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."

J C Ryle on Holiness (in this hurrying, bustling world...)

I think I have neglected my younger self for not reading more J C Ryle (1816-1900), even though his book on Holiness is so often recommended. Just read the chapter on "Holiness", with Hebrews 12:14 as the stated text. Speaks about his day, but seems just a relevant today. Here are some excerpts I selected...

"In this hurrying, bustling world, let us stand still for a few minutes and consider the matter of holiness. I believe I might have chosen a subject more popular and pleasant. I am sure I might have found one more easy to handle. But I feel deeply I could not have chosen one more seasonable and more profitable to our souls. It is a solemn thing to hear the Word of God saying, “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” (Heb. xii. 14.)... 

And this I do boldly and confidently say, that true holiness is a great reality. It is something in a man that can be seen, and known, and marked, and felt by all around him. It is light: if it exists, it will show itself. It is salt: if it exists, its savour will be perceived. It is a precious ointment: if it exists, its presence cannot be hid... 

Can holiness save us? Can holiness put away sin—cover iniquities—make satisfaction for transgressions—pay our debt to God? No: not a whit. God forbid that I should ever say so. Holiness can do none of these things... 

We must be holy, because this is one grand end and purpose for which Christ came into the world... Jesus is a complete Saviour. He does not merely take away the guilt of a believer’s sin, He does more—He breaks its power, (1 Peter i. 2; Rom. viii. 29; Eph. i. 4; Heb. xii. 10.)... We must be holy, because this is the only proof that we love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity... Surely that man must be in an unhealthy state of soul who can think of all that Jesus suffered, and yet cling to those sins for which that suffering was undergone... We must be holy, because this is the only sound evidence that we are true children of God. Children in this world are generally like their parents. Some, doubtless, are more so, and some less—but it is seldom indeed that you cannot trace a kind of family likeness. And it is much the same with the children of God... 

Whatever we may think fit to say, we must be holy, if we would see the Lord. Where is our Christianity if we are not? We must not merely have a Christian name, and Christian knowledge, we must have a Christian character also... 

I have no desire to make an idol of holiness. I do not wish to dethrone Christ, and put holiness in His place. But I must candidly say, I wish sanctification was more thought of in this day than it seems to be, and I therefore take occasion to press the subject on all believers into whose hands these pages may fall... 

I would say it with all reverence, but say it I must—I sometimes fear if Christ were on earth now, there are not a few who would think His preaching legal; and if Paul were writing his Epistles, there are those who would think he had better not write the latter part of most of them as he did. But let us remember that the Lord Jesus did speak the Sermon on the Mount, and that the Epistle to the Ephesians contains six chapters and not four. I grieve to feel obliged to speak in this way, but I am sure there is a cause... 

Is it not true that we need a higher standard of personal holiness in this day? Where is our patience? Where is our zeal? Where is our love? Where are our works?... 

Would you be holy? Would you become a new creature? Then you must begin with Christ. You will do just nothing at all, and make no progress till you feel your sin and weakness, and flee to Him. He is the root and beginning of all holiness, and the way to be holy is to come to Him by faith and be joined to Him. Christ is not wisdom and righteousness only to His people, but sanctification also."

The Circumcision of Correct Theology

You who boast in the law dishonour God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:23-29; ESV)

As I was reading Paul's words from Romans 2 (above), and thinking about how it can play out today, it occurred to me that theological correctness can be a kind of circumcision for one kind of modern day "Judaizers".

Tom Wright has used the word "badge" to talk about the way the Jews viewed circumcision (and other works of the Law/Torah, and even just the possession of the Law/Torah, if memory serves me right). This is a helpful analogy. Perhaps more in the past, but badges could serve as proud symbols of membership of your particular club. For some church members, official name tags function as badges of membership. And the thing is, there can be a subtle blurring, where the badge of membership becomes the assurance of membership (although I suppose there is something in the nature of Biblical badges as not only signs, but also seals). Worse though, is when the assurance rests entirely in the wearing of the badge, and it is forgotten that the badge is only a token, when the badge is no longer a sign pointing to something else, but assumes all the substance of assurance. I may not have any real relationships with others in the church, I may only rarely attend the various gatherings of the church, I may never represent the church in the world, but I still have the name tag, and if I'm wearing it, no-one better try and tell me that I'm not a member of the church!

Sometimes I think our confessions to theological correctness become a badge carrying too much weight, causing too much boasting. Sometimes the theological orthodoxy of our doctrinal statements, and of our confessed allegiances (as Calvinist, Evangelical, Reformed or whatever), becomes the substance of our assurance of membership in Christ, even if that alone is the bulk of the substance of that assurance. What if we have the purest summary of the gospel in our official confession, but we never really engage with others to communicate the gospel to them? What if we clearly teach predestination and grace, and are notoriously proud or arrogant as Christians? What if our stated core values proclaim the love of God and reconciliation and forgiveness in Christ, but we are always divisive and fault-finding? "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision." Our theological badge indeed is of value if we live out our theology. But if our theological confessions are only a badge, maybe there is little value in wearing it. And perhaps we may also see that some others who don't wear the same badge, actually do better at living out the theology. May our praise not be from man but from God.

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.

Sabbath, Fourth Commandment and Lord's Day for Christians today?

