Calvin and Jewish Badges in the Law (Ephesians 2:14-16)

One of the ongoing debates amongst Christians is the question around the place of Mosaic law (torah) under the "new covenant" in Jesus. How and to what extent does it still apply to Christians? And what was the purpose of it for the Jews?

This is massive question, and it is an important one. One of the classic ways to handle the question is to understand that there are three different ways to categorise the various commands and regulations under Moses: moral, ceremonial, civil. This is an approach that Calvin uses.

In recent times there have also been fresh ways to think about the "works of the law", by proponents such as N T Wright. Is this phrasing more about morality and merit, or is more about some kind of badge of identity? Interestingly Calvin also uses this terminology of "badge" or "mark" in relation to ceremonial law.

Below are some pertinent quotes from Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2:14-16, where Paul speaks about law and commandments being abolished:

And breaking down the middle wall of partition. To understand this passage, two things must be observed. The Jews were separated, for a certain time, from the Gentiles, by the appointment of God; and ceremonial observances were the open and avowed symbols of that separation. Passing by the Gentiles, God had chosen the Jews to be a peculiar people to himself. A wide distinction was thus made, when the one class were “fellow-citizens and of the household” (Ephesians 2:19) of the Church, and the other were foreigners...

Bounds were thus fixed by God to separate one people from the rest; and hence arose the enmity which is here mentioned. A separation is thus made. The Gentiles are set aside. God is pleased to choose and sanctify the Jewish people, by freeing them from the ordinary pollution of mankind. Ceremonial observances were afterwards added, which, like walls, enclosed the inheritance of God, prevented it from being open to all or mixed with other possessions, and thus excluded the Gentiles from the kingdom of God.

But now, the apostle, says, the enmity is removed, and the wall is broken down. By extending the privilege of adoption beyond the limits of Judea, Christ has now made us all to be brethren...

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity. The meaning of Paul’s words is now clear. The middle wall of partition hindered Christ from forming Jews and Gentiles into one body, and therefore the wall has been broken down. The reason why it is broken down is now added — to abolish the enmity, by the flesh of Christ. The Son of God, by assuming a nature common to all, has formed in his own body a perfect unity.

Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What had been metaphorically understood by the word wall is now more plainly expressed. The ceremonies, by which the distinction was declared, have been abolished through Christ. What were circumcision, sacrifices, washings, and abstaining from certain kinds of food, but symbols of sanctification, reminding the Jews that their lot was different from that of other nations; just as the white and the red cross distinguish the French of the present day from the inhabitants of Burgundy. Paul declares not only that the Gentiles are equally with the Jews admitted to the fellowship of grace, so that they no longer differ from each other, but that the mark of difference has been taken away; for ceremonies have been abolished. If two contending nations were brought under the dominion of one prince, he would not only desire that they should live in harmony, but would remove the badges and marks of their former enmity. When an obligation is discharged, the handwriting is destroyed, — a metaphor which Paul employs on this very subject in another Epistle. (Colossians 2:14.)

Some interpreters, — though, in my opinion, erroneously, — connect the words, in ordinances, with abolished, making the ordinances to be the act of abolishing the ceremonies. This is Paul’s ordinary phrase for describing the ceremonial law, in which the Lord not only enjoined upon the Jews a simple rule of life, but also bound them by various statutes. It is evident, too, that Paul is here treating exclusively of the ceremonial law; for the moral law is not a wall of partition separating us from the Jews, but lays down instructions in which the Jews were not less deeply concerned than ourselves. This passage affords the means of refuting an erroneous view held by some, that circumcision and all the ancient rites, though they are not binding on the Gentiles, are in force at the present day upon the Jews. On this principle there would still be a middle wall of partition between us, which is proved to be false.

That he might make in himself. When the apostle says, in himself, he turns away the Ephesians from viewing the diversity of men, and bids them look for unity nowhere but in Christ. To whatever extent the two might differ in their former condition, in Christ they are become one man. But he emphatically adds, one new man, intimating (what he explains at greater length on another occasion) that “neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, availeth anything,” (Galatians 6:15) but that “a new creature” holds the first and the last place. The principle which cements them is spiritual regeneration. If then we are all renewed by Christ, let the Jews no longer congratulate themselves on their ancient condition, but let them be ready to admit that, both in themselves and in others, Christ is all.

Calvin on the God-Man, and Matthew 28:18

In the person of Jesus we are often confronted with the two great mysteries of the Christian Faith, both the Trinity and the Incarnation. How do we have three persons in the one God, what are the distinctions, and what is the same for each person? And how can one person be both truly God and truly man, what are the distinctions, and what is the same within this one person?

Recently I was in a situation where a question was raised about the words in Matthew 28:18, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me". The question was along the lines of this: "If Jesus is God, didn't he always have all authority? How can it then be given to him?" Or to put it more technically: "Since Jesus is one of the persons of the Trinity, and equally God, didn't he always have all authority, and so how can it be given to him? Or is he somehow inferior to the Father?" But perhaps sometimes our trouble is that we jump to one mystery--the Trinity--while forgetting the other one--the Incarnation. In Jesus both these mysteries intersect, and we have to be very careful about jumping to conclusions as we try to navigate doubly difficult terrain. There is a danger sometimes of downplaying the actual text of Scripture (and perhaps we can add in another mystery, that of Divine Inspiration), and instead resorting to our doctrinal assumptions of what the sacred text may be speaking about. And sometimes the answers may be found in remembering all the mysteries of the faith.

