809 thoughts on “Why Republication Matters”

1. Oops, I meant Leviticus 26:14.

   LikeLike

2. I can’t really comment as to its oddness. Calvin was not dealing at that time with the same questions we are. But if you’re suggesting that silence here indicates that Calvin did not think that believers in the MC were under any legal principle whatsoever, then I would point you to Inst 2.11.9.

   It is one thing to be under the Law as a covenant of works to inherit eternal life, another to be under a legal economy whose goods and services are external, literal, physical, typological.

   LikeLike

3. I can’t really comment as to its oddness. Calvin was not dealing at that time with the same questions we are.

   No, I don’t buy that. A works principle for temporal blessings seems like a rather universally important doctrine, not merely a context-specific one, and I can’t imagine that Calvin, as thorough and pastoral as he was, wouldn’t make mention of it, if he in fact held to it.

   But if you’re suggesting that silence here indicates that Calvin did not think that believers in the MC were under any legal principle whatsoever, then I would point you to Inst 2.11.9.

   What I’m suggesting is that the silence indicates that Calvin did not think that believers under the MC were under a works principle for temporal blessings. And Institutes 2.11.9 doesn’t help your case, because it is quite clear that Calvin is speaking there of the moral law strictly considered, not of a works principle for temporal blessings, as we can see from his explanation in 2.11.7:

   It will, therefore, be proper to attend to this peculiarity in Paul. Both [i.e., Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 2 Corinthians 3:5-6], however, as they are contrasting the Old and New Testament, consider nothing in the Law but what is peculiar to it. For example, the Law everywhere contains promises of mercy; but as these are adventitious to it, they do not enter into the account of the Law as considered only in its own nature. All which is attributed to it is, that it commands what is right, prohibits crimes, holds forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness, and threatens transgressors with punishment, while at the same time it neither changes nor amends that depravity of heart which is naturally inherent in all.

   That he is speaking specifically of the moral law is also obvious in what follows (in 2.11.8), as he elaborates on its pedagogy:

   The Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit: the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraven it on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favour with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by which we are justified.

   And it is also clear in the section you specifically reference (2.11.9):

   If it be objected, that the holy fathers among the Israelites, as they were endued with the same spirit of faith, must also have been partakers of the same liberty and joy, we answer, that neither was derived from the Law; but feeling that by the Law they were oppressed like slaves, and vexed with a disquieted conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel; and, accordingly, the peculiar advantage of the Gospel was, that, contrary to the common rule of the Old Testament, it exempted those who were under it from those evils. (2.11.9)

   This is clearly Calvin’s way of saying that Israelite believers were freed from the law as a covenant of works (WCF 19.6, 20:1). The contrast is between the liberty of the regenerate versus the bondage of the unregenerate.

   Immediately following this comes the passage you claim for support:

   Then, again, we deny that they did possess the spirit of liberty and security in such a degree as not to experience some measure of fear and bondage. For however they might enjoy the privilege which they had obtained through the grace of the Gospel, they were under the same bonds and burdens of observances as the rest of their nation. Therefore, seeing they were obliged to the anxious observance of ceremonies, (which were the symbols of a tutelage bordering on slavery, and handwritings by which they acknowledged their guilt, but did not escape from it,) they are justly said to have been, comparatively, under a covenant of fear and bondage, in respect of that common dispensation under which the Jewish people were then placed. (2.11.9)

   So yes, according to Calvin, OT believers did indeed experience “some measure of fear and bondage.” But what was the nature of this fear and bondage? Was it that they were under a works principle for temporal blessings? No. It was that they were (along with unregenerate Israelites) obligated to observe the ceremonial law—the “handwriting” against them, testifying of their guilt.

   Calvin is really saying very much the same thing in 2.11.9 that the Westminster Confession says in 20.1:

   The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law. But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

   As Calvin also explained, the advantage of NT believers is that their liberty “is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected.” In addition, we are told that the liberty of NT believers also consists in “greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.” But (as with Calvin), there is no mention of OT believers being subject to a works principle for temporal blessings, or NT believers being freed from such.

   It is one thing to be under the Law as a covenant of works to inherit eternal life, another to be under a legal economy whose goods and services are external, literal, physical, typological.

   But we have seen that Calvin (in 2.11.9) is not speaking of “a legal economy whose goods and services are external, literal, physical, typological” (assuming that you mean a works principle for temporal blessings). On that topic, he apparently was indeed utterly silent.

   LikeLike

4. David,

   Where is this discussion of Calvin going? I can respond to the above, but I fear we are heading down a side-trail.

   LikeLike

5. Jeff, I pointed to one place where Calvin would have mentioned repub if he held to it–in his comments on the covenant sanctions. You pointed to another–his enumeration of the differences between the MC and the NC. But in both places he is silent concerning repub. It may be a bit of an excursion, but I think it winds up at the same destination. However, if you’d rather wait for my responses to your FT posts, no problem.

