Skip to main content

Calvin on Civil Law

This continues my series on Calvin's political theology

* * * * *

John Calvin was no theonomist – he did not hold that the Bible prescribed precise laws which must be applied today. He, along with other magisterial reformers, followed the medieval division of old testament laws into ceremonial, civil, and moral. Ceremonial laws were specific to the old testament forms of worship and are fulfilled, therefore abrogated, in their ceremonial capacity, by Christ. Civil laws were specific to the nation of Israel, and in the internationalisation of the gospel in Christ, they too are fulfilled and abrogated.

But the moral law ‘is the true and eternal rule of righteousness, prescribed for men of all nations and times, who wish to conform their lives to God’s will’. Indeed, the ceremonial and civil laws are themselves expressions of the moral law – the ceremonial pointing to the first table of the decalogue, illustrating what it means to love God, and the civil pointing to the second, as examples of love of neighbour. Hence, while ceremonial and civil laws have been abrogated in their ceremonial and civil functions, they are still binding in their moral aspects.

Calvin was not, strictly speaking, politically egalitarian: he did not hold to the radical equality of all people in all aspects which has become the post-Enlightenment norm. But he was adamant of the equality of all people before law – both God’s law and human. He affirmed the right to sue, and ‘held to an equality of disciplinary treatment for all Genevans, rich or poor, celebrated or inglorious’.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...