In the case of Matthew 28:18, I think John Calvin helpfully upholds the plain meaning of the text by rightly resorting to the mystery of the Incarnation rather than being overwhelmed by the Trinity. Listen to his comments, where he interprets Jesus' words as speaking about his authority in the Incarnation rather than his authority as God:

Yet let us remember that what Christ possessed in his own right was given to him by the Father in our flesh, or—to express it more clearly—in the person of the Mediator; for he does not lay claim to the eternal power with which he was endued before the creation of the world, but to that which he has now received, by being appointed to be Judge of the world. Nay, more, it ought to be remarked, that this authority was not fully known until he rose from the dead; for then only did he come forth adorned with the emblems of supreme King.

Calvin's summary of the meaning of the sacraments

I was reading from Calvin's Institutes again, and came across this neat sound bite where he effectively summarises the meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper:

"who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord’s Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity"

Notice these things which immediately come to my mind:

• Baptism is initiation into Christianity, and thereby the community of the church
• The Lord's Supper is not individualistic, but proclaims the unity of the church

Calvin on Continuity and Discontinuity of Mosaic Law

The question of the relevance of Mosaic Law to the Christian today is a constant issue. On the one hand the NT can quote the Law as authoritative, and on the other has statements about the Christian no longer being under the law, etc. How are we to navigate through all this, and what is the right way to handle to Word of God on these matters?

Calvin gives a helpful summary in his commentary on the "four last books of Moses". Here are some excerpts from "The Use of the Law"...

1. Regarding the continuing use of the Law as "the rule of living well and righteously", after finding justification in Christ and being regenerated by the Spirit

Hence it appears that it is expedient for them to be slain by the Law, and that the death which it inflicts is life-giving. And this occurs in two ways; for, first, being stripped of the false opinion of their righteousness, wherein they prided themselves, they begin to seek in Christ what they mistakenly supposed might be found in themselves, so as to please God by gratuitous reconciliation, whereas they had previously sought to propitiate Him by the merit of their works; secondly, they learn that they are not sufficient to perform a single tittle of the Law, unless, being regenerated by God’s Spirit, they who were the slaves of sin live unto righteousness. And hence, in fine, the utility and fruit of the teaching of the Law proceeds; for, until we are renewed and God has given us hearts of flesh instead of hearts of stone, in vain are precepts dinned in our ears, since in our natural depravity we cordially reject them; but when He has engraved His law within our hearts, its outward instruction also profits us; for He so governs His children by the Spirit of reconciliation, as at the same time to will that they should be attentive and obedient to His voice. Still, because they are always far from attaining to perfect observance of it, they not only learn from it what is right, but also that they have need of His gratuitous mercy, that they may please Him through indulgence and grace, although they are still conscious of much infirmity.

2. Regarding how Paul seems to abrogate the Law, and speaks of discontinuities, when contrasting the Gospel with  a Judaism that rejects Christ

Further, because Paul seems to abrogate the Law, as if now-a-days it did not concern believers, we must now see how far this is the case. And, first, indeed, it is easy to perceive that he does not treat of the Law in the abstract, but sets it forth invested with those of its qualities, wherein it is opposed to the Gospel; for, inasmuch as his controversy was with those who interpreted it amiss, he could not help contrasting the Law with the Gospel, as if they were in opposition to each other: not that they were really so, if their respective doctrine be dexterously applied to its proper object, but because such a conflict arose from the absurd mixture, which the false apostles introduced. They asserted that men are justified by the works of the Law, and, if this were admitted, the righteousness of faith was destroyed, and the Gospel fell to the ground. They, moreover, restored the yoke imposed on the ancient people, as if no liberty had been obtained by the blood of Christ. In this discussion it was necessary for Paul to advert only to that which is peculiar to Moses, and distinct from Christ; for although Christ and Moses perfectly accord in the substance of their doctrine, still, when they are compared with each other, it is fitting to distinguish what is peculiar to each. In this respect Paul calls the Law “the letter,” because Moses had no other charge than to speak in the name of God, (2 Corinthians 3:6;) and this in itself is not only useless, but also deadly; for when the word resounds in the ears only, it produces nothing but condemnation. Besides, he considers the Law as connected with promises and threatenings. Whence it follows, that salvation can only be procured by it if its precepts be exactly fulfilled. Life is indeed promised in it, but only if whatever it commands be complied with; whilst, on the other hand, it denounces death against its transgressors, so that to have offended in the slightest point is enough to condemn and destroy a person; and thus it overwhelms all men with despair. Lastly, because the ceremonies by which God prepared His ancient people as by puerile and elementary instruction for the faith of the Gospel, were annexed to the Law, Paul embraces those also in his comparison between the Law and the Gospel. Hence it follows that, in so far as Moses is distinguished from Christ, his ministration has ceased, although his embassy was identical with that which Christ afterwards discharged. As regards the ceremonies, we must consider that an end was put upon them by Christ’s coming, in such a way as to establish their truth more firmly than as if they still remained in use: for we acknowledge that in them, as in a mirror, was formerly shewn to the Fathers, what is now displayed to us in its reality. Whence it appears that they are greatly mistaken who altogether reject as useless that instruction which we read in the writings of Moses; and that the squeamishness of those who despise it is also intolerable.

At the end, Calvin also helpfully refers back to further treatment in his Institutes: "Let my readers seek in the Second Book of my Institutes, Chapter 7., what further tends to the explanation of this subject."

Calvin on Knowing God's Love for Us

How do we know if God really loves us? How can we be sure? Where do we look? 