   LikeLike

6. OK, I’ll give it one round, but then let’s focus back on FT.

   DR: What I’m suggesting is that the silence indicates that Calvin did not think that believers under the MC were under a works principle for temporal blessings.

   So you begin with an argument from silence. What other possibilities for the silence have you considered and eliminated, other than the one you put forward?

   For the rest, Calvin screams “repub” to me. You cite,

   It will, therefore, be proper to attend to this peculiarity in Paul. Both [i.e., Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 2 Corinthians 3:5-6], however, as they are contrasting the Old and New Testament, consider nothing in the Law but what is peculiar to it. For example, the Law everywhere contains promises of mercy; but as these are adventitious to it, they do not enter into the account of the Law as considered only in its own nature. All which is attributed to it is, that it commands what is right, prohibits crimes, holds forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness, and threatens transgressors with punishment, while at the same time it neither changes nor amends that depravity of heart which is naturally inherent in all.

   When we talk about republication, we are talking about considering the Law according to its own nature. We are talking about its functions of holding forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness and punishments to transgressors, variously according to the moral, civil, and ceremonial law.

   According to its own nature:

   * The moral held forth (hypothetically) eternal life on condition of perfect obedience and eternal death for the first disobedience.
   * The civil held forth physical, outward penalties for transgressors. These were applied without regard to faith or repentance.
   * The ceremonial held forth external cleansing on condition of sacrifice. This was equally true for the justified and the unjustified, without regard to faith or repentance.

   If you want to talk about the things signified under the veil, sure. Those were apprehended by faith and not works. That would be viewing the law according to its evangelical relation. But the law according to its own nature, viewed according to the legal relation, operated by a works principle.

   Now, I’m really confused as to why you say that Calvin is speaking solely of the moral law here. For he says,

   The Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit: the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraven it on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favour with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by which we are justified. The last antithesis must be referred to the Ceremonial Law. Being a shadow of things to come, it behaved in time to perish and vanish away; whereas the Gospel, inasmuch as it exhibits the very body, is firmly established for ever. Jeremiah indeed calls the Moral Law also a weak and fragile covenant; but for another reason—namely, because it was immediately broken by the sudden defection of an ungrateful people; but as the blame of such violation is in the people themselves, it is not properly alleged against the covenant. The ceremonies, again, inasmuch as through their very weakness they were dissolved by the advent of Christ, had the cause of weakness from within.

   Calv Inst 2.11.8

   So Calvin is speaking in 2.11 of the entire OT law in general, and is speaking specifically of the moral only when he uses that qualifier.

   And what he says about the entire OT law in general, and as contrasted to the gospel, is that it involves the whole human race in a curse. That includes the ceremonial law, he explicitly says.

   For what reason are you reading that differently?

   Finally, I hear this from you:

   DR: So yes, according to Calvin, OT believers did indeed experience “some measure of fear and bondage.” But what was the nature of this fear and bondage? Was it that they were under a works principle for temporal blessings? No. It was that they were (along with unregenerate Israelites) obligated to observe the ceremonial law—the “handwriting” against them, testifying of their guilt.

   And I’m completely baffled. To say that the OT believers were obligated to observe the ceremonial law is to say that they were under a works principle to obtain external expiation.

   Why?

   Because the obligation to the ceremonial law worked like this:

   * You are unclean (sin or circumstance, such as touching an unclean thing).
   * You are now obligated to perform the necessary rite.
   * Having performed the rite and because you have performed the rite, you now are declared clean. (without regard to faith or repentance).

   THAT’S A WORKS PRINCIPLE. BY PERFORMING THE WORK, YOU OBTAIN THE EXTERNAL EXPIATION.

   To say that OT believers were under the yoke of the ceremonial law is to say that they were under a legal principle.

   That’s my one round on Calvin.

   LikeLike

7. DR: What I’m suggesting is that the silence indicates that Calvin did not think that believers under the MC were under a works principle for temporal blessings.

   JC: So you begin with an argument from silence. What other possibilities for the silence have you considered and eliminated, other than the one you put forward?

   I’m glad you admit to the silence (which in this case is rather deafening).

   For the rest, Calvin screams “repub” to me. You cite,

   It will, therefore, be proper to attend to this peculiarity in Paul. Both [i.e., Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 2 Corinthians 3:5-6], however, as they are contrasting the Old and New Testament, consider nothing in the Law but what is peculiar to it. For example, the Law everywhere contains promises of mercy; but as these are adventitious to it, they do not enter into the account of the Law as considered only in its own nature. All which is attributed to it is, that it commands what is right, prohibits crimes, holds forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness, and threatens transgressors with punishment, while at the same time it neither changes nor amends that depravity of heart which is naturally inherent in all.

