In the last blog I began listing the differences between the Old and New Testaments as given by Calvin. In regards to terms, perhaps it would be better to say Old and New Covenant, instead of Old and New Testament. Old and New Covenants are the terms the churches, particularly the Reformed, use today.
We begin with difference number 4.
1. The fourth difference is explained by Calvin this way. “Scripture calls the Old Testament one of “bondage” because it produces fear in men’s minds; but the New Testament, one of “freedom” because it lifts them to trust and assurance” (Pg., 458).
2. Paul and the author of Hebrews teach our minds that the Old Covenant struck fear in men’s hearts and bound their consciences to observe rituals and ceremonies. However, the New brings joy and freedom in Christ. [Rom 8:15; Heb 12:18-22]
3. Before we go and consider the fifth distinction, let’s remind ourselves that these differences between the Old and New are not disagreements. The Covenant of Grace is one throughout all dispensations. The covenants of the Old Testament are subsidiaries of the Covenant of Grace. The New Covenant explained in the New Testament pages is really the full revelation of the eternal Covenant of Grace. [Heb 13:20; 2 Tim 1:9]
4. All children of God (children of promise, Rom 9:8), belong to the New Covenant. Their hope has always been Jesus Christ and eternal life.
5. Calvin writes, “All the saints whom Scripture mentions as being peculiarly chosen of God from the beginning of the world have shared with us the same blessing unto eternal life” (Pg., 459).
6. Were the shadows (ceremonies & buildings, etc), real? Did the slaughtered beasts forgive sin? Did the sprinkling of the water purify the soul? Was God delighted in burnt offerings? The writers of the New Testament answer these questions by an affirmative, no! (Heb 7-9)
7. Calvin correctly comments, “The holy patriarchs so lived under the Old Covenant as not to remain there but ever aspire to the New, and thus embrace a real share in it. The apostle condemns as blind and accursed those who, content with present shadows, did not stretch their minds to Christ” (Pg., 460). [Rom 2:27-29; Phil 3:2; Gal 1-2]. Of course the Jews in Jesus day rejected him. They could not see how he fulfilled all the promises of the Old Testament prophets.
8. The fifth difference is wonderful! The Old was given to one nation and the other. But now the New is extended and effectual to all nations. [Gal 4:4; 3:28; 6:15; Eph 2:14-17; Rom 11; Col 3:11; Ps 2:8; 72:8 cf. Zech 9:10]
9. God is now calling the Gentiles. Of course the prophets foretold of this great news. Jesus spoke of it. The apostles, though startled at first, also realized that under the New Covenant there is no more Jew or Gentile; all are one in Christ. [Is 42:6; 49:6-8; Jn 10:16; Eph 2; Gal 3; Acts 10; Rom 11]
10. This expansion of the Covenant of Grace is told to us in the Abrahamic Covenant. It’s expansion through Messiah was the great mystery, the glorious news that even the angels desire to look into. [Eph 3:9; 1 Pet 1:12]
Showing posts with label Old and New Covenant Relationship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Old and New Covenant Relationship. Show all posts
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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.
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.
Calvin’s Institutes. Old and New Testament Relationship Part 2: A spiritual outlook.
Below is the second instalment summarizing chapter 10 of Calvin’s Institutes. To him the key element in the continuity between the Old and New Testament believers was the spiritual character of faith. He takes Abraham, “who looked for a city who’s builder and makes was God,” as a paradigm indicating that the Old Testament saints were looking for redemption and its corollary, heaven.
On this point I disagree with Calvin. Yes, Abraham sought for the God-built city, and was justified by faith but he did not just look for heaven. He and the subsequent prophets foretold of salvation for the world. Through Messiah all nations would be subdued and ruled from Zion. Here I think Calvin posited a dualistic construct back onto the Old Testament. He should have let the Old Testament speak its eschatology and he would have even seen the continuity of the covenants more clearly. Not that he didn’t see the eschatology of the Old Testament; at times he did, it just did not take centre place in his thinking. After all he was a man affected by Medieval dualisms.
Having said all that, here is the summary.
1. The Old Testament saints were Christians. Why, because they had the word of the gospel.
2. The promise was given them by the Word of God [1 Pet 1:23-24 cf. Is 40:6]. “Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs cleaved to God by such illumination of the Word. Therefore, I say without any doubt they entered into God’s immortal kingdom. For theirs was a real participation in God, which cannot be without the blessing of eternal life” (Pg., 434).
3. The Old Testament Christians were God’s eternal possession for he covenanted with them to be their God. [Lev 26:11-12; Ps 144:15; Hab 1:12; Is 33:22; Deut 33:29; Ex 6:7]
4. Abraham, the father of all the faithful saw Christ’s day and rejoiced; and sought for a city who’s builder and maker was God. Abraham knew the covenant promises contained eternal life.