"It was then from God’s goodness alone, as from a fountain, that Christ with all his blessings has come to us. And as it is necessary to know, that we have salvation in Christ, because our heavenly Father has freely loved us; so when a real and full certainty of divine love towards us is sought for, we must look nowhere else but to Christ."

Thanks, John Calvin, for reminding us that Jesus is always the answer :)

[Quote from Commentary on 1 John 4:10)

J I Packer on Calvinistic Determination

Calvin and Calvinism are often linked with determinism. Well here is a quote by J I Packer on the determination (rather than determinism) of Calvinism in the persistence of Protestantism...

“Without [Calvin], pure Protestantism might not have survived beyond the middle of the seventeenth century, for it is simple truth that the only Protestants who would stand and fight, to the last ditch if necessary, against Roman and Erastian pressures, were the Calvinists.”

(Source: "John Calvin and Reformed Europe" in Honouring the People of God: The Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer Volume 4, p14)

No confidence apart from the Gospel! (Calvin)

How can we be sure that God is favourable towards us, that we are reconciled to him and that all our wrongs before God are forgiven (and we all have many wrongs before God)?

"Beware, then, of placing even the smallest drop of your confidence on any thing apart from the Gospel."
-- John Calvin (commenting on 2 Corinthians 5:19)

"And all of this is a gift from God, who brought us back to himself through Christ. And God has given us this task of reconciling people to him. For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!” " (2 Corinthians 5:18-20; NLT)

John Calvin on the Power of Music

I came across this quote apparently from Calvin, but uncertain of the original source:

"music has a secret and incredible power to move our hearts. When evil words are accompanied by music, they penetrate more deeply and the poison enters as wine through a funnel into a vat"

So with the power of Google, it seems that this comes originally from Calvin's Preface to the Psalter, in 1543:

"But still there is more: there is scarcely in the world anything which is more able to turn or bend this way and that the morals of men, as Plato prudently considered it. And in fact, we find by experience that it has a sacred and almost incredible power to move hearts in one way or another. Therefore we ought to be even more diligent in regulating it in such a way that it shall be useful to us and in no way pernicious. For this reason the ancient doctors of the Church complain frequently of this, that the people of their times were addicted to dishonest and shameless songs, which not without cause they referred to and called mortal and Satanic poison for corrupting the world. Moreover, in speaking now of music, I understand two parts: namely the letter, or subject and matter; secondly, the song, or the melody. It is true that every bad word (as St. Paul has said) perverts good manner, but when the melody is with it, it pierces the heart much more strongly, and enters into it; in a like manner as through a funnel, the wine is poured into the vessel; so also the venom and the corruption is distilled to the depths of the heart by the melody."

Calvin on Real Christianity

As a young Christian, one of the few books I read cover-to-cover was Calvin's Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life. Actually, I'm kind of cheating when I say "cover-to-cover" because it is really an excerpt out of his larger volume, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Nonetheless, the version I read was a separately bound book(let), so I'm sticking to my original claim. Well, I wanted to re-read it, but couldn't find my copy, so had to read from the larger volume (chapters 6 to 10 of Book Three, in the later editions).

Here are a few excerpts from this re-reading... great insights about what real Christianity is...

• For it is a doctrine not of the tongue but of life. It is not apprehended by the understanding and memory alone, as other disciplines are, but it is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds a seat and resting place in the inmost affection of the heart.
• I do not insist that the moral life of a Christian man breathe nothing but the very gospel, yet this ought to be desired, and we must strive toward it. But I do not so strictly demand evangelical perfection that I would not acknowledge as a Christian one who has not yet attained it. For thus all would be excluded from the church, since no one is found who is not far removed from it, while many have advanced a little toward it whom it would nevertheless be unjust to cast away. 
• And let us not despair at the slightness of our success; for even though attainment may not correspond to desire, when today outstrips yesterday the effort is not lost.
• We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us therefore not set it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. we are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God's: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God's: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God's: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal [Rom. 14:8; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19]
• For [the philosophers] set up reason alone as the ruling principle in man, and think that it alone should be listened to; to it alone, in short, they entrust the conduct of life. But the Christian philosophy bids reason give way to, submit and subject itself to, the Holy Spirit so that the man himself may no longer live but hear Christ living and reigning within him [Gal. 2:20]. 
• For, such is the blindness with which we all rush into self-love that each one of us seems to himself to have just cause to be proud of himself and to despise all others in comparison... The very vices that infest us we take pains to hide from others, while we flatter ourselves with the pretense that they are slight and insignificant, and even sometimes embrace them as virtues... If there are faults in others, not content with noting them with severe and sharp reproach, we hatefully exaggerate them... there is no-one who does not cherish within himself some opinion of his own pre-eminence.
• You will never attain true gentleness except by one path: a heart imbued with lowliness and with reverence for others.
• But Scripture, to lead us by the hand to this, warns that whatever benefits we obtain from the Lord have been entrusted to us on this condition: that they be applied to the common good of the church. And therefore the lawful use of all benefits consists in a liberal and kindly sharing of them with others.
• Yet the great part of [men] are most unworthy if they be judged by their own merit. But here Scripture helps in the best way when it teaches that we are not to consider that men merit of themselves but to look upon the image of God in all men, to which we owe all honor and love... Therefore, whatever man you meet who needs your aid, you have no reason to refuse to help  him.. Assuredly there is but one way in which to achieve what is not merely difficult but utterly against human nature: to love those who hate us, to repay evil deeds with benefits, to return blessings for reproaches [Matt. 5:44]. It is that we remember not to consider men's evil intention but to look upon the image of God in them, which cancels and effaces their transgressions, and with its beauty and dignity allures us to love and embrace them.
• Now he who merely performs all the duties of love does not fulfill them, even though he overlooks none; but he, rather, fulfills them who does this from a sincere feeling of love.
• First, they must put themselves in the place of him whom they see in need of their assistance, and pity his ill fortune as if they themselves experienced and bore it, so that they may be impelled by a feeling of mercy and humaneness to go to his aid just as to their own.
• To covet wealth and honors, to strive for authority, to heap up riches, to gather together all those follies which seem to make for magnificence and pomp, our lust is mad, our desire boundless. On the other hand, wonderful is our fear, wonderful our hatred, of poverty, lowly birth, and humble condition! And we are spurred to rid ourselves of them by every means. Hence we can see how uneasy in mind all those persons are who order their lives according to their own plan. We can see how artfully they strive--to the point of weariness--to obtain the goal of their ambition or avarice, while, on the other hand, avoiding poverty and a lowly condition.
• For whomever the Lord has adopted and deemed worthy of his fellowship ought to prepare themselves for a hard, toilsome, and unquiet life, crammed with very many and various kinds of evil. It is the heavenly Father's will thus to exercise them so as to put his own children to a definite test. Beginning with Christ, his first-born, he follows this plan with all his children.

