Francis Turretin addresses the question: “Has the judicial law of Moses been abolished under the New Testament?” He argues that the answer requires careful distinctions. The judicial law has not been simply abolished in every respect, nor has it remained entirely binding. Rather, we must distinguish between what belonged specifically to Israel’s political order and what reflected God’s abiding moral law.
The judicial law (also called the forensic law) governed the civil life and political administration of Israel under the Old Testament. It contained laws concerning courts, punishments, property, social responsibilities, and the structure of Israel’s government.
This law served several important purposes:
The judicial law provided a just and orderly constitution for the nation of Israel. Israel was not merely another nation; it was a unique theocracy, meaning a people whose civil government was directly established under God’s rule.
The judicial laws separated Israel from surrounding nations. They marked Israel as God’s covenant people and prepared the nation to serve as the place where God’s presence and revelation would be especially displayed.
Israel’s political system was not simply a human government; it was connected to God’s redemptive purposes.
The judicial laws supported the authority of God’s moral law and ceremonial worship. They prevented contempt for God’s commandments by establishing consequences for rebellion and disobedience.
The judicial system of Israel also pointed forward to the greater kingdom of Jesus Christ. Through its structure, justice, and covenant blessings and judgments, it provided a picture of the coming reign of Christ.
Turretin identifies three major positions regarding the continuing authority of the judicial law.
Some groups, such as the Anabaptists and Antinomians, argued that the judicial law was entirely abolished in every sense.
According to this view, none of the judicial laws have any continuing relevance. Whenever Old Testament examples are used to support things such as the authority of civil rulers, the legitimacy of warfare, or principles of justice, they respond:
“Those laws belonged only to Israel and the Old Testament period; therefore, they have no application under the New Testament.”
Turretin rejects this view because it goes too far. It would remove many principles of justice and morality that are still expressions of God’s moral law.
Others argued the opposite: that the judicial law remains fully binding and that Christian nations should be governed according to Israel’s political system.
Turretin mentions people such as Andreas Karlstadt and Sebastian Castellio, along with the Lutheran theologian Johan Conrad Brochmann, as representatives of this general approach.
Turretin also rejects this position because it requires Christians to continue observing laws that were temporary and symbolic. Many aspects of Israel’s government were specifically designed for that nation and cannot simply be transferred into the political structures of every society.
Turretin supports a middle position held by Reformed theologians.
The judicial law must be understood through careful distinctions:
Some parts have been abolished.
Some principles continue.
Some laws were temporary because they belonged uniquely to Israel.
Other laws remain because they are expressions of God’s moral law.
The judicial law had different purposes, and those purposes must be separated.
Because Israel’s political state was unique and temporary, those laws that existed to distinguish Israel from other nations have ended.
The New Testament teaches that in Christ there is no longer a covenant distinction between Jew and Gentile:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
(Galatians 3:28)
And:
“He himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.”
(Ephesians 2:14)
The Jewish nation was a temporary picture pointing toward Christ’s universal kingdom. Since Christ has come, the shadow is no longer needed.
However, not everything in the judicial law was unique to Israel.
Turretin distinguishes between:
These applied only to Israel because of their time, place, and national identity.
Examples include:
The law concerning a brother marrying his deceased brother’s widow.
The laws concerning divorce certificates.
The laws concerning gleaning in Israel’s fields.
These laws ended because the circumstances that required them no longer exist.
These were based upon principles of natural law and applied to human beings generally.
Examples include laws concerning:
Justice in courts.
Punishment of crimes.
Care for widows, orphans, and foreigners.
Protection of the vulnerable.
These principles continue because they are not merely Jewish laws; they express God’s moral will for humanity.
Turretin gives three ways to distinguish between common moral principles and laws unique to Israel.
If a principle existed not only among Israel but also among other nations who followed natural reason, it indicates that the principle belongs to common moral law.
For example, many ancient societies recognized basic principles of justice, punishment of wrongdoing, and protection of society.
Anything that reflects and applies the principles of the moral law remains relevant.
If a judicial law helps explain the requirements of the Ten Commandments, it reveals a continuing moral principle.
If the New Testament repeats a principle and commands believers to observe it, then that principle continues.
Even when a judicial law is based upon natural law, we must distinguish between:
The substance of the command, and
The particular circumstances in which it was applied.
For example:
The principle that criminals deserve punishment is a moral principle.
However:
The exact punishment,
The method of execution,
The degree of penalty,
may belong to Israel’s specific situation and may change.
The moral principle remains; the particular application may change.
Some judicial laws contained symbolic meanings pointing forward to Christ. Because their purpose was temporary, they have ended.
Examples include:
The law of the firstborn inheritance rights.
Cities of refuge.
The Year of Jubilee.
Restrictions on mixing different seeds.
Restrictions on wearing mixed fabrics.
Although these laws may have served practical purposes, their deeper purpose was symbolic. Once Christ fulfilled the realities they pointed toward, their obligation ended.
Some laws were specifically created for Israel’s unique national structure.
Examples include:
The law of levirate marriage.
The law concerning jealousy accusations.
The law allowing the selling of a son as a servant.
Agricultural rest laws.
The division of Canaan among the tribes.
These laws depended upon Israel’s covenant government and land inheritance.
When that political structure ended, these laws also ended.
The judicial law can be considered in two senses.
That is, as laws given specifically to Israel as a nation.
In this sense, the judicial law has been abolished.
That is, according to the moral principles contained within it.
In this sense, parts of it remain because they agree with natural law.
Turretin explains that even though God gave Israel the wisest and best laws for their particular situation, this does not mean those laws must govern every nation forever.
God had the freedom to give specific laws to a specific people for a specific time and purpose.
A law that is excellent for one nation may not be appropriate for another nation living under different circumstances.
Turretin concludes that the Mosaic judicial law was superior to human laws in one sense: it came from God.
However, this does not mean every Mosaic civil regulation must be copied by every society.
A human law based upon natural justice may be more suitable for a particular nation because circumstances differ.
Therefore, when civil laws today are preferred over Mosaic civil laws, they are not preferred because human wisdom is superior to God’s wisdom. Rather, they may be better applications of the same moral principles to different times, places, and societies.
Turretin’s conclusion can be summarized like this:
The judicial law of Moses has been abolished as a political system for Israel, but it has not been abolished as a source of moral wisdom and justice.
The Jewish civil structure has ended.
The ceremonial and symbolic aspects have been fulfilled in Christ.
The moral principles reflected in the judicial laws continue.
Christians and nations are not required to copy Israel’s government, but they should learn from the justice, righteousness, and wisdom displayed in God’s law.
The judicial law is therefore neither completely useless nor directly binding in every detail. It remains valuable as an expression of God’s moral order and as a guide for understanding justice under the rule of Christ.