In regard to the fifth commandment, Calvin says: “Wherefore, we ought to have no doubt that the Lord here lays down this universal rule—viz. that knowing how every individual is set over us by his appointment, we should pay him reverence, gratitude, obedience, and every duty in our power. And it makes no difference whether those on whom the honour is conferred are deserving or not. Be they what they may, the Almighty, by conferring their station upon them, shows that he would have them honoured” (II.viii.36).
My questions are related to how we understand these commandments. Are they universal rules that all of humanity ought to abide by, regardless of their Judeo-Christian heritage? Is humanity considered guilty for not adhering to these laws aside from their general condemnation for being children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3)? Could a person of a different faith read the Decalogue and believe that they are keeping the laws therein? And lastly, can we separate the first four commandments from the last six, deeming only the latter to be obligatory upon all of mankind, while all commandments have been revealed for the benefit of God’s elect?
When addressing commandments one through four, Calvin seems to have only the church in view, while in five through ten, they appear to be binding on all of mankind. Any thoughts?
Michael,
Both Calvin and I would argue that the Decalogue are universal moral rules that we are accountable for. Jesus and Paul did not hesitate to apply them to mankind, and I do not see any reason to reject their authority. Calvin argues that the law has a three-fold function: to demonstrate the righteousness of God, convict us of our utter failure to conform to God’s moral standard, and finally, to give us guidance on how we ought to live. The law of God demands perfect obedience, and we are utterly unable to keep God’s commands (Rom. 3). God must demand perfection because he must demand that which conforms to His holy character. Thus, nobody can read the Decalogue and maintain that they keep it perfectly, no matter what religious tradition their from. Not to mention that there is a spiritual dimension to the law that everyone falls short of, and therefore Jesus could say that if you lust for a woman you have committed adultery in your heart (Mt. 5). However, Jesus Christ, the God-Man, lived a perfect life in our place and died for our transgressions (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus credits His perfect obedience to the lives of those who put their trust in Him (Rom. 5:1).
Thanks Peter!
When you speak of the three-fold function of the law as being to demonstrate the righteousness of God, convict us of our utter failure to conform to God’s moral standard, and finally, to give us guidance on how we ought to live, do you think Calvin is including all of humanity in that, or just the elect?
Michael,
I think that Calvin maintains that God will hold men accountable for the violating the whole law, as James says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. (Js. 2:10)”
However, I don’t mean the entire 613 Mosaic laws prescribed to Israel in the OT, but rather the Decalogue and most of the moral laws that were not abrogated in the New Testament. Admittedly, this can be a tricky thing and your hermeneutic will determine where you fall on this issue.
What about those people who were not exposed to Judeo-Christian moral standards? I think, for Calvin, he would apply Natural law as a standard by which to judge all those without written revelation. He says, “Now the inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables. (II.viii.1)” Thus, God will hold men accountable for that which he has revealed in their hearts and affirmed by the conscience, “they are a law unto themselves,” says Paul. In fact, I want to let scripture speak for itself on this issue:
“12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 12-16).
As far as the three-fold function of the law, I would apply the first two to everybody, but the last one mainly to the elect. I think the believer would have the conviction, desire, power, and grace enablement to live by the guidance of the law. However, the unregenerate cannot obey the law of God nor would he seek to follow its guidance as an inward and outward reality (Rom. 8:7-8).
As I was reading over the Blog today, I noticed something that is worth getting some further clarity on. Paul “seems” to say two contradictory things about the unbeliever’s ability to obey the law of God in Romans. In Rom. 2:12-16 (which I quoted in the above entry), Paul says that the Gentile unbelievers who are without the law are a law unto themselves. The reason he gives for this profound statement is because “by nature [they] do what the law requires.” However, this seems to suggest that unbelievers can obey the law on some level, yet Paul says later in Romans that the unbeliever cannot submit to God’s law. He says, “7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:7-8)” Is Paul contradicting himself or is there a good explanation for the two statements I have shown you? Furthermore, how does Calvin help us in this inquiry? (Of course, I do not believe Paul is contradicting himself, but I felt that this question could help us get a clearer understanding of the law and total depravity)