The use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12...Who is speaking to whom?

At first glance the way the author of Hebrews 1 uses Psalm 102:25-27 may seem perplexing. Continuing from 1:8 ("But to the son..."), he seems to be quoting Psalm 102:25-27 as words directed by God to the Son, the Christ or Messiah. Yet when we first read the words of the Psalm, they may seem more like they are directed towards God rather than the Messiah, especially as much of the rest of the Psalm seems to be the words of someone, say the Messiah, speaking to God, rather than the other way around (cf the opening words in verse 1, "Hear my prayer, O LORD, let my cry come to you!"). So how do we make sense of the use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12?

Here are the main options I have found:

1. The author of Hebrews boldly and matter-of-fact-ly takes a clear reference to God, the LORD, and attributes it to Jesus. While it may seem like a misuse of Scripture, the argument goes that it is done on sound theological basis and logical syllogism: since Jesus is God, even LORD (= YHWH), therefore any reference to God or LORD in the Old Testament can be legitimately also transferred to Jesus. It doesn't matter at all whether there are any specific indicators for the quotation that it has reference to the Christ, because the basis of usage is not on the "Messiah-ship" of Jesus, but rather just to do with his "LORD-ship". It can also take its lead from the argument of Jesus in John 10:35-36. This is a position we see in the commentary by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (pp.67-68).
2. The author of Hebrews attributes to Jesus a reference to God because the reference also has Messianic indicators. This option is a bit more focused and nuanced than the first option, but includes the argument of the first option. Not only does the author feel free to use a reference to God on the basis of the divinity of Christ, but also because the Psalm is referring to God in ways that should also be considered Messianic or relating to the work and coming of the Christ. Calvin's commentary takes this approach. He says, "I indeed allow that Christ is not named in any part of the Psalm; but it is yet plain that he is so pointed out, that no one can doubt but that his kingdom is there avowedly recommended to us. Hence all the things which are found there, are to be applied to his person; for in none have they been fulfilled but in Christ...".
3. The author of Hebrews understands the quotation to actually be words of God addressed to the Messiah. This option sees Psalm 102:25-27 as words spoken by God addressed to the Psalmist (or perhaps some other person), understood to be the Messiah. The beginning of the quotation of God's address starts in the middle of verse 23, according to the LXX translation, and this option understands the author of Hebrews as following the same reading as does the LXX. (The difference between the LXX and traditional Hebrew rendering is accounted for by the question of what Hebrew vowels to use in a certain word.) This option also finds strength in accounting for the general Messianic nature and recognition of the Psalm, as well as less awkwardly assimilating into the presentation of the author Hebrews, since it straight-forwardly takes Psalm 102:25-27 as words of God addressed to the Son (if we accept the meaning of the LXX translation, and then we have all the quotations of 1:5, 1:6, 1:8-9, 1:10-12 and 1:13 as words of God to the Son). This is an approach espoused by Don Carson in his devotional reading notes. Also in an article by Stephen Voorwinde in Vox Reformata. It still has a little awkwardness in that it may seem anachronistic for God to address the Messiah as "God" and "YHWH". However, this is not insurmountable, for similar reasons as in the options above. Also, anachronistic reading is mainly an issue if we have problems with the divine authorship of the Scriptures.

In thinking about this question, I also toyed with another option. Perhaps the author of Hebrews was making a more oblique reference, or that this quotation was not meant to be taken on its own merits, but in combination with the other quotations. Perhaps he did understand that Psalm 102 was referring to God, but that the same things are transferred by inheritance to the Son, since the Son sits at the right hand of God, being exalted to the same authority (cf 1:4 and 1:13). Such an option squares more naturally with the traditional Hebrew reading of Psalm 102 while avoiding the difficulties of not sufficiently distinguishing between God and the Son (which the author clearly does distinguish in chapter 1). However, on balance, given that it is a somewhat convoluted option, it is probably best to go with option 3 above, as a more straight-forward and very acceptable option.

Who is the good Samaritan? (Tullian Tchividjian and the Good Samaritan)

As has become something of a habit, I was browsing through the Gospel Coalition site's "Right Now" list of links. I came across Tullian Tchividjian's blog post on the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). His conclusion was, "Yes, Jesus and Jesus alone is the Good Samaritan". Like many others, I couldn't really buy it.