   When we talk about republication, we are talking about considering the Law according to its own nature. We are talking about its functions of holding forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness and punishments to transgressors, variously according to the moral, civil, and ceremonial law.

   Sorry, that is not at all what repub is about. None of those things are in question. Let’s please stick to the question (i.e., temporal blessings on the meritorious ground of imperfect obedience).

   Now, I’m really confused as to why you say that Calvin is speaking solely of the moral law here. For he says,

   The Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit: the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraven it on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favour with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by which we are justified. The last antithesis must be referred to the Ceremonial Law. Being a shadow of things to come, it behaved in time to perish and vanish away; whereas the Gospel, inasmuch as it exhibits the very body, is firmly established for ever. Jeremiah indeed callsthe Moral Law also a weak and fragile covenant; but for another reason—namely, because it was immediately broken by the sudden defection of an ungrateful people; but as the blame of such violation is in the people themselves, it is not properly alleged against the covenant. The ceremonies, again, inasmuch as through their very weakness they were dissolved by the advent of Christ, had the cause of weakness from within.
   Calv Inst 2.11.8

   So Calvin is speaking in 2.11 of the entire OT law in general, and is speaking specifically of the moral only when he uses that qualifier.

   No. He is actually speaking of the moral law, until he actually specifies that “[t]he last antithesis must be referred to the Ceremonial Law.” The ceremonial law is not “formed on tables of stone.” That should solve your confusion.

   And what he says about the entire OT law in general, and as contrasted to the gospel, is that it involves the whole human race in a curse. That includes the ceremonial law, he explicitly says.
   For what reason are you reading that differently?

   See just above.

   Finally, I hear this from you:

   DR: So yes, according to Calvin, OT believers did indeed experience “some measure of fear and bondage.” But what was the nature of this fear and bondage? Was it that they were under a works principle for temporal blessings? No. It was that they were (along with unregenerate Israelites) obligated to observe the ceremonial law—the “handwriting” against them, testifying of their guilt.

   And I’m completely baffled. To say that the OT believers were obligated to observe the ceremonial law is to say that they were under a works principle to obtain external expiation.

   We know what Jeff Cagle thinks, but John Calvin thinks otherwise. For him, the yoke of the ceremonial law is simply the obligation to observe the ceremonial law, and the reason it engendered fear was that it testified of guilt, and therefore of liability to a penalty. Compare with his comments on Colossians 2:14:

   Now, the reason [why it is called “handwriting”] is, that all the ceremonies of Moses had in them some acknowledgment of guilt, which bound those that observed them with a firmer tie, as it were, in the view of God’s judgment. For example, what else were washings than an evidence of pollution? Whenever any victim was sacrificed, did not the people that stood by behold in it a representation of his death? For when persons substituted in their place an innocent animal, they confessed that they were themselves deserving of that death. In fine, in proportion as there were ceremonies belonging to it, just so many exhibitions were there of human guilt, and hand-writings of obligation.

   Also compare with Institutes 2.7.17:

   For if the only thing considered in rites is the necessity of observing them, of what use was it to call it a handwriting which was contrary to us? Besides, how could the bringing in of it be set down as almost the whole sum of redemption? Wherefore, the very nature of the case clearly shows that reference is here made to something more internal. I cannot doubt that I have ascertained the genuine interpretation, provided I am permitted to assume what Augustine has somewhere most truly affirmed, nay, derived from the very words of the Apostle, viz., that in the Jewish ceremonies there was more a confession than an expiation of sins. For what more was done in sacrifice by those who substituted purifications instead of themselves, than to confess that they were conscious of deserving death? What did these purifications testify but that they themselves were impure? By these means, therefore, the handwriting both of their guilt and impurity was ever and anon renewed. But the attestation of these things was not the removal of them. Wherefore, the Apostle says that Christ is “the mediator of the new testament, – by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament,” (Heb. 9:15.) Justly, therefore, does the Apostle describe these handwritings as against the worshipers, and contrary to them, since by means of them their impurity and condemnation were openly sealed. There is nothing contrary to this in the fact that they were partakers of the same grace with ourselves. This they obtained through Christ, and not through the ceremonies which the Apostle there contrasts with Christ, showing that by the continued use of them the glory of Christ was obscured.

   * Having performed the rite and because you have performed the rite, you now are declared clean. (without regard to faith or repentance).

   THAT’S A WORKS PRINCIPLE. BY PERFORMING THE WORK, YOU OBTAIN THE EXTERNAL EXPIATION.

   That’s your interpolation, but shouting doesn’t make it any truer….

   (I’m happy to resume with FT now if you’d like.)

   LikeLike

8. That would be best.

   LikeLike

9. Jeff, sorry for the delay. Thanks for hanging in there . . . I’ll be posting my response soon (perhaps not today, but very likely in the next few days. . . .).

   LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.