Calvin’s Institutes. Old and New Testament Relationship Part 3: The suspense.

In chapter 11 Calvin explains the differences between the two testaments or covenants.

1. These differences between the Old and New Testaments do not destroy the unity and continuity of the two; they merely identify God’s dealings in different dispensations.

2. Calvin writes, “I say that all these (meaning the differences) pertain to the manner of dispensation rather than to substances” (Pg., 450).

3. The first difference. The promise of earthly blessings and care given in the Old, were a picture, a teacher to direct their minds toward heavenly and spiritual blessings. In the New, the gospel in its fullness “plainly and clearly reveals the grace of future life…the Lord leads our minds to meditate upon it directly, laying aside the lower mode of training that He used with the Israelites” (Pg., 450).

In the last post I mentioned Calvin’s dualistic outlook. Here it comes up again. He regulates the gospel as the grace of future life. Not that he thinks the gospel is only given as a ticket to the next life; far from it. In other places he speaks of the gospel ethic and how it brings the kingdom into this world. But here it is not his focus, and I think it weakens his argument.

4. Calvin copies the biblical teaching when he says, “in the earthly possession they enjoyed, they looked, as in a mirror, upon the future inheritance they believed to have been prepared for them in heaven” (Pg., 450). [ Gen 15:1; Ps 73:26; 84:2; 16:5; 142:5; 133:3]

5. The second difference consists in the fact that in the Old, the truths of the gospel were communicated in figures, types and shadows. The reality of the physical incarnation had not yet come. The New Covenant deals with the true substance, the real incarnate Christ which before was spiritually anticipated.

6. The truth of Christ and his promises are the same in both testaments; though in the Old they are portrayed by figures while in the New by the anti-type, the reality.

7. “The Old Covenant’s fulfilment, by which it is finally and confirmed and ratified, is Christ....“Old Testament” means the solemn manner of confirming the covenant, comprised in ceremonies and sacrifices” (Pg., 454).

8. “The Old Testament of the Lord was the covenant wrapped up in the shadowy and ineffectual observance of ceremonies and delivered to the Jews; it was temporary because it remained, as it were, in suspense until it might rest upon a firm and substantial confirmation. It became new and eternal only after it was consecrated and established by the blood of Christ” (Pg., 454).

9. The third difference lies in the verity that the Old contains much that is literal whereas in the New, every doctrine is spiritual. [2 Cor 3:6-11]

10. Paul tells us that the Old was written on stone, whereas the New on fleshly hearts; the Old “is the preaching of death,” whereas the new is the gospel of life; the Old condemns because it is the holy law, however, the New gives righteousness because of Christ; the Old was temporary, whereas the New is eternal. See Section 8 on page 457.