This is what I said on a friend's Facebook account when they linked to the article:

"As with many things, I think it is a both/and and not either/or situation. Yes, I think when Jesus speaks parables like this, he is in a purposeful way calling attention to himself and what he does and will do. But I don't think it is only as a substitute or representative. He is also the example. When he says to "go and do likewise", it is not only to expose sin, by some kind of confronting dead end, but it is also to point us in the right direction (cf Calvin's third use of the Law). Sometimes we can over-theologise and over-absolutise etc. I suspect Pastor Tullian's theology is getting in the road of his exegesis..."

Sometimes we can try to be too clever, and miss the obvious. Sometimes we can also be too tunnel-visioned or too monochromatic about seeing Jesus in everything. Sometimes we can be so afraid of legalism and moralism etc, that we are allergic to telling ourselves to "be careful to maintain good works" (Titus 3:8).

Calvin on the work of the Spirit in Old Testament times

Amidst a discussion about the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian, Calvin makes these remarks regarding the question of how the Spirit worked in Old Testament times, in comparison to New Testament times...

But it may be asked, whether there was under the Law a sure and certain promise of salvation, whether the fathers had the gift of the Spirit, whether they enjoyed God’s paternal favor through the remission of sins? Yes, it is evident that they worshipped God with a sincere heart and a pure conscience, and that they walked in his commandments, and this could not have been the case except they had been inwardly taught by the Spirit; and it is also evident, that whenever they thought of their sins, they were raised up by the assurance of a gratuitous pardon. And yet the Apostle, by referring the prophecy of Jeremiah to the coming of Christ, seems to rob them of these blessings. To this I reply, that he does not expressly deny that God formerly wrote his Law on their hearts and pardoned their sins, but he makes a comparison between the less and the greater. As then the Father has put forth more fully the power of his Spirit under the kingdom of Christ, and has poured forth more abundantly his mercy on mankind, this exuberance renders insignificant the small portion of grace which he had been pleased to bestow on the fathers. We also see that the promises were then obscure and intricate, so that they shone only like the moon and stars in comparison with the clear light of the Gospel which shines brightly on us.

If it be objected and said, that the faith and obedience of Abraham so excelled, that hardly any such an example can at this day be found in the whole world; my answer is this, that the question here is not about persons, but that reference is made to the economical condition of the Church. Besides, whatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them. Hence it was not without reason that the Apostle, in comparing the Gospel with the Law, took away from the latter what is peculiar to the former. There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question. [Source: Commentary on Hebrews 8:10] 

 

Calvin on the Holy Spirit writing the law on our hearts (Psalm 143:10 etc)

I was reading Calvin's comments on Psalm 143, and noticed his remarks on verse 10, and how he explains the work of the Holy Spirit in changing a Christian to do God's will. While Calvin's comments on Romans 2:15 go in a different direction, speaking of God's work in the unregenerate Gentile, when he comments on this Psalm he uses the language of "engraving instruction upon our hearts", consistent with his expositions of Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10.

[Comments on Psalm 143:10]: Teach me that I may do thy will. He now rises to something higher, praying not merely for deliverance from outward troubles, but, what is of still greater importance, for the guidance of God’s Spirit, that he might not decline to the right hand or to the left, but be kept in the path of rectitude. This is a request which should never be forgotten when temptations assail us with great severity, as it is peculiarly difficult to submit to God without resorting to unwarrantable methods of relief. As anxiety, fear, disease, languor, or pain, often tempt persons to particular steps, David’s example should bad us to pray for divine restraint, and that we may not be hurried, through impulses of feeling, into unjustifiable courses. We are to mark carefully his way of expressing himself, for what he asks is not simply to be taught what the will of God is, but to be taught and brought to the observance, and doing of it. The former kind of teaching is of less avail, as upon God’s showing us our duty we by no means necessarily follow it, and it is necessary that he should draw out our affections to himself. God therefore must be master and teacher to us not only in the dead letter, but by the inward motions of his Spirit; indeed there are three ways in which he acts the part of our teacher, instructing us by his word, enlightening our minds by the Spirit, and engraving instruction upon our hearts, so as to bring us observe it with a true and cordial consent. The mere hearing of the word would serve no purpose, nor is it enough that we understand it; there must be besides the willing’ obedience of the heart. Nor does he merely say, Teach me that I may be capable of doing, as the deluded Papists imagine that the grace of God does no more than make us flexible to what is good, but he seeks something to be actually and presently done.

He insists upon the same thing in the next clause, when he says, Let thy good Spirit lead me, etc., for he desires the guidance of the Spirit not merely as he enlightens our minds, but as he effectually influences the consent of our hearts, and as it were leads us by the hand. The passage in its connection warns us of the necessity of being sedulously on our guard against yielding to inordinate passions in any contests we may have with wicked persons, and as we have no sufficient wisdom or power of our own by which to check and restrain these passions, that we should always seek the guidance of God’s Spirit, to keep them in moderation. More generally, the passage teaches us what we are to think of free will; for David here denies the will to have the power of judging rightly, till our hearts be formed to a holy obedience by the Spirit of God. The term leading, which I have already adverted to, proves also that David did not hold that middle species of grace which Papists talk so much about, and which leaves man in a state of suspension or indecision, but asserts something much more effectual, agreeably to what Paul says, (Philippians 2:13) that “it is God who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