5. Isaac and Jacob were the elect of God. They too were primarily looking and waiting for the promise of eternal life. They did not see God’s covenant only as a deed to a land in this life.
6. All the patriarchs of old died in faith, because they were justified by faith. They expected God’s promises to be fulfilled elsewhere than this world [Heb 11:9-10; 13-16]. These men and women understood the spiritual character of the covenants.
7. When one studies David, Job, Ezekiel and the other prophets, one finds that, “In them eternal life and Christ’s Kingdom are revealed in fullest splendour” (Pg., 441). [See the Scripture references on pages 441-448]
8. It is obvious that the Old Testament saints have the Christian hope of eternal life. Why, because they were Christians, saved by the same gospel and same Christ.
9. It is obvious that the O.T saints had “(1) Christ as pledge of their covenant, and (2) put in Him all trust of future blessedness” (Pg., 448).
I agree with number 8 & 9, but would want to emphasize that they would have had the hope God would also redeem the whole world. Compare Gen 12:1-3 with Rom 4:13.
10. This is the principle: “The Old Testament or Covenant that the Lord had made with the Israelites had not been limited to earthly things, but contained a promise of spiritual and eternal life” (Pg., 448).
On this point I disagree with Calvin. Yes, Abraham sought for the God-built city, and was justified by faith but he did not just look for heaven. He and the subsequent prophets foretold of salvation for the world. Through Messiah all nations would be subdued and ruled from Zion. Here I think Calvin posited a dualistic construct back onto the Old Testament. He should have let the Old Testament speak its eschatology and he would have even seen the continuity of the covenants more clearly. Not that he didn’t see the eschatology of the Old Testament; at times he did, it just did not take centre place in his thinking. After all he was a man affected by Medieval dualisms.
Having said all that, here is the summary.
1. The Old Testament saints were Christians. Why, because they had the word of the gospel.
2. The promise was given them by the Word of God [1 Pet 1:23-24 cf. Is 40:6]. “Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs cleaved to God by such illumination of the Word. Therefore, I say without any doubt they entered into God’s immortal kingdom. For theirs was a real participation in God, which cannot be without the blessing of eternal life” (Pg., 434).
3. The Old Testament Christians were God’s eternal possession for he covenanted with them to be their God. [Lev 26:11-12; Ps 144:15; Hab 1:12; Is 33:22; Deut 33:29; Ex 6:7]
4. Abraham, the father of all the faithful saw Christ’s day and rejoiced; and sought for a city who’s builder and maker was God. Abraham knew the covenant promises contained eternal life.
5. Isaac and Jacob were the elect of God. They too were primarily looking and waiting for the promise of eternal life. They did not see God’s covenant only as a deed to a land in this life.
6. All the patriarchs of old died in faith, because they were justified by faith. They expected God’s promises to be fulfilled elsewhere than this world [Heb 11:9-10; 13-16]. These men and women understood the spiritual character of the covenants.
7. When one studies David, Job, Ezekiel and the other prophets, one finds that, “In them eternal life and Christ’s Kingdom are revealed in fullest splendour” (Pg., 441). [See the Scripture references on pages 441-448]
8. It is obvious that the Old Testament saints have the Christian hope of eternal life. Why, because they were Christians, saved by the same gospel and same Christ.
9. It is obvious that the O.T saints had “(1) Christ as pledge of their covenant, and (2) put in Him all trust of future blessedness” (Pg., 448).
I agree with number 8 & 9, but would want to emphasize that they would have had the hope God would also redeem the whole world. Compare Gen 12:1-3 with Rom 4:13.
10. This is the principle: “The Old Testament or Covenant that the Lord had made with the Israelites had not been limited to earthly things, but contained a promise of spiritual and eternal life” (Pg., 448).
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Calvin’s Institutes. Old and New Testament Relationship Part 1: The same promises.
In chapters 11 and 12 Calvin discusses the similarities and differences between the Old and New Covenants. The topic of continuity and discontinuity between the Old Testament and the new, between Israel and the church, and between the law and Jesus has produced volumes of books.
It truly is a key subject. It has to do with the question of God, the nature of revelation, and the gospel. From Lutheranism, to the Reformed, to the Roman Catholics this has been discussed. Well, what did Calvin say about it so many years ago?
This summary will try to capture his thought. It will come in a number of instalments.
1. By the word covenant we basically mean “promise.” God has given us a record of all his promises he has given to mankind in Scripture. He gave these promises by his free sovereign grace. He bound himself to man; mankind has not, nor do not force him to force himself upon us. In sin man does not seek after God, but God still seeks after man to redeem him by his grace.