I have recently been in some discussions about the essence of the fourth commandment (cf Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15). I thought I would compile some of the notes here. They are very abbreviated, with little justification, but here they are anyway, as something of a summary of my present thought...

• There is an abiding application of the 4th commandment, since the creation until now. Sunday as the Lord’s Day has become the holy/special day for Christians, rather than the Saturday Sabbath, as recognised in the New Testament and early church history. This is the day that Christians regularly assembled together for worship, encouragement and edification. There seems to still be a set day, the Lord’s Day. I understant that the Lord’s Day has always been considered as the first day of the week, both in Scripture and in early church history. (I think some of the shift has to do with a practical distinction between Mosaic Jewish administration and new Christian administration, and part because the new age has already begun on the first day of the week, when Jesus rose from the dead.)
• The essence of our Christian observance of the Lord's Day is of keeping the the day holy and distinct from our other days. That day is specially the Lord’s, where the other six are in a sense more left to us and our particular needs in this age. The Sabbath day was never just about the past, but also about the future hope of entering God’s rest (of which the promised land was a typological fulfilment, clearly not being the real thing, but meant to make the people think in those terms). I understand that the Sabbath was primarily about hope (and not primarily about judgement or whatever else). And that hope is now kept holy by us on the Lord’s Day instead. The Lord’s Day is then a special day to look forward to the perfect rest to come (as the Gen 2:1-4 seventh day was the holy perfection of the creation account), and enjoy the anticipation of that. So part of the essence of the day is still a resting from this-worldly employment (to provide for our this-worldly needs), and depend upon and enjoy the Lord, living by his word alone (so to speak). A day when we shouldn’t be trying to make money, or force others to make money for us (like our slaves, servants, oxen, donkeys etc, to use Ex 20/Deut 5 terminology). It is a day of joy in the Lord. A day of delight. A day of holy desire and hope.
• There are some aspects of OT Jewish Sabbath requirement that are not required in the same way for Christian believers on the Lord’s Day. There is a greater sense of freedom, joy and closeness with God for the Christian community, than there is in the OT Jewish economy. You see that for example in the difference between restricted access to God’s throne in the tabernacle/temple system, and the free access and boldness we are given as Christians. I think part of that has to do with the “typological” distinctiveness of Israel amongst the other nations, and how that needed to be displayed outwardly and legally etc, since as a whole community they did not have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts individually. And there is this kind of shift when it comes to how we think of observing the Lord's Day as the Christian holy day.
• The difference between Ex 20 and Deut 5 also shows us that the essence of the 10 commandments is not tied to the precise and entire wording in a over-legal way.
• Hebrews 3-4 is not about a “Lutheran grace not works” type of rest. I think it is about a future rest, and actually still points to a continuing Sabbath observance as we look forward to entering the rest of God which Jesus has already entered (for himself as the new Adam, and also on our behalf).
• The Col 2, Gal 4 and Rom 14 passages are more about Jewish-type holy days, not about the Christian Lord’s Day (since the context of all these passages has to do with Jewish-influenced wrong thinking coming into the church).
• I have heard many people say that Jesus broke the Sabbath. I don't think Jesus broke any OT requirement of the Sabbath, since he had to fulfil all righteousness and perfectly keep the law. What Jesus broke was only the interpretation of the law by some contemporary Jews.
• When it comes to questions of practical situations, of what we should and shouldn't do, one principle is, if I don’t think I should do it, I shouldn't require others to do it for me, or encourage others to do what I wouldn’t do. (cf Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.) However, on the other hand there are issues of necessity, and mercy, and the dangers of Pharisaical extremes, similar to the “Corban” situation, where one thing is overemphasised at the expense of something else, and it becomes emphasis on a man-made rule, rather than issue of real sin. Or where detailed rules are contrived, which go beyond God’s requirements. And this is where things become complicated in the real situations that we face.
• Yes, technically, we could say the “Lord’s Day” is not to be called “the Sabbath”, however I don’t think it is wrong, and often is helpful, to use the shorthand of referring to it as the “Christian Sabbath”. Particularly because we don’t have the same kind of confusions with the prevalence of Jewish influence today (at least not to the same degree and in the same form, eg food laws and circumcision are not as big an issue for us today as it was in the NT)

Circumcision and Keeping the Law

I've been working through 1 Corinthians in four different settings this year, and here is another comment related to chapter 7, having looked at it again recently. But this post is about 7:19. I think the verse has significant relevance to distinguishing between ceremonial and other aspects of the "Law" (e.g. threefold or tripartite division of the Law), and reminds me of of Romans 2:26-27. Here are the two references in full:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Corinthians 7:19; NKJV)

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? (Romans 2:26-27; NKJV)

What is significant is that Paul distinguishes between being circumcised and keeping the commandments of God, or fulfilling the requirements of the law. Someone can be said to keep God's commandments and law, without having to be circumcised. Yet, in other places, such as Galatians 5:3, circumcision seems to be identified as a part of the law. Hence Paul can sometimes speak of "the law", not including particularly Jewish markers like circumcision. Sounds a bit like distinguishing between "ceremonial" and "moral" aspects, doesn't it? There are those those who don't like dividing up or distinguishing between different aspects of the law, treating it as all or nothing, saying that is more "Biblical". But in doing so they are not actually being true to Paul's own non-simplistic references to the law (Torah)...