[Comments on Jeremiah 31:33]: He afterwards says, I will put my Law in their inward parts By these words he confirms what we have said, that the newness, which he before mentioned, was not so as to the substance, but as to the form only: for God does not say here, “I will give you another Law,” but I will write my Law, that is, the same Law, which had formerly been delivered to the Fathers. He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only. But he states the same thing in two ways, and says, that he would put his law in their inward parts, and that he would write it in their hearts. We indeed know how difficult it is that man should be so formed to obedience that his whole life may be in unison with the Law of God, for all the lusts of the flesh are so many enemies, as Paul says, who fight against God. (Romans 8:7) As then all our affections and lusts thus carry on war with God, it is in a manner a renovation of the world when men suffer themselves to be ruled by God. And we know what Scripture says, that we cannot be the disciples of Christ, except we renounce ourselves and the world, and deny our own selves. (Matthew 6:24; Luke 14:26, 27) This is the reason why the Prophet was not satisfied with one statement, but said, I will put my Law in their inward parts, I will write it in their hearts.

We may further learn from this passage, how foolish the Papists are in their conceit about free-will. They indeed allow that without the help of God’s grace we are not capable of fulfilling the Law, and thus they concede something to the aid of grace and of the Spirit: but still they not only imagine a co-operation as to free-will, but ascribe to it the main work. Now the Prophet here testifies that it is the peculiar work of God to write his Law in our hearts. Since God then declares that this favor is justly his, and claims to himself the glory of it, how great must be the arrogance of men to appropriate this to themselves? To write the Law in the heart imports nothing less than so to form it, that the Law should rule there, and that there should be no feeling of the heart, not conformable and not consenting to its doctrine. It is hence then sufficiently clear, that no one can be turned so as to obey the Law, until he be regenerated by the Spirit of God; nay, that there is no inclination in man to act rightly, except God prepares his heart by his grace; in a word, that the doctrine of the letter is always dead, until God vivifies it by his Spirit.

[Comments on Hebrews 8:10]: The first is, that God calls us to himself without effect as long as he speaks to us in no other way than by the voice of man. He indeed teaches us and commands what is right but he speaks to the deaf; for when we seem to hear anything, our ears are only struck by an empty sound; and the heart, full of depravity and perverseness, rejects every wholesome doctrine. In short, the word of God never penetrates into our hearts, for they are iron and stone until they are softened by him; nay, they have engraven on them a contrary law, for perverse passions rule within, which lead us to rebellion. In vain then does God proclaim his Law by the voice of man, unless he writes it by his Spirit on our hearts, that is, unless he forms and prepares us for obedience. It hence appears of what avail is freewill and the uprightness of nature before God regenerates us. We will indeed and choose freely; but our will is carried away by a sort of insane impulse to resist God. Thus it comes that the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2 Corinthians 3:3.) In short, we then only obediently embrace what God commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. The declaration indeed is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no effect.

John Calvin on "Heaven", the Resurrection, and the Immortality of the Soul

As usual, Calvin has some helpful comments regarding the human "soul" and what happens after death. These days a number of people have high-lighted the fact that as Christians we often speak too much about heaven in a sense that is less than fully Biblical, with an emphasis on our disembodied spirits "going to heaven" immediately after we die. As Calvin reflected in his commentary on the parallel passages of Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-40, we see that this concern is not just novel for our times. This is what he says:

And, indeed, if we consider properly the doctrine of Scripture, the life of the soul, apart from the hope of the resurrection, will be a mere dream; for God does not declare that, immediately after the death of the body, souls live, — as if their glory and happiness were already enjoyed by them in perfections — but delays the expectation of them till the last day. I readily acknowledge that the philosophers, who were ignorant of the resurrection of the body, have many discussions about the immortal essence of the soul; but they talk so foolishly about the state of the future life that their opinions have no weight. But since the Scriptures inform us that the spiritual life depends on the hope of the resurrection, and that souls, when separated from the bodies, look forward to it, whoever destroys the resurrection deprives souls also of their immortality.

The apostolic church was captivated with the hope of the resurrection, at Christ's return. May that also be our hope, and may we not be so short-sighted, as to merely look forward to that imperfect, temporary state, in between the death of the body and the resurrection of the body.

Augustine via Calvin on False Humility

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" [Colossians 2:18, tr. Calvin]

Calvin takes an insightful quote from Augustine in his Commentary on Colossians 2:18, regarding the puffing up that comes from false humility. He writes, "as Augustine elegantly writes to Paulinus, by wonderful means, as to the soul of man, that it is more puffed up from a false humility than if it were openly proud".

[The quote comes from Augustine's letter to Paulinus, #149/CXLIX, 2.28, fit enim miris modis in anima hominis, ut de falsa humilitate magis infletur, quam si apertius superbiret]

Calvin vs Cessationism

I'm not yet sure about Calvin's full view of miracles, spiritual gifts, etc. But it seems clear that he was not a 100% pure cessationist. At the least, he allowed for the possibility of apostles, prophets and evangelists after the New Testament apostolic age:

According to this interpretation, which appears to me consonant both to the words and the meaning of Paul, those three functions [ie apostles, prophets, evangelists] were not instituted in the Church to be perpetual, but only to endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed, or at least where churches were to be transferred from Moses to Christ; although I deny not, that afterward God occasionally raised up Apostles, or at least Evangelists, in their stead, as has been done in our time. For such were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist. [Institutes 4.3.4]  

Also, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, he didn't interpret 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 in the common cessationist manner. Calvin did understand these gifts as temporary, but not to the apostolic age, but rather in this whole period prior to the final judgement:

Now our imperfection will one day have an end. Hence the use, even of those gifts, will, at the same time, be discontinued, for it were absurd that they should remain and be of no use. They will, therefore, perish...  But when will that perfection come? It begins, indeed, at death, for then we put off, along with the body, many infirmities; but it will not be completely manifested until the day of judgment, as we shall hear presently. Hence we infer, that the whole of this discussion is ignorantly applied to the time that is intermediate. [Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:9-13]

Of course, Calvin does not see such gifts as necessary, normative, or permanent, for every church and every period of history etc. But that does not necessarily make him a cessationist either.

