Hebrews is actually pretty good. it's worth reading even in isolation of the rest of the book. it talks about how the sacrifices, the temple, the priests, and the old ceremonial laws are pointing to the reality of christ. that with the coming of that reality those that are copies, types, shadows need to go because we have the real thing here.

the discussion of Colossians 2 16 through 17 is pretty interesting. the reason why this is interesting is because it does talk about the types and shadows of the ceremonial law but it also talks about Sabbaths. the reason why that's interesting is because the Sabbath is part of the ten commandments so that makes it part of the moral law and there's still really isn't much reason to put that one specific law that one specific commandment out of the moral law and into ceremonial. but what's discussed here and I think he's right is that Sabbaths plural can mean and usually does mean not just the fourth commandment but other kinds of Sabbath rests. this is often associated with ceremonies with feasts with festivals in a lot of different other kind of special days special time periods things like that. and I have to admit that that I does think make more sense in how to interpret that part of colossians.

I think this is important because if the fourth commandment is not part of the moral law then it becomes basically impossible to tell which parts of the law are applicable to Christians today. furthermore there's really not much reason to think that the fourth commandment doesn't apply to Christians today. but I still struggle with the undeniable fact that either way we have changed the fourth commandment from Saturday to Sunday. I just don't know how to reconcile that. I do think that my pastors' reconciliation is the best one that I've seen so far that we honor the Sabbath day by always honoring the Sabbath day every day not just the Lord's day.

something else that I just thought of is what does it mean to keep the Sabbath day holy in the first place anyway. does it necessarily mean abstaining from all commerce? does it mean abstaining from work? but now that I've asked a question the answer is actually quite obvious. that is what was explicitly said in Exodus 20. we don't even need to go to the civil law to look at that commentary or the ceremonial law. it is stated specifically in the ten commandments itself that you keep the Sabbath day holy by not working. so I guess that was kind of a dumb question to ask, but at the same time I think it was worth thinking about. 

but that in and of itself does actually question my pastor's idea that keeping the Sabbath day holy is now on everyday thing. we don't rest every single day. we do labor. so that makes me inclined to think that we are to keep the Lord's day as a day of rest and devotion and worship. I just don't understand how we can say that we are keeping the Sabbath when the Sabbath is undeniably Saturday not Sunday.

I've also heard the idea that we need to keep a day, not necessarily sunday, and devote that day to rest and worship. honestly, if we switch from Saturday to Sunday, then why not? does the New testament ever actually say it is sunday? if not then whether or not it needs to be on the Sabbath seems to be undermined by the fact that we have changed it to sunday. so does that mean it is okay to work on a Sunday if you use Monday as your Sabbath? I also can't help but think that just about every job can be essential and an emergency like pulling the sheep out of the ditch in some contexts.  I would have absolutely no reluctance whatsoever and I don't think any Christian would say I should to address a problem if say the servers for my company went down and I needed to try to fix it. there have absolutely been times whenever if I'm feeling in some way not well enough to make my own food that I may have something delivered by doordash on sunday. am I sinning by ordering that doordash, or are they sinning by working on Sunday?  what about eating at restaurants when you're traveling?

Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath so that means that flexibility could be good, but at the same time that seems like a pretty big stretch of an interpretation to say therefore you can do it any day you want.

that's not at all the subject of this section though. this section is about Colossians 2:17 and 18 or maybe it was 16 and 17 and how that talks about how the ceremonial law are types and shadows of the things that come similarly to the book of hebrews. and there's also a justification that this is in fact the ceremonial law that is being discussed here and not the whole law. bringing in Ephesians 2 as a quasi-parallel is done to this effect. " Christ's work means such laws no longer bind. " do you think otherwise is to bring back the debt of sin that had been canceled in christ.

in the section summary the author says "that ceremonial laws prefigured Christ is reflected in the New testament proclamation of Christ as a substitute who provided extensive fulfillment of the law. although those laws are now abrogated, Christ gives new voice to their call for moral purity and holiness. "

but I'm still very unclear on is how to tell which laws are ceremonial and which laws are not ceremonial. for example, it's Leviticus 19:27 that says do not round off the edges of your beards, but that's right after do not tell omens or fortunes, which Christians generally would not say is a ceremonial law. there's nothing in there to say that it's part of a " pattern " like the previous chapters might suggest. and Christians typically think of not eating blood as ceremonial, like blood sausage or black pudding, but the description of " the life is in the blood " as the rationale behind why you should not eat blood sure seems like a moral issue to me.  making unclean meats clean, though, is very clear since that is explicitly stated in the new testament. that says nothing about blood, though. things involving sacrifice are very clear by the book of Hebrews among other parts of the new testament. it's still things like trimming the beard or sowing multiple kinds of seed in one field or wearing clothes made of two kinds of fabric that I just don't understand how we can say those are ceremonial.

which laws are civil laws are actually pretty easy in part because of what he says about how they are described in casuistic form. these laws literally are not even possible to follow if you're not a government.

okay after reading Leviticus a little bit better now I actually realize that that segment about not trimming the corners of beards is not ceremonial at all. it's not one of the ten commandments but it does seem to be moral in character, but specifically it looks like it has to do with worshiping foreign gods because it also talks about making cuts and marks for the Dead. so what that's actually saying in and of itself isn't don't trim your beard; that's just not the point. it's saying don't partake of ceremonies worshiping false gods.

that still doesn't really answer the question about sewing two kinds of seed in one field or two kinds of fabric for one piece of clothing.

next section of this chapter is on judicial laws.

I noted before about how some of the civil laws were not being followed even in jesus' time because he did not have the right under Roman rule to perform executions themselves. but the author makes the good point that I didn't even think about how that's kind of doubly true for laws regarding collecting mana. those are pretty specific things like you had to collect twice as much on Friday or any other day you were not allowed to collect too much. these laws are permanently in the lock code even though they have absolutely no application to the vast majority of the history of israel. nonetheless, they do have some application insofar as they have principles that are relevant today. just like the mana laws. Paul's use of do not muzzle the ox is a very good example of this " general equity ".

the last part of this chapter and I think the last part of this book is primarily about the lack of hostility towards the decalogue by the apostles in their Epistles. I definitely could have worded that better. which probably doesn't need a lot of commentary on my part because I think the idea that there is hostility to be pretty strange. there's really no question in my mind that the apostles upheld the moral law. I seriously can't imagine how anybody could read Paul and come to the conclusion that he's an antinomian. you'd have to be a loon.

there's also some discussion about the definition of sin as transgression of the law. I think that's pretty clear from the New testament and I didn't realize that that was in question. I guess  what is in question is probably whether or not that law is the decalog or something else. but that's really already been addressed in this book.

back to the sabbatarian issue, I just realized that the Old testament never condemns a foreign Nation for not observing the Sabbath. all other nine commandments seem to be relevant to foreign Nations, but not that one. that seems to undercut the idea of how the decalog works in this book, that the decalog is the moral law and the moral law is binding for all. that said, argument from silence is actually pretty weak. it never says it's okay that the foreign Nations were not observing the Sabbath either. still, with a many condemnations of all the surrounding Nations and the prophets, if the Sabbath were part of the moral law, you'd think they'd be held accountable for that.

there's actually one more very short chapter that for some reason I didn't notice before called " the end of the whole matter ".