This is my last post on Calvin's political theology
* * * * *
I think Calvin rightly explains the breadth of Paul and Peter’s command to submit to authority. Both Rom. 13:1-7 and 1 Pet. 3:12-14 call on Christians to submit to authority. Paul says that a pagan, Roman ruler was instituted by God. Peter and Paul both assert that secular rulers do good by punishing evil and praising
good. They thus evidently envisaged some duality of government, where a pagan ruler, who did not serve God in the religious sphere, and enacted evil in that realm, could still serve God and do good in the civil sphere. Similarly, Jesus’ reply to the Pharisee's famous question concerning taxation - "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" - implies the possibility of simultaneous loyalty to God and an ungodly civil authority – a possibility which subverts the basis for the Pharisees' trick question. In Rom 13, Paul notes that the ruler’s bear the sword because of human propensity for evil – just as Calvin asserts. Paul’s appeal to the conscience, and Peter’s appeal to God's will, indicate that, just as Calvin says, such obedience should not be merely external and coerced, but from the believer’s new, internal, Spirit-wrought disposition.
But the new testament does NOT assert that civil government must establish and defend true religion, nor does it indicate a preference for conciliar, republican government. For that, Calvin relies on the old testament, especially pre-monarchical Israel. The hermeneutical manoeuvres he undertakes, and key texts he relies on, are:
These hermeneutical manoeuvres are all contestable. But Calvin’s general view of the need to limit power rests on a simpler basis: his doctrine of sin. Calvin scholar Douglas Kelly says:
* * * * *
I think Calvin rightly explains the breadth of Paul and Peter’s command to submit to authority. Both Rom. 13:1-7 and 1 Pet. 3:12-14 call on Christians to submit to authority. Paul says that a pagan, Roman ruler was instituted by God. Peter and Paul both assert that secular rulers do good by punishing evil and praising
good. They thus evidently envisaged some duality of government, where a pagan ruler, who did not serve God in the religious sphere, and enacted evil in that realm, could still serve God and do good in the civil sphere. Similarly, Jesus’ reply to the Pharisee's famous question concerning taxation - "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" - implies the possibility of simultaneous loyalty to God and an ungodly civil authority – a possibility which subverts the basis for the Pharisees' trick question. In Rom 13, Paul notes that the ruler’s bear the sword because of human propensity for evil – just as Calvin asserts. Paul’s appeal to the conscience, and Peter’s appeal to God's will, indicate that, just as Calvin says, such obedience should not be merely external and coerced, but from the believer’s new, internal, Spirit-wrought disposition.But the new testament does NOT assert that civil government must establish and defend true religion, nor does it indicate a preference for conciliar, republican government. For that, Calvin relies on the old testament, especially pre-monarchical Israel. The hermeneutical manoeuvres he undertakes, and key texts he relies on, are:
- the old testament law illustrates the universal moral law (Rom. 2:14-16);
- pre-monarchical Israelite polity, which is part of the law, was democratic-republican and upheld true worship (Exodus 18:13-27; Deut. 1:9-18);
- therefore, the best biblical pattern for civil government is a democratic-republican theocracy.
Calvin did NOT assert that republicanism was the one biblically mandated form of civil government; but it was the best one, a ‘fixed and a well-ordered government […] by the common consent of all.’ He got around the Davidic kingship by focusing on the problems of monarchy set out in 1 Sam. 8, and connecting the Davidic kingship with Christ.
These hermeneutical manoeuvres are all contestable. But Calvin’s general view of the need to limit power rests on a simpler basis: his doctrine of sin. Calvin scholar Douglas Kelly says:
Governmental principles for consent of the governed, and separation and balance of powers are all logical consequences of a most serious and Calvinian view of the biblical doctrine of the fall of man. But some generations would pass before these consequential concepts were clearly drawn out and defined, under the impact of varying historical circumstances and intellectual currents.Douglas F. Kelly, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World: The Influence of Calvin on Five Governments from the 16th through 18th Centuries, Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995 page 17
Comments
Merry Christmas