Calvin on God's Will and Permitting Adam's Sin

Sometimes we are a bit too soft when we speak of God "permitting" sin and evil to enter the world through Adam (as well as ongoing suffering etc). Yes we are right to so distance sin and evil from God, as to never attribute evil and sin to God. He is perfect in purity, holiness, goodness and love. In him is light and there is no darkness at all. But at the same time, we do not have to sacrifice his perfect sovereignty and control, just because we can't make it all fit in our heads, in our philosophising or thinking. As if in some way we think we have a better idea of what constitutes what would be right and fair and good, more than God does. And the Bible is not backward in many places asserting God's absolute authority and right to do whatever he pleases, and leave us in our part to trust him fully in his perfect fairness, righteousness and goodness.

Below is a quote from Calvin, from his commentary on Genesis chapter 3, where he touches on this issue, as he considers the fact that God allowed Satan to tempt man...

All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by his permission. For, in the first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so. But in speaking of permission, I understand that he had appointed whatever he wished to be done. Here, indeed, a difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will? I wish that men would rather suffer themselves to be judged by God, than that, with profane temerity, they should pass judgment upon him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test. I hold it as a settled axiom, that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt; wherefore I conclude, that, as it became the Creator, he had before determined with himself what should be man’s future condition. Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice. For he himself perceives, being convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been too free in sinning.

Calvin on the Death of Animals Before the Fall

I have heard people say before that John Calvin didn't support the idea of no death of animals before the fall.

Here are his comments on Genesis 1:28...

"Some infer, from this passage that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge, he expressly grants them the use of flesh. These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what he has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter. Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification. For they judge prudently who maintain that the earth was so marred by the deluge, that we retain scarcely a moderate portion of the original benediction. Even immediately after the fall of man, it had already begun to bring forth degenerate and noxious fruits, but at the deluge, the change became still greater. Yet, however this may be, God certainly did not intend that man should be slenderly and sparingly sustained; but rather, by these words, he promises a liberal abundance, which should leave nothing wanting to a sweet and pleasant life. For Moses relates how beneficent the Lord had been to them, in bestowing on them all things which they could desire, that their ingratitude might have the less excuse."

So it seems here that his main argument is about whether it was lawful to kill animals for food before the flood (not before the fall). His main argument seems to be that the lawfulness of killing animals for sacrifices would imply that it cannot ever be inherently wrong or sin to kill animals (before or after the flood or fall). And therefore Genesis 1:28 does not *necessarily* say that animals could not be eaten for food before the fall.

However, his comments on Isaiah 11 seem pretty clear of his view (at least at the time of writing) of animals killing other animals before the fall:

Calvin's comments on Isaiah11:6..

"But the Prophet’s discourse looks beyond this; for it amounts to a promise that there will be a blessed restoration of the world. He describes the order which was at the beginning, before man’s apostasy produced the unhappy and melancholy change under which we groan. Whence comes the cruelty of brutes, which prompts the stronger to seize and rend and devour with dreadful violence the weaker animals? There would certainly have been no discord among the creatures of God, if they had remained in their first and original condition. When they exercise cruelty towards each other, and the weak need to be protected against the strong, it is an evidence of the disorder (ἀταξίας) which has sprung from the sinfulness of man... For this reason, he says, that straw will be the food of the lion as well as of the ox; for if the stain of sin had not polluted the world, no animal would have been addicted to prey on blood, but the fruits of the earth would have sufficed for all, according to the method which God had appointed. (Genesis 1:30.)"

Similarly his comments on Isaiah 65:25..

"“The lion” shall eat harmlessly, and shall no longer seek his prey. The serpent, satisfied with his dust, shall wrap himself in it, and shall no longer hurt by his envenomed bite. In a word, all that is disordered or confused shall be restored to its proper order. Yet beyond all controversy the Prophet speaks allegorically of bloody and violent men, whose cruel and savage nature shall be subdued, when they submit to the yoke of Christ. But first we must carefully consider that confusion which befell all the creatures in consequence of the fall of man; for if this were not taken into view, it would be impossible for us to have sufficiently just and correct views of this blessing of restoration. "

Calvin on the Testimony of the Spirit in our lives

Here are some great quotes from Calvin concerning the testimony or witness of the Holy Spirit in our lives, giving us assurance of our sonship, eternal life, election and salvation...

[from Commentary on Romans 8:14...] The import of the whole is this — “all those are the sons of God who are led by God’s Spirit; all the sons of God are heirs of eternal life: then all who are led by God’s Spirit ought to feel assured of eternal life. But the middle term or assumption is omitted, for it was indubitable. But it is right to observe, that the working of the Spirit is various: for there is that which is universal, by which all creatures are sustained and preserved; there is that also which is peculiar to men, and varying in its character: but what he means here is sanctification, with which the Lord favors none but his own elect, and by which he separates them for sons to himself.