2. All people redeemed from their sin and united with God are redeemed and united by Jesus through God’s covenant of grace. There has always been and always will be one gospel of grace, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Some have argued that the Old Testament and its covenants are not the same as the New Testament and its grace. They say the Old Testament works by law and not by grace. They say in the Old Testament dispensation, grace and Christ were mere statues, dead and not active in a saving activity. What saved them was law, accompanied by a faith in God; not a faith in Christ, specifically or grace exclusively.
4. The Old and New covenants are the same. They are just subsidiaries of the one Covenant of Grace. The person of this covenant is Christ, by which all the elect are redeemed. As Calvin writes, “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation” (Pg., 429).
5. The covenants made with the patriarchs were primarily spiritual in nature. Their main emphasis was not physical land, prosperity in this life or happiness in this existence. This spiritual emphasis is identical with the New Covenant.
6. The covenants made with the patriarchs were all of grace. Calvin says, “The covenant by which they were bound to the Lord was supported, not by their own merits, but solely by the mercy of the God who called them” (Pg., 429).
7. The patriarchs under the Old Covenant knew Messiah, “through whom they were joined to God and were to share in His promises” (Pg., 430).
8. In the New Testament we are told that the gospel of Christ and justification by Christ were promised and active in the Old Testament. [Rom 1:2-3; 3:21; Eph 1:13-14; Jn 8:56; Heb 13:8; Heb 9:15; Lk 1:54-55; 72-73]. In both testaments there are symbols which manifested the grace of God. In the Old there was circumcision and Passover. In the New there is baptism and Holy Communion.
9. Grace covers both Testaments. The gospel has always been the same. The gospel “declares nothing else than that sinners are justified apart from their own merit by God’s fatherly kindness; and the whole of it is summed up in Christ” (Pg., 431).
10. In conclusion: “The Lord not only communicated to the Jews the same promises of eternal and heavenly life as He now deigns to give us, but also sealed them with truly spiritual sacraments” (Pg., 433).
It truly is a key subject. It has to do with the question of God, the nature of revelation, and the gospel. From Lutheranism, to the Reformed, to the Roman Catholics this has been discussed. Well, what did Calvin say about it so many years ago?
This summary will try to capture his thought. It will come in a number of instalments.
1. By the word covenant we basically mean “promise.” God has given us a record of all his promises he has given to mankind in Scripture. He gave these promises by his free sovereign grace. He bound himself to man; mankind has not, nor do not force him to force himself upon us. In sin man does not seek after God, but God still seeks after man to redeem him by his grace.
2. All people redeemed from their sin and united with God are redeemed and united by Jesus through God’s covenant of grace. There has always been and always will be one gospel of grace, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Some have argued that the Old Testament and its covenants are not the same as the New Testament and its grace. They say the Old Testament works by law and not by grace. They say in the Old Testament dispensation, grace and Christ were mere statues, dead and not active in a saving activity. What saved them was law, accompanied by a faith in God; not a faith in Christ, specifically or grace exclusively.
4. The Old and New covenants are the same. They are just subsidiaries of the one Covenant of Grace. The person of this covenant is Christ, by which all the elect are redeemed. As Calvin writes, “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation” (Pg., 429).
5. The covenants made with the patriarchs were primarily spiritual in nature. Their main emphasis was not physical land, prosperity in this life or happiness in this existence. This spiritual emphasis is identical with the New Covenant.
6. The covenants made with the patriarchs were all of grace. Calvin says, “The covenant by which they were bound to the Lord was supported, not by their own merits, but solely by the mercy of the God who called them” (Pg., 429).
7. The patriarchs under the Old Covenant knew Messiah, “through whom they were joined to God and were to share in His promises” (Pg., 430).
8. In the New Testament we are told that the gospel of Christ and justification by Christ were promised and active in the Old Testament. [Rom 1:2-3; 3:21; Eph 1:13-14; Jn 8:56; Heb 13:8; Heb 9:15; Lk 1:54-55; 72-73]. In both testaments there are symbols which manifested the grace of God. In the Old there was circumcision and Passover. In the New there is baptism and Holy Communion.
9. Grace covers both Testaments. The gospel has always been the same. The gospel “declares nothing else than that sinners are justified apart from their own merit by God’s fatherly kindness; and the whole of it is summed up in Christ” (Pg., 431).
10. In conclusion: “The Lord not only communicated to the Jews the same promises of eternal and heavenly life as He now deigns to give us, but also sealed them with truly spiritual sacraments” (Pg., 433).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)