[from Commentary on Romans 8:16...] But Paul means, that the Spirit of God gives us such a testimony, that when he is our guide and teacher, our spirit is made assured of the adoption of God: for our mind of its own self, without the preceding testimony of the Spirit, could not convey to us this assurance. There is also here an explanation of the former verse; for when the Spirit testifies to us, that we are the children of God, he at the same time pours into our hearts such confidence, that we venture to call God our Father.

[from Commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:12...] It is a passage that is most abundantly clear, for refuting that diabolical doctrine of the Sophists as to a constant hesitancy on the part of believers. For they require all believers to be in doubt, whether they are in the grace of God or not, and allow of no assurance of salvation, but what hangs on moral or probable conjecture. In this, however, they overthrow faith in two respects: for first they would have us be in doubt, whether we are in a state of grace, and then afterwards they suggest a second occasion of doubt — as to final perseverance. Here, however, the Apostle declares in general terms, that the elect have the Spirit given them, by whose testimony they are assured that they have been adopted to the hope of eternal salvation. Undoubtedly, if they would maintain their doctrine, they must of necessity either take away the Spirit of God from the elect, or make even the Spirit himself subject to uncertainty. Both of these things are openly at variance with Paul’s doctrine. Hence we may know the nature of faith to be this, that conscience has from the Holy Spirit a sure testimony of the good-will of God towards it, so that, resting upon this, it does not hesitate to invoke God as a Father

Calvin on "works of the law"

Here is a quote from Calvin, concerning Paul's phrase in Romans 3:20, "works of the law":

Therefore by the works of the law, etc. It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean. Some extend them to the observance of the whole law, while others confine them to the ceremonies alone. The addition of the word law induced Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome to assent to the latter opinion;for they thought that there is a peculiar intimation in this appendage, that the expression should not be understood as including all works. But this difficulty may be very easily removed: for seeing works are so far just before God as we seek by them to render to him worship and obedience, in order expressly to take away the power of justifying from all works, he has mentioned those, if there be any, which can possibly justify; for the law hath promises, without which there would be no value in our works before God. You hence see the reason why Paul expressly mentioned the works of the law; for it is by the law that a reward is apportioned to works. Nor was this unknown to the schoolmen, who held it as an approved and common maxim, that works have no intrinsic worthiness, but become meritorious by covenant. And though they were mistaken, inasmuch as they saw not that works are ever polluted with vices, which deprive them of any merit, yet this principle is still true, that the reward for works depends on the free promise of the law. Wisely then and rightly does Paul speak here; for he speaks not of mere works, but distinctly and expressly refers to the keeping of the law, the subject which he is discussing.

As to those things which have been adduced by learned men in defense of this opinion, they are weaker than they might have been. They think that by mentioning circumcision, an example is propounded, which belonged to ceremonies only: but why Paul mentioned circumcision, we have already explained; for none swell more with confidence in works than hypocrites, and we know that they glory only in external masks; and then circumcision, according to their view, was a sort of initiation into the righteousness of the law; and hence it seemed to them a work of primary excellence, and indeed the basis as it were of the righteousness of works. — They also allege what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul handles the same subject, and refers to ceremonies only; but that also is not sufficiently strong to support what they wish to defend. It is certain that Paul had a controversy with those who inspired the people with a false confidence in ceremonies; that he might cut of this confidence, he did not confine himself to ceremonies, nor did he speak specifically of what value they were; but he included the whole law, as it is evident from those passages which are derived from that source. Such also was the character of the disputation held at Jerusalem by the disciples.

But we contend, not without reason, that Paul speaks here of the whole law; for we are abundantly supported by the thread of reasoning which he has hitherto followed and continues to follow, and there are many other passages which will not allow us to think otherwise. It is therefore a truth, which deserves to be remembered as the first in importance, — that by keeping the law no one can attain righteousness. He had before assigned the reason, and he will repeat it presently again, and that is, that all, being to a man guilty of transgression, are condemned for unrighteousness by the law. And these two things — to be justified by works — and to be guilty of transgressions, (as we shall show more at large as we proceed,) are wholly inconsistent the one with the other. — The word flesh, without some particular specification, signifies men;though it seems to convey a meaning somewhat more general, as it is more expressive to say, “All mortals,” than to say, “All men,” as you may see in Gallius.

(from Calvin's Commentary on Romans)

Here Calvin argues against those who confine "works of the law" to "the ceremonies alone". But Calvin says "that Paul speaks here of the whole law". I find this interesting because of recent controversies over the phrase "works of the law", as interpreted by those branded as "New Perspective". Some (along the lines of N T Wright) speak of "works of the law" as those distinctive aspects of Torah which marked out the Jews as the people of God, things such as circumcision, food laws etc. It is not about a moralistic righteousness, a "pulling oneself up by his own moral bootstraps". Particularly they are arguing against an interpretation of "works of the law" which read into Paul a context of medieval merit-emphasising theology.While probably not exactly the same, this seems similar to the interpretation of "works of the law" as referring to "the ceremonies alone" (which, significantly, Calvin attributes to pre-medieval writers, like "Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome"). Yet it seems that to hold a more confined view of "works of the law" is branded as unorthodox in some circles, and one is liable to come under fire for holding such a view, as if nobody in their right mind could think that Paul didn't mean some kind of 100% perfect, moral self-meriting of justification before God. While Calvin certainly held to a position which would perhaps be more popular amongst Reformed Evangelicals today, yet we would be wise to recognise with him that